Tuesday, 23 August 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I formally inform the House that on 17 August 1988 I received a letter from the Hon. Bill Hayden resigning his seat as the member for the electoral division of Oxley. It is my intention to issue a writ on Monday, 5 September 1988, for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Oxley, in the State of Queensland, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr Hayden. The dates in connection with the by-election will be fixed as follows: the close of rolls, Monday, 12 September 1988; nomination, Friday, 16 September 1988; polling day, Saturday, 8 October 1988; return of writ, on or before Wednesday, 14 December 1988. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House of the deaths, since the House last met, of Mr Frank Olley, a former member of this House, and former Senator Ronald Edward McAuliffe, OBE. Frank Olley died on 21 July. He represented the division of Hume from 1972 to 1974. Ron McAuliffe died on 16 August. He represented the State of Queensland in the Senate from 1971 to 1981. As a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased, I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places- Madam SPEAKER —I thank the House. Aborigines and Islanders...23 August 1988 REPRESENTATIVES 137 138 REPRESENTATIVES 23 August 1988...Aborigines and Islanders Aborigines and Islanders...23 August 1988 REPRESENTATIVES 139 140 REPRESENTATIVES 23 August 1988...Aborigines and Islanders Aborigines and Islanders...23 August 1988 REPRESENTATIVES 141 142 REPRESENTATIVES 23 August 1988...Aborigines and Islanders Aborigines and Islanders...23 August 1988 REPRESENTATIVES 143 144 REPRESENTATIVES 23 August 1988...Aborigines and Islanders Aborigines and Islanders...23 August 1988 REPRESENTATIVES 145 146 REPRESENTATIVES 23 August 1988...Aborigines and Islanders Aborigines and Islanders...23 August 1988 REPRESENTATIVES 147 148 REPRESENTATIVES 23 August 1988...Aborigines and Islanders Aborigines and Islanders...23 August 1988 REPRESENTATIVES 149 150 REPRESENTATIVES 23 August 1988...Aborigines and Islanders Aborigines and Islanders...23 August 1988 REPRESENTATIVES 151 152 REPRESENTATIVES 23 August 1988...Aborigines and Islanders Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent notice No. 2, government business, being called on forthwith. Motion Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(2.04) —I move: That this House- (1) acknowledges that: (a) Australia was occupied by Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders who had settled for thousands of years before British settlement at Sydney Cove on 26 January 1788; (b) Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders suffered dispossession and dispersal upon acquisition of their traditional lands by the British Crown; and (c) Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders were denied full citizenship rights of the Commonwealth of Australia prior to the 1967 Referendum; (2) affirms: (a) the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and heritage; and (b) the entitlement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to self-management and self-determination subject to the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia; and (3) considers it desirable that the Commonwealth further promote reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens providing recognition of their special place in the Commonwealth of Australia. Yesterday we celebrated the opening of the Parliament's new and permanent home with ceremony and with dignity, in a spirit of amity, and with a renewed determination to fulfil our responsibilities to serve the people of Australia. Today the ceremonies are over and we are getting down to work. It is my belief that we cannot afford easily to put aside that constructive awareness of our national obligation which pervaded the opening of this building. It is with that in mind that I am moving this motion and seeking for it the wholehearted support of the House. This motion is not another item of ceremony to be performed and then forgotten when we get down to the real business of politics. This motion is our real business, the beginning of our parliamentary duties in our new building. In our bicentennial year, and at the outset of our first working day in this chamber, a motion such as this could hardly be more appropriate, because our new beginnings in this building allow us to focus with fresh minds on the great question, the great challenge, proposed by our celebrating of 200 years of European settlement, that is, the nation's relationship with its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens. At the start of our bicentennial year the heads of Australian churches issued a statement titled `Towards Reconciliation in Australian Society'. The idea for this motion originated with that statement and the precise words of the motion have been suggested by the churches. For this reason, and to prevent the injection of party politics into this motion, I believe it should be voted on without amendment from either side of the House. The motion is in three parts. It begins by acknowledging as historical truths the prior occupation and settlement of Australia by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the dispossession and dispersal they suffered after 1788, and the denial of full citizenship rights to them until 1967. Whatever one's political views or social theories, those are undeniable facts of the Australian story. It is not sufficient merely to acknowledge those truths without drawing out their implications. I believe they are inevitable implications. Accordingly, this motion goes on in its second part to affirm the importance of the Aboriginal culture and the entitlement of Aboriginal people to a substantial degree of self-management. The acknowledgment of these historical truths and the affirmation of these implications by this Parliament, and preferably a unanimous acknowledgment and affirmation, will go a long way towards their greater acceptance throughout the community. But it would still be inadequate to leave the issue at that point. We must add one logical step and draw one conclusion of ultimate significance. We must, if we are truly to fulfil our responsibilities as the elected representatives of the Australian people, express our utmost determination to promote reconciliation within our community, and we must do it today. We must, in the words of the third part of this motion, state the desirability of the Commonwealth further promoting reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens, and providing recognition of their special place in the Commonwealth of Australia. In the informal discussions which have taken place among members concerning this motion, the view has sometimes been put that such a motion is purely symbolic and therefore of no importance or relevance to the Aboriginal and Islander people. I reject that view firmly. For many years governments of both political affiliations have endeavoured to provide what could be termed physical or technical solutions to the needs of Aboriginal and Islander people. They have provided special assistance to help them in education, housing, employment, health and other fields. But we recognise that we must do more, for the education, housing, employment and health standards of Aboriginal and Islander people still lag far behind those of the rest of the community. My Government is proud of its record in continuing and improving this flow of assistance. We will continue to do so as the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will clearly indicate tonight. Yet we also recognise that the true remedy does not lie purely in the allocation of resources. For if we provide budgetary assistance but not hope, not confidence, not effective consultation, not reconciliation, then that assistance will fail to lift Aboriginal and Islander people from their disadvantaged state. In the past too many of those programs of assistance have been decided on by governments without the informed involvement of the people they were designed to assist. Even more fundamentally, those physical remedies for the physical needs of the Aboriginal people have not been accompanied by proper recognition of their cultural tradition or of their legitimate place in Australian society. The proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission will be one major step in the direction of self-determination and self-management for the Aboriginal and Islander citizens of this nation. At the same time, the Government is committed to a real and lasting reconciliation, achieved through full consultation and honest negotiation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal citizens of this nation. This will be recognised by the preamble to the Commission legislation. It will be recognised by the compact or treaty which we are committed to negotiating with Aboriginal and Islander people, and it will be recognised by our support for this motion. Without this overall approach, without a proper settlement and proper recognition, there can be no real and lasting improvement for the Aboriginal and Islander people. That is why this motion is no mere symbolism or empty tokenism. This motion will not be the first formal recognition of the special position of the Aboriginal and Islander people. In 1967 the people of Australia voted overwhelmingly in a referendum initiated by the Liberal-National Party Government-and I pay it full tribute for that-to give the Commonwealth the right to make special laws for the Aboriginal people. Significantly, that referendum had the support of all major political parties. In 1975 Senator Bonner's motion on prior ownership was debated by the Senate. That was Parliament's first formal step in setting the record straight and in pointing the way to reconciliation. Significantly again, it had bipartisan support. Today, Parliament must make a further statement. We must tell the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that their feelings of dispossession generated by 200 years of non-Aboriginal settlement are recognised, that their culture and their heritage are valued, and that through self-management their need for a more empowered place in the nation's life is affirmed. More than that, this resolution will tell all Australians, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, that we are prepared to enter our third century of life together on this continent in a spirit of national reconciliation-not collective national guilt, not shame, but with proof of our capacity to recognise past wrongs and to build on that recognition a shared future of understanding and of goodwill. What is required by government is the political will to follow through with these goals. In a recent article about the proposed treaty Dr Nugget Coombs said: It's a politician's job to recognise when the will is there to do something; but they also have a responsibility to create that will. On the spurious claim that such a path to reconciliation would create division in the community, Nugget Coombs went on to say: It's never divisive to correct injustice. The fact of injustice is divisive and will continue to be until we correct it and learn to live with it. People who benefit from injustice will oppose this, but you don't stop working for justice simply because people around you don't like it. The Government is committed to correcting the injustices of the past. The political will is there. The support is there, as evidenced by this resolution from the churches. The aim is that we will all move forward together in a happier, more just, and unified society. I commend the Australian heads of churches for their initiative in suggesting this important step on the road to reconciliation. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see them represented in this chamber today. In full recognition of the significance of this moment to Parliament, and not just to Parliament but to all Australians, I now commend this motion to the House. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from the United States Congress, led by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Congressman Jim Wright. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to the members of the delegation. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Debate resumed. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.16) —The Opposition approaches this motion put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the sincere and constructive fashion in which I believe the Prime Minister spoke a few moments ago. Mr Griffiths —But. Mr HOWARD —That is a terrific exercise in bipartisanship, is it not? The Government wants a bipartisan approach to something like this, and that is a brilliant start to the contribution of those opposite. I say on behalf of the Liberal and National parties that we approach this matter in a constructive fashion. I would like to be party to a bipartisan resolution on this subject but, as I have said on this and other occasions, bipartisanship is not an end in itself; bipartisanship makes sense only if we are bipartisan about the right policy. That applies in relation to this issue as it does to many other issues. I would like, on behalf of the Liberal and National parties, to say to the heads of the 14 churches in Australia that we totally understand and support the motives behind this resolution proposal. We have no desire to deny the facts of Aboriginal history. I do not hold the view that symbolism is irrelevant in public life, although it is fair to say that the passage of this motion, in whatever form, by this Parliament will not of itself improve the health or the education standards or necessarily lift the horizons of Aboriginal Australians. Anybody who imagines that resolutions and symbolism are a substitute for effective working policies in this or, indeed, any other area is deluding himself. We have but one area of concern about the wording of this motion. We are not, as alleged by some in the Government and by some in the community, opposed to the concept of a resolution. We are not opposed to paragraph (1) of the motion. We recognise the facts of Aboriginal settlement and occupation of the Australian land mass. We recognise the dispossession and the dispersal that was suffered by the Aboriginal people. Anybody who has an elementary understanding of Australian history would have to recognise that. It is self-evident from a reading of that same history that Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders were denied full citizenship rights until the 1967 referendum, initiated, as the Prime Minister said, by a Liberal-Country Party Government. We are as happy as the Government to affirm the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and heritage. The only difficulty we have is with paragraph (2) (b), which speaks of self-management and self-determination. I say to those in the Australian community who would like to see bipartisanship on this issue that the only thing that stands between a bipartisan motion on the place and role of Aborigines in Australian life as the first act of this new Parliament is an acceptance by the Government of the addition, after the words `the entitlement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to self-management and self-determination', of the words `in common with all other Australians'. What is so wrong with that? Why is it that the Government apparently cannot accept that? Why is it so concerned about accepting that? If it is really interested in having bipartisan support on this issue it has the opportunity. We are not coming in here with a whole raft of amendments. There is a range of views in this Parliament right across the political spectrum on both sides of the House. I simply say to the Government, before it rejects this amendment out of hand-I hope it does not reject the amendment because it is not meant to be frivolous-that it would be an act of statemanship by both sides of this Parliament if we could reach agreement and a bipartisan position. If we had really wanted to have a divisive political argument about this issue it would have been open to us to have mounted opposition to this motion simply on the grounds that symbolism is empty and irrelevant and does nothing at all to cure the real problems of the Aboriginal people. We have not done that because there is a genuine desire on the part of both the Liberal and National parties to be associated with a sensible bipartisan motion on this issue. We are concerned that the motion in its present form, and without the addition of those words, can create the perception of separate development and the impression of divisions in the Australian community. For that reason we ask the Government to agree to the addition of those words. I say to the Government that nothing I have said alters my view or the views of the Opposition regarding the unwisdom of encountering a treaty; but that belongs to another debate at another time. Recently I was in Alice Springs and I met Wenten Rubuntja, the President of the Central Land Council. He is a traditional Aboriginal owner. During that conversation he made a very relevant comment. He said, `We are all one mob but some of us have more problems than others'. In a sense that sums up what I think a lot of Australians would like to be the approach towards improving the lot of Australian Aborigines. I do not bring to this debate widespread condemnation of the actions of either this or earlier governments. The problems that the Aboriginal people suffer at present are problems that have existed under both Labor and Liberal governments. It is very easy for whoever may be in opposition in this Parliament to score political points on Aboriginal affairs. This is not an exercise in political point scoring. The amendment we are proposing seeks to meet a very deeply held concern on our side of the Parliament that the passage of a motion in the unamended form as proposed by the Prime Minister can create the perception of separate development. We want the Aborigines' disadvantage to be removed as part and parcel of their rights and their entitlements as Australians and as part of the Australian nation. We are not interested in any conduct or activity that in any way creates division between Aborigines and other Australians. As Australians they are entitled to have their disadvantage effectively addressed. I therefore say to the Prime Minister and to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) that there are many people on both sides of the House who would like to see a resolution carried unanimously by this Parliament on its first day of normal business. There is no doubt a range of views within all of the parties within this Parliament on the general issue of Aboriginal affairs and it is open to the Government, it is open to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, to accept the amendment that we put forward. It will not destroy in any way the historic recognition contained in paragraph (1). It in no way disputes the historical facts that were outlined by the Prime Minister. It in no way diminishes the desire of the Government and the desire of the Prime Minister to affirm the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and heritage. It in no way denies the desire of the Prime Minister or the Government to promote reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens providing recognition of their special place in the Commonwealth of Australia. Some may argue about some of those words. Not everybody completely agrees with everything that is in the motion but in our discussions we have put those reservations aside and the one and only thing that we want altered is to remove any doubt at all that the passage of this motion will build a case for separate development, because that is repugnant to our notions of a united nation. That is why we want the Government to consider this amendment. We have put any other reservations that people have completely to one side. If we had wanted to conduct a completely nitpicking debate we would have come in here with a whole raft of amendments. The one request that we make to the Government is totally reasonable: to add some words which remove any doubt that this motion will lay the foundations for separate development. If the Government decides that it cannot accept that amendment we cannot support the motion and I think it-- Government members-Shame! Mr HOWARD —I think it would be a very great shame. The shame will be on the Government for having passed up the opportunity. Well may Government members say shame. The shame will be on the heads of those in the Government who have passed up the opportunity. We are not putting forward an amendment that will emasculate the motion. There is nothing in this amendment that would alter the central thrust of the motion. There is nothing that can possibly be argued in this amendment that is going to destroy the original purpose of the motion. It is an eminently reasonable and acceptable amendment and I would say particularly to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who I know brings a very conscientious commitment to the job that he does-although there may be occasions when we do not agree with some of his decisions-that if he really wants to have both sides of the Parliament united in bipartisan support at the commencement of this session, he and his colleagues, and the Prime Minister in particular, will accept an amendment which is not provocative, which is not negative, which is not destructive and which would not in any way destroy the thrust of the motion. It is sincerely desired by the Liberal and National parties to remove a genuinely held concern that we have about the perceptions that could be created. To the motion presented by the Prime Minister, I therefore move: Paragraph (2) (b), after ``the entitlement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to self-management and self-determination'' insert ``, in common with all other Australians,''. Those six words are all that the Opposition requests the Government to accept to enable the first resolution relating to the first Australians to be carried unanimously in a bipartisan spirit on this first day of business in this new Parliament House. I say to the Government that it is important to the bipartisan approach it wants on this sensitive issue that it accede to that amendment. Madam SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr MILES(Braddon)(2.30) —I second the amendment, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has just indicated in his speech that only six words stand between our having or not having a bipartisan approach to the motion. In January of this year the 14 heads of churches of Australia indicated their desire for a resolution. They wished that the Parliament would acknowledge the prehistory and the enduring place of Aboriginal culture in Australia. They suggested that a motion be put before the Parliament. Lastly, they suggested that that motion be a bipartisan one. All of the first five areas have been fulfilled. It now only remains for us within this Parliament to agree in a bipartisan way. We recognise the desire of the church leaders to create an environment in which, through a spirit of cooperation, a more compassionate, sensitive and cooperative society could be achieved. That environment can be promoted if the Government accepts the proposed amendment. This would be one small step on the way to a more compassionate society. The amendment is reasonable, is to the point, adds clarity, is not outlandish and is very moderate. It does not change the principles or the thrust of the motion. So why the reluctance, why the obstruction, why the lack of cooperation in achieving a bipartisan approach? I want to just go back over the attempts to achieve bipartisanship in regard to the motion before us today. The Australian Labor Party makes a lot of play on consensus and bipartisanship. But it is largely rhetoric and little in regard to action. The Government gave notice late in the autumn sittings that it was going to bring a motion into this Parliament. We did not hear one word from the Government about this motion until finally, in the last few days of July, I asked for a copy from the office of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand). It was not forthcoming. We contacted the office and we were told, `Well, it is the Brennan resolution'. Clearly, the office was not aware that Father Frank Brennan had put forward at least two different proposals. Clarification was received as to the wording of the possible motion only when we spoke with Father Brennan on 4 August. The shadow Ministry wanted to give consideration to this proposal on 9 August, and it did. As late as last Friday, 19 August, a different resolution was given to us when we spoke to the parliamentary liaison officer to what was given to us here in the House today. So much for bipartisanship; so much for consultation. On Sunday, 21 August, we contacted a senior private secretary of the Minister's office. He gave us a similar motion, but it was not identical to that which was considered by the shadow Ministry on 9 August. Only finally at 11 o'clock yesterday was the Government able to give us the final wording that we see before the House. In not one instance did the Government take the initiative to discuss a bipartisan motion. There was no knock on the door for me to go to talk with the Minister's office. There was no telephone call for us to discuss this in a bipartisan way. Two and a half months elapsed from the time the Government said that it would propose this motion to the Parliament. The Government has shown little interest in pursuing a consensus on this motion. One can only conclude that the Government saw political mileage in not seeking a bipartisan approach, and it underscores the willingness of this Government to use Aborigines as political pawns. The Opposition showed its willingness in this regard in talking with Father Frank Brennan. In fact, some of the words in this motion reflect the outcome of those discussions. The amendment which we seek has been introduced because we believe that there needs to be clarity in the understanding of the words `self-determination'. There are two distinct areas in which self-determination has meaning. One is in international law, the other is in domestic law. A fairly thorough search of domestic law has indicated that there has been no real decision by either a higher or Federal court in Australia which gives useful precedents as to the meaning of self-determination. In international law there are either of two meanings available to us. The first is sovereign equality of existing states. The second is one which should concern all of us: the right of a specific territory or people to choose its own form of government, irrespective of the wishes of the rest of the state of which that territory is a part. Clearly, the first definition in the international arena does not apply but, equally clearly, the second may apply. The Government has argued that the words `subject to the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth' are adequate to delineate the meaning of `self-determination'; that these words are sufficient to give the phrase its domestic meaning. The Opposition does not accept that view. That is why we have moved that the words `in common with all other Australians' be inserted in paragraph (2) (b) after `self-determination'. The reason for that are as follows: First, it is vital that legislation or resolutions passed by this House should treat all Australians equally, and it is vital that actions of this Parliament should endorse the concept that, irrespective of our origins and backgrounds, we share a common future. Secondly, the words `subject to the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth' are not sufficient protection against the term `self-determination' being interpreted in its international sense, because both the treaty-making power of the Executive and the ever expanding external affairs power in the Constitution provide an opportunity for the internationalisation of Aboriginal affairs from within the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth. We have seen this process of the internationalisation of a domestic matter in the World Heritage debate. I want to illustrate, with a quote which comes from Paul Coe, how this can occur. Commenting on the treaty as recently as 17 August, he called on the United Nations `to monitor the negotiations on a treaty between Aborigines and the Federal Government to give the document international standing'. So there we have the possibility of this motion being internationalised. This danger of internationalisation is particularly real as the United Nations moves towards a declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. This declaration is expected to outline the right of indigenous people to self-determination. In that forum, the United Nations is in the process of extending the right of self-determination as a fundamental right from being a right of sovereign nation states to being a right of peoples within those states. It is clear that it will be increasingly argued that Australia is obliged under international law to allow Aboriginal self-determination which, taken to its logical conclusion, would involve partition. The third reason why we propose the amendment is that we ought not to give any further credence to those who argue self-determination using the international definition. This is a view being argued by Australians within Australia and by academics outside Australia. Again, this is only a vocal radical minority of Aboriginal people, but it clearly illustrates the importance of putting this amendment into this motion. I quote two people. Paul Coe has said that international law recognises the Aboriginal people's statehood and that the Commonwealth of Australia must recognise the right to self-determination of the Aboriginal people. Galarrwuy Yunupingu, when asked the question about a separate Aboriginal nation, answered, `That would be a terrific idea.' Later on he said, `No, I am not part of Australia as a nation.' People within Australia argue for separate development. We, as a coalition, reject that. We also find that on the international stage there are people who are arguing the same course. They argue that Australia ought to allow self-determination and self-development of the Aboriginal people within Australia. In concluding, I make the following few points: We support the resolution subject to the acceptance of this amendment. We require only six words to be inserted and then bipartisanship can be achieved. In this new Parliament House let us begin not by raising expectations beyond achievable objectives but by being honest with the Aboriginal Australians and making it perfectly clear that self-determination is strictly limited to a domestic context. Let us be clear and unequivocal that this Parliament sees that all Australians, irrespective of their background, share equally in a common future. I commend the amendment to the House. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(2.42) —I am pleased to support this commendable, honourable and historic motion. It is with dismay that I read the Opposition's amendment which is a clear and unequivocal demonstration of an unfortunate repudiation of the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in his party room. It is an unprincipled desertion of the bipartisan approach desired by the Government and the people of Australia and articulated in the motion by a process of arduous consultation by church leaders throughout Australia. It is important to consider the historic motion and its history and development, where it originated, and the events which have led to this moment. The motion was first proposed by the 14 heads of the Christian churches in Australia as a bipartisan motion to be moved when the Queen opened the new Parliament House on 9 May this year. The original wording of this motion as proposed by the churches was first rejected by the Opposition because it talked about legal recognition of land rights and negotiating a compact. The churches agreed to modify the words in a bid to get Opposition support. In responding to the coalition Father Frank Brennan, adviser to the Australian Catholic bishops on Aboriginal affairs, wrote to the Leader of the Opposition and said: I now propose a revised wording which substitutes ``suffered dispossession and dispersal'' for ``were denied legal recognition of their land rights'' and ``a charter of reconciliation'' for ``the terms of the compact''. The Aboriginal Development Commission Act introduced by your predecessor then in government mentioned ``recognition of the past dispossession and dispersal'' of Aboriginals and Islanders . . . Mr Miles' Australia Day statement pursues the theme of ``reconciliation''. Speaking in the debate on a matter of public importance on 24 March 1988, the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Braddon, stated: I make it clear that the coalition believes that an important step to promote reconciliation would be for the Australian community as a whole to come to terms with the history of Australia, both Aboriginal and post-1788. In April of this year Father Brennan met with the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition spokesperson on Aboriginal affairs, Chris Miles, to discuss the new form of words, the words which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has put before the House today. Father Brennan at that meeting received agreement in principle on the new motion. There was no suggestion at that meeting that the words `in common with all other Australians' be included in this motion. Again, Father Brennan wrote to the Leader of the Opposition on 22 April. He stated: Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you yesterday. I have already informed Mr G. Hand, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, of your agreement in principle to a bipartisan resolution in the terms we discussed. Later, he stated: As the Government has precluded any possibility of the resolution's passage before 9 May 1988, I share your hope that an agreed resolution can be passed as the first item of substantive business in the new Parliament House. It was the Leader of the Opposition's suggestion that the motion could be moved as the first item of business in this House. Feeling very optimistic about the Government's support, Father Brennan then had talks with the Government and also received our support in principle. An article then appeared in the Melbourne Herald on 26 April quoting Chris Miles, the Opposition spokesperson, as saying that he wanted the motion moved in the new Parliament House as a symbolic gesture that might help bring Aboriginals and white Australians closer together. Mr Miles told the Herald: If it aids the healing of the hurts of the past, no matter how we look at them, it would be a major step forward. The Herald commented: His initiative, which has the in-principle support of the Liberal leader, Mr Howard, and other Shadow Ministers, represents a dramatic breakthrough in the Opposition's handling of this sensitive issue. But it is known that members of the National Party will resist the motion. When it was discussed in the Party room last Thursday, the National Party's finance spokesperson, Senator Stone, expressed strong reservations. Mr Miles's move was developed in close consultation with Father Frank Brennan, who advises Australia's Catholic bishops on Aboriginal affairs. Mr Miles in that article was also seen to take credit for the idea of the motion. It was going to be an Opposition initiative. However, his plans were thwarted because early in May the shadow Cabinet met to discuss the motion and, despite the fact that John Howard and Chris Miles argued in favour of supporting it, they were rolled, and rolled substantially. On Thursday, 19 May, Chris Miles put out a Press release blaming the disruption of the Muirhead Commission, the protests at World Expo and the protests at the opening of the new Parliament House for the change in the coalition's support for the motion. In an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr Miles stated: The littering in the forecourt and the chanting during the Lord's Prayer were the last straw. In his Press release, he said that these incidents damaged the `fragile feelings of trust and mutual respect that had been growing between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians'. He stated: Because of the negative community response to radical Aboriginal protests, the Coalition has decided not to proceed with initiating a parliamentary resolution on Aboriginal matters. We do not believe that it would be positively received in the community and hence would fail to promote reconciliation as we had hoped. So, members of the Opposition blamed Aboriginal and Islander people for their turnabout on this motion. They did not look to their own ranks, to the disaffection and disruption that have been caused to them within the coalition. On 23 May this year, Senator John Stone said in an interview on the PM program that he opposed the motion because `it was a thoroughly bad idea'. The reason we have not got bipartisan support for this motion this afternoon is that the National Party Leader in the Senate has said that this is a thoroughly bad idea. There is no other reason. There is no sense of moral justice. In recent weeks we learned through the newspapers that the Opposition was considering an amendment to the motion. We have learned today what it is. It is worth reminding ourselves of the reasons why we should move such a motion. We ought to remind the Opposition and the members of the National Party, in whose electorates many Aboriginal people live, that the unemployment rate for Aboriginal people is six times the national rate. On average an Aboriginal person earns only half the income of other Australians. Aboriginal life expectancy at birth is 20 years less than for all Australians. Aboriginal child mortality is three times higher than the national rate. These shameful statistics mirror the lot of the colonised peoples of the Third World. What Aboriginal people have been demanding and requesting of this Government, since it came to power in 1983, was demonstrated clearly and unequivocally at the start of this year by the support given to Aboriginal people in the rally held on 26 January in Sydney. There was a call throughout Australia for reconciliation, not from the Opposition benches but from people throughout Australia, which the churches, to their credit, took up. They proposed the form of a motion to put to the Parliament so that the Opposition and the Government could act in a bipartisan way to demonstrate clearly, on this historic day, that they recognise the legitimate claims and aspirations of Aboriginal people by recognising their rights as Australians in a bipartisan resolution. We need to remind ourselves once again that the Aboriginal people have been in continuous occupation of this land for a period longer than any other people, past or present, have occupied any other land on earth. As my colleague the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs said in 1983: The origins of Australia as the western nation we know today, are seen by indigenous people here as the end of the dreaming, not the birth of the nation. It was the beginning of dispossession, disease and death; in short, the destruction of Aboriginal society. The desire of Aboriginal people for reconciliation with non-Aboriginal Australia has been at no time more evident than in this our bicentennial year which, incidentally, commemorates the occupation of this country by non-Aboriginal Australians. It was demonstrated this year by the massive march and the goodwill, vitality, and willingness to participate by Aboriginal people and their supporters from throughout Australia. Previously the Leader of the Opposition referred to Wenten Rubuntja, a person for whom I have the greatest respect, truly a great Australian, truly a great human being and truly a great leader of Aboriginal people in any terms. Mr Wenten Rubuntja, in commenting on the 26 January rally and march in Sydney, said: Aboriginal people living along the coast where the white people took over first might not know their language anymore, but the Emu story and the Snake story go all over Australia, and we are all descended from those stories, they come across from the sea, through our country, all over Australia. It is very difficult to explain to people who have had no experience of working and living with Aboriginal Australians their depth of feeling of spirituality, of belonging to the land, belonging to the country and belonging to one another. I am concerned that the shadow Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and his party colleagues seem to have missed the point about the question of reconciliation and the recognition of Aboriginal rights and Aboriginal culture. In a statement written after 26 January, a prominent Aboriginal leader said: We have survived these and other fires-scarred but not downtrodden. Hope of liberation from oppression and the desire for freedom burnt within us on the streets of Sydney . . . We were able to glimpse the vision of how life and humanity could combine across nationalities and cultures. We showed Australia, the world that we are not just another minority but a people with our own laws, rights, cultures and religion, which we have never ceded. I will conclude with a short quote from a statement made by Father Frank Brennan: It is important that this resolution be carried overwhelmingly as the nation's commitment to those whose place here in our history already shows 200 bicentenaries. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.55) —On our side of the House, certainly within the ranks of my Party, there are many who have worked throughout their lives to try to help and assist the Aboriginal people. The concern about the health, housing, employment and education of Aborigines is as deep among the ranks of the Liberal and National parties as it is among any members of this House. It concerns me that, in the presentation of the debate by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon), there seems to be total resistance to the consideration of what this motion might achieve and the nature of the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and seconded by the Opposition spokesman for Aboriginal affairs. There is a total failure to recognise that there is a vehicle by which there could be common ground in seeking to put into place something of the concerns on both sides of the House for the future of Aborigines. I am afraid that this, like so many other movements by the Australian Labor Party with respect to the Aboriginal people, is not much more than tokenism. It is not a motion that has been developed in full consultation with the members of the Opposition. It is not a motion which addresses the fundamental concerns which have been aired by members on both sides of the House about some of the fundamental issues to which I adverted a moment ago. It is a motion that has been presented by the Prime Minister, certainly after consultation with the churches, but a motion which in its content does not, as we see it, provide the opportunities for betterment of the Aboriginal people. Indeed, there is the possibility of setting up a separate apartheid state. It is important that we start off by understanding the nature of the amendment that has been moved, because I am quite sure that the honourable member for the Northern Territory has not a clue. Indeed, from what he said I do not think he even knows what is in the motion. Let me remind the House that the motion moved by the Prime Minister was in three parts. The first part is an acknowledgment; the second is an affirmation; and the third is an aspiration-it `considers it desirable . . .' et cetera. The Opposition has moved an amendment which in the second part of the affirmation is intended to modify the words-but very slightly-so that there will be no belief that there will be any apartheid created for the Aboriginal people. Let me read the difference. The Labor Party motion reads as follows: The House . . . affirms . . . (b) the entitlement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to self-management and self-determination subject to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Australia . . . To that the Leader of the Opposition has moved an amendment and I will read the motion as it would read then: affirms the entitlement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to self-management and self-determination in common with all other Australians subject to the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia. I think that it is important that people understand that on our side of the House we want to try to bring all Australians into the one embrace. What the Labor Party motion seeks to do is to isolate the Aborigines in some way totally from the rest of Australians. We see it as critical that in the consideration of how we can best help the Aboriginal people we do not treat them as an apartheid race in some other country, but rather that they are with us in the development and the growth within this country. Therefore, we seek to move an amendment which says that we should treat them `in common with all other Australians'. What on earth is in the Government's mind when it says, `We can't possibly have that'? The reason is that it has not addressed the substance of the motion itself and what it means. It is important that we understand that all of us acknowledge the work that the Christian churches have done in trying to advance the cause of Aborigines and we commend them and their representatives here today and the role they have played in developing this resolution. But we seek to make sure that we do not have a resolution that will create more problems for the future-and there are difficulties. The motion seems not to advance the cause of Aborigines. It sets down the state of play with a number of areas that one can properly question. For example, does the Prime Minister really believe that the Torres Strait Islands have been settled for thousands of years? The Torres Strait Islanders themselves say that they have been in the Torres Strait Islands for 600 to 650 years. We do not demurr from the fact that the Aborigines have been in Australia for thousands of years but, if we are going to be finicky and look at the text of the statement, let us consider exactly what it says. Equally, we have to look at the extent to which, we are told in this motion, Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders were denied full citizenship rights. That is true, but would it not have been better to say that those rights were granted? We have no guilt about what our forebears did. We in this Parliament could have no bearing on events in this country 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, 100 years or 200 years ago. Not one of us wants to put in place in 1988 a circumstance which will reinstate any of those events of the past. In our amendment we are saying to the Government that there may well be some honourable members-certainly there are on this side of the House-who would say, looking at the terms of the motion, that there are other ways in which it could be fundamentally changed. However, we are not saying that on that basis we are going to reject the motion. What we have said to the Government is that we would like to find a vehicle by which there can be unanimity, a vehicle by which all of us in this Parliament can recognise that for the future there needs to be a development of the aspirations of the Aboriginal people and a way in which we can improve those areas in which they have been significantly disadvantaged, and that they are entitled to that in common with all other Australians. The whole text of the change we seek is only to put in the words `in common with all other Australians'. Mr Deputy Speaker, I put it to you that the sad part of this debate this afternoon, the first debate of substance in this new Parliament House-the first time there has been a reasonable chance for all of us to promote a cause at the beginning of the functioning of the Parliament in this magnificent new building-is that we find the Australian Labor Party saying, `We cannot possibly listen to you; we cannot put in words that suggest that there is something in common between the Aboriginal people and the Australian people'. A couple of aspirants to the Ministry are gabbling on on the back bench. They are not interested in one Australia. Their concern is only to find a vehicle by which they can transpose themselves on to the front bench. Frankly, it is about time they started to be concerned about the future of Australia, concerned about one Australia, and concerned about how we can bring together the Aboriginal people and all the rest of us who are Australians. We on this side of the House see Australia as one Australia. We see our country as one within which there are many people of diverse origins. Whether they are Aborigines, migrants of recent years or migrants of earlier years, we would like to develop a country in which we can all be together. Mr Deputy Speaker, I put it to you that the form of amendment that we have advanced will not in any way prejudice the general text of the motion. It will not fundamentally change the concern of the churches in trying to see whether a resolution can be passed by this chamber in its opening days. Rather, it will protect the Aboriginal people from being distinguished in some way from other Australians. The words of the motion as they are at the moment express a concern that there should be an entitlement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to self-determination; that is, a self-determination apart from the rest of Australia. We are suggesting only that that right to self-determination and self-management should be in common with that of all other Australians. I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that is a reasonable amendment. It is an amendment which seeks to bring all of us together as one Australia. It is not an amendment that will in any way prejudice the substance of the motion it will not in any way change the acknowledgment expressed within it. In fact, it leaves that as it is. In the affirmation we all acknowledge the importance of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and heritage. What the amendment will do is to ensure that one area of concern that we have is removed. I say to the Prime Minister, to his Ministers and to the members of his Labor Caucus that their failure to accept those few words that we seek to add shows their lack of preparedness to act in concert on a matter that is really quite fundamental, as the Prime Minister has described it, to the opening day of our business life in the new Parliament House. I suggest that even the honourable gentleman who has just tried to interject might find it appropriate to think of this country as one Australia and not separate Australias. I think it is about time that he was honest unto himself and acknowledged that the words we are suggesting should be added would be a very suitable addition to the motion. On that basis I say that, were that to be done, there might be unanimity. Without it we have the fear of division and the fear of fragmentation, and I think it would be quite unreasonable for us to accept the motion. On that basis I say that, unless those words are added, all members of the House should vote against the motion in its present form. Mr HAND(Melbourne-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(3.06) —What was potentially a proud day for the Parliament has not turned out in quite that way. It is all very well for people to come into this place and say that they want to cooperate with us, but the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles)-because it is unparliamentary to use certain language I will not use it-has gilded the lily to no end in terms of the truth. He knows better. Father Frank Brennan, as a representative of the church leaders, has beaten a path to his door. He has met with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). The shadow Minister said that the Opposition was not aware of the motion. In an article on the front page of the Melbourne Herald the shadow Minister claimed at one stage that it was his idea, until he was reminded by representatives of the churches that it was their idea and that they appreciated his help and support and looked forward to him supporting it. What happened? I say to the Leader of the Opposition and to the members of the public listening and watching that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister got done. They put it up and they got done. The Leader of the Opposition got done like a dinner at the shadow Cabinet meeting. He should not come in here and pretend that he is supportive of this motion. His Party is not supportive of it. Unfortunately for this nation, his Party is dominated by a rump of people who are determined not to allow members who want to support this motion to do so. They are preventing such members from stepping forward and supporting it. The Leader of the National Party knows that that is true. He knows that his Party is Stone-led. It is stone dead and Stone-led. The Leader of the Opposition is under pressure to survive. The Leader of the National Party is under threat from John Stone. So they have both come in here and put forward John Stone's arguments. There is no question that that is what they have done. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Government support the churches. We support what they have said. Their response to the Opposition's proposal on this motion is set out in a letter to the Prime Minister, which states: It is important that the unsatisfactory amendment of the Opposition as reported in the Press be defeated and the resolution be passed with the kind of general support which will bring great credit to the Parliament of this country. The letter was signed by Archbishop Foley of Perth, Chairman of the Bishops' Committee for Justice, Development and Peace. We have attempted to bring about a bipartisan motion, which at one stage the Opposition supported. It changed its position because the small rump that is running the policy on this issue, that is running the policy on immigration, that is changing the policy on South Africa, has got hold of the leadership of the Party. Every clause of this proposal has been supported by the Bonners, the Viners, the Chaneys, the Baumes, the Frasers-the people who have worked in this area over the years. They were supported by the former shadow Minister in his policy statement in 1987. I remind him of that policy statement which goes to the very point that the Opposition is trying to change, that Aboriginal people do have a right to choose. The Opposition should read its own policy statement. It has reneged again on what it told people was its position. It reneged on the Brennan agreement, it reneged on the bishops and it has reneged on Fraser's view, Viner's view, Macphee's view, Bonner's view, Baume's view and Chaney's view. I will come to Chaney in a minute because he has a view which it is worth reminding the House of. It is worth reflecting on. The shadow Minister and the Leader of the Opposition made a couple of comments. The words proposed are no good because they are not needed. That is the truth of the matter. The Opposition knows they are not needed. The Leader of the Opposition knows that whatever we had agreed to he would have come in with a proposition to make sure that we failed in achieving a bipartisan approach. He set out to do that and he knows that to be a truth. He and his henchmen in this chamber have set out to make sure that this issue is not bipartisan. Members of the Opposition have spoken to me privately and expressed views of distaste and concern about the leadership and direction taken by the Leader of the Opposition on this motion. The Leader of the Opposition knows that to be true. That is what he virtually said to me yesterday. That is what he was saying to the bishops and Father Brennan and to the people of Australia when he claimed credit for the motion. Why has he changed his position? Because he does not want a bipartisan approach adopted in this chamber today. Senator Stone has led the charge and has told everybody that this is a bad idea. He is running the show. The Opposition is led by Senator Stone. I am sure the people who have prepared this motion, who have beaten a path to the door of the Leader of the Opposition and to my door, are bewildered by his approach. He tells them he agrees with it all but to make sure that it does not achieve a bipartisan approach he puts in a blocker. The contribution of the Leader of the National Party of Australia dealt with everything other than the motion. He diverted attention by talking about the Ministry and all sorts of other intriguing, interesting things. He did not once address the motion because he knows that he is not allowed to talk about it. Stone has told him he cannot. I turn to the treaty referred to by the Prime Minister. The position of the Opposition changes from day to day on everything put forward. Viner, Fraser, Chaney and Baume have agreed with the thrust of this sort of motion over the last 10 or 15 years. Two Opposition speakers referred to the treaty. I want to quote one thing which really shows the hypocrisy of what Opposition members are on about. They say things when they do not have to deliver. The community has to understand that it is cheap and easy to say something on which one does not have to deliver. The Opposition walks away when the time comes for it to deliver. What has been wrong with Aboriginal affairs over the years is that time and time again we have walked away from our responsibilities to deliver. I wonder whether honourable members know who said this: . . . concern which is felt by some Australians that the concept of a treaty involves recognition, in some way, of two nations is a concern that the Government would wish to put to rest. The Government's approach to the treaty . . . is this: We are not looking at two nations; we are looking at how the Australian nation properly deals with the situation of its Aboriginal people. If we can arrive at arrangements between the national government and the Aboriginal people of Australia which are consensual in nature and which represent the views of the Aboriginal citizens of this country as to what is appropriate, I believe we will have advanced. Who do honourable members reckon said that? It was not said by someone from the Labor benches. It was said by someone from the Opposition. Senator Chaney said that-the person who now says that a treaty is divisive, that we cannot have a treaty. Yet, he got up in the Senate and said, `We support it'. Again, this is an example of honourable members opposite saying one thing and walking away from their obligations. I make a plea to those members of the Opposition who I know are hurting about this attempt by some members of the Opposition to stop them from supporting us. I am saying to them, `Come over here and vote the way you really feel'. The situation is that there are people on the Opposition side who are not only hurting on this issue but are hurting on other issues too-issues such as immigration and South Africa. We know that they are hurting. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), knows that we had a very good debate on South Africa. But there is no denying that some people on the other side of the House are hurting. They are hurting on a range of issues and they are hurting on the issue now before the House. Members of the Opposition cannot say to me that they want a bipartisan approach when they try to prevent us from doing everything we want to do. The Opposition talks about new initiatives. We are developing the most forward thinking initiatives that this country has ever produced. The shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Braddon, should read what the United Nations said about the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Commission proposal. It said that the proposal was forward thinking and quite dramatic in terms of change. What has the Opposition done in this respect? It has set up a bodgie committee in the Senate to try to stop us from implementing it. Every time we try to do something to enhance the situation of Aboriginal people, the Opposition does something to prevent us from doing so. I make this plea: I ask Opposition members to talk to their Senate colleagues and to stop them from proceeding in the way they are. They should apply their minds to the motion, which is an expression of the feeling of this House. It does not attempt to make a change or to introduce any law. It is an expression of how we all feel. If members of the Opposition do not feel the same way as do the churches, they will be responsible for shooting down the motion. The Opposition is trying to shoot down a motion which has community support, which was developed by and has the support of the churches and which was agreed to by the Opposition. But the Opposition has waffled and welshed again. Who did the Opposition hurt again? It hurt the Aboriginal people. We have stuck to our commitment of putting forward this motion. The motion is quite clear. The Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party of Australia know damn well that the words they are suggesting do nothing at all to enhance the motion. The amendment makes sure that members of the Opposition cannot support what we are trying to do. They know that they are acting in such a way as to ensure that a bipartisan resolution will not be achieved. The Leader of the Opposition cannot deliver on his own position on this issue, which is to support the motion. Mr Tuckey —This is politicking. Mr HAND —It is not politicking-it is the truth and the honourable member knows that to be the case. I now move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 80 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B. (Teller)Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ian Pratt, M. P.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. 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 Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Taylor, W. L.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Howard, J. W. Woods, R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Jull, D. F. Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Cohen, B. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. McLeay, LeoCrawford, M. C. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Sawford, R. W.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Sciacca, C.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Hawke's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Cohen, B. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. McLeay, LeoCrawford, M. C. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Sawford, R. W.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Sciacca, C.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B. (Teller)Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ian Pratt, M. J.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. 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 Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Taylor. W. L.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Howard, J. W. Woods, R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Jull, D. F. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that, following the resignation on 17 August of the Hon. Bill Hayden as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, I asked the Minister for Trade Negotiations, Mr Duffy, to be responsible for the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio until the new Minister is sworn in. This will take place on 2 September. Honourable members will be aware that yesterday I announced the recommendations which I will be making to the Governor-General concerning changes within the Ministry. For the information of honourable members, I now table a copy of that Press statement. As a courtesy, I also inform the House that the Treasurer, Mr Keating, will be absent from Question Time today on Government business. Any questions normally directed to the Treasurer should be addressed to the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, Mr Peter Morris. Mr HOWARD —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister: Why has he sacked the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs? Mr HAWKE —The answer is that I have not. Mr MARTIN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. What reaction has the Minister had to his initiatives in establishing the Australian Coal Marketing and Technology Council? In view of these initiatives and other problems within the Australian coal industry, does the Minister see a continuing role for the Caucus coal industry task force? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable member for his question and for his continuing interest in the coal industry and its present problems. The Australian Coal Marketing and Technology Council has been established to advise me on coal marketing strategies and coal trade issues. It is a key element of the Government's coal industry strategy. I must say, in answer to the honourable gentleman, that I am conscious of possible concerns in the industry and on the part of the buyers at what may be interpreted as an unwarranted intervention in the market, but the creation of the Council is both warranted and explainable to our customers, given their interests in maintaining a viable and competitive Australian industry. I do not envisage any changes to the current method of administering export controls. Decisions will still be made by me. Nor is the mining union's cherished national coal authority proposal a panacea for the problems of the coal industry. As I said in my Press conference of 18 August, such an authority would certainly result in a small Australian coal industry, thus denying the job security that we all seek and that is particularly at the centrepiece of the Government's coal industry strategy. I am looking forward to constructive, positive and independent advice from the Council to assist me in ensuring that we get a fair return for our export coal. In the light of that and the other moves by the Government, I welcome the unanimous resolution by the Caucus coal industry task force. Mr HOWARD —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister: Why were the head of the Protective Services Co-ordination Centre (PSCC) and four of his colleagues placed on the unattached Public Service list this morning? Is it not a fact that these officers are the five most experienced Commonwealth officers in Australia and have, collectively, some 90 to 100 years experience in counter-terrorist planning and operations? Does this mean that the Government has downgraded the status of the PSCC? Given that three Premiers, including two from Labor States, have written to the Prime Minister asking that this action be reconsidered, why has it gone ahead? Can the Prime Minister guarantee that Australia's counter-terrorist planning and operations will not be placed in jeopardy? Mr HAWKE —I must say to the Leader of the Opposition that I was not aware that that action had been taken this morning. I will certainly take steps after Question Time to acquaint myself with precisely what has happened and I will, of course, forward an answer to the Leader of the Opposition. But I make the general point-I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will agree with this-that, since we have been in government, we have, not only within Australia but through the consultations which have been held with friendly governments overseas, attached very considerable and appropriate accordance to the threat posed by terrorism within this country and internationally. I recognise that over recent years threats have arisen to the rights of innocent people within this country; but more particularly, fortunately as far as Australia is concerned, greater threats have arisen in international environments. I can give the Leader of the Opposition a total assurance that we take this matter seriously; but, as I said at the beginning of my answer, I will find out the details and give him an answer. Mr Cohen —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I realise we are still in the early stages, but I think some of us are having difficulty in hearing. Madam SPEAKER —I recognise the problem. Mr Cohen —If the volume could be turned up, we would be able to take part in the proceedings. Mr SNOWDON —Can the Minister for Transport and Communications Support inform the House of the steps that have been taken to address the urgent need to develop the passenger terminals at Darwin and Alice Springs airports? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member, along with others, has recognised the difficulties that exist in the provision of terminal facilities both at Alice Springs and at Darwin. They have been of considerable magnitude. The honourable member, on his election, very quickly became involved in finding a solution to those problems both at Darwin and at Alice Springs. The Government has considered proposals put forward by the Federal Airports Corporation and the Northern Territory Government to assume responsibility for those airports. Additionally, we considered the proposal put forward by the Alice Springs City Council for administration of the Alice Springs Airport. The Government has taken a decision, in principle, that the facilities should be transfered to the Federal Airports Corporation and detailed arrangements are currently being negotiated. It is expected that the transfer will take place by the end of October of this year. The Federal Airports Corporation has indicated that, upon finalisation of mutually satisfactory financial arrangements for the transfer, it will immediately commence planning for the redevelopment of civil aviation facilities at Darwin, including a new terminal. The terminal and the associated works have a presently projected cost of $65m and will be targeted for completion within three years. The recently commenced $1.3m upgrading at Alice Springs will be completed as planned. In addition, the Federal Airports Corporation has indicated that it will, as a matter of urgency, develop plans for further major development works at Alice Springs. Its submission to the Government envisages a projected cost of some $20m for this redevelopment. In conclusion, I commend the honourable member and, similarly, Senator Bob Collins for the role each of them has played in this project and problem for some time, but it takes time to get the right solution. The solution that has been decided upon now by the Government is, I believe, a correct one. It is a matter of getting on with the job and getting it completed within the three-year timetable. Mr SINCLAIR —My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Was the finding of the report of the FitzGerald Commission of Inquiry to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies that there is widespread mistrust about the immigration policy he administers, which is threatening community support for migration, the reason the Prime Minister sacked him from his present role as Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs? Mr HOLDING —The answer to the question of sacking has been given by the Prime Minister, and I commend him for the veracity of that answer. It is typical that the first question from the Leader of the National Party of Australia on the FitzGerald report, as one would expect, is completely distorted in terms of his interpretation of the FitzGerald report. Mr Sinclair —That is a bit tautologous, I think. Mr HOLDING —Well, the right honourable member is an expert in tautology, and I would certainly take on board any comment he wants to make. The FitzGerald report made perfectly clear that it recommended the full support of the first basic aspect of our policy, the maintenance of a non-discriminatory policy. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HOLDING —The only doctoring that has been going on in this place has been done by the Leader of the Opposition. He cannot even deal honestly with his own back bench. Let us deal with the FitzGerald report. On the question of multiculturalism, FitzGerald said that there were some concerns in the community because a number of people did not fully understand the implication of that report and felt it related only to ethnic communities. He drew that to the attention of the Government as a matter upon which the Government should fully inform the community. He did not at any stage suggest, as has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party, that that very important aspect of our policy should be abandoned and subjected to the kind of misinterpretation that has been placed upon it by the Leader of the National Party, Senator Stone and the Leader of the Opposition. If one looks at the history of the doctrine of multiculturalism one sees that it is not the exclusive province of members of this side of the House. It was contributed to over the years by former Prime Minister Fraser and some very distinguished Ministers of immigration from the other side. The abandonment, abuse and misinterpretation of that policy by the Leader of the Opposition represents an all time political low in the history of the immigration debate. Mr LEE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence and concerns the work of the Australian defence forces in Papua New Guinea. I preface my question by stating that, as a member of an all party delegation led by the honourable member for Hughes, I have seen the work being done by the Australian Defence Force in supporting the Papua New Guinean defence forces and also in assisting the development of Papua New Guinea, particularly in the Southern Highlands province. I ask the Minister: Can he tell the House whether there is scope to expand this assistance? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. Yes, I think there is scope to expand it. I express gratitude to him for the kind words he had to say about the activities of our defence forces in Papua New Guinea. They perform there a very useful and totally agreed role with the Papua New Guinean authorities. One of the areas where they are extremely useful is in the engineering area and a fine job is done by those engineers at Mendi. The view has been expressed to us by the Papua New Guineans that they would like to see the defence cooperation program expanded to incorporate more engineering activities. That will be done. We are currently finalising the detail of that with the Papua New Guineans. It will not be done to the exclusion of activities at Mendi, which will be continued, so it will be additional activity. Indeed the service engineers, particularly the Army engineers, are now performing extremely important tasks all over the South Pacific area as well as in Papua New Guinea and they are finding themselves very fully occupied in that. Overall, the defence relationship with Papua New Guinea is on a very sound footing. The defence cooperation program is increasing in real terms in a monetary sense. I think it is also increasing in intensity now that the Papua New Guineans have the view that they are completely in control of their defence policy, and there are no remnants of the colonial relationship when they deal with us. With that increasing confidence has come an increasing willingness to cooperate effectively with us. I think visits like those undertaken by the honourable member will advance that, and I would encourage parliamentary committees-we will provide assistance where necessary-and individual members to take opportunities to look at the activities of our defence forces in Papua New Guinea and, of course, all the other areas of activity which we undertake jointly with that country. Mr CADMAN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Was he aware of the policy directive given by the former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mick Young, to alter the flow of people under the business migration program by increasing the proportion of Europeans and North Americans? Does he approve of that directive and has he maintained it? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable gentleman for the opportunity that he has given me to set the record straight in respect of the statement made by or attributed to Mr Cullen. In terms of the business migration program, the recommendation given to Mr Cullen, who was an adviser not only to the former Minister for Immigration, Mr Young, but also to me, was that he was to examine all aspects of the business migration program, that he was to encourage, wherever possible and in whatever nation possible, the development of that program as an important component of our immigration policy. It is perfectly clear from the records that the first point made by the former Minister for Immigration in giving that direction was that the program should take place within the framework of this Government's non-discriminatory immigration policy. Perhaps I ought to explain that policy to the honourable gentlemen opposite because they do not seem to be able to understand it. Mr Howard —You will table the document, will you? Mr HOLDING —Yes, I will. A non-discriminatory policy means that any applicant anywhere in the world can apply. He will be given something like a 26-page document to fill in. On the basis of his answers he will know one thing. He will receive a set of points and, irrespective of race, religion, cultural background or nation of origin, he will be granted points equally on the basis of the answers. That is the basis of the policy. I have watched with some amazement as the Leader of the Opposition reels a tortuous course when he says, `I want a non-discriminatory policy but within the framework of my non-discriminatory policy I want to be able to discriminate against Asians for a start and anybody else we do not believe is socially cohesive'. He tries to justify that on the basis of a non-discriminatory approach. It is a dishonest approach, it is a politically cynical approach and it is an approach which is increasing social tensions and divisions within our community just as it is producing them within members of the Opposition. There are men on the other side who will not have a bar of racial discrimination. Mr Howard —No wonder you have been sacked. Mr HOLDING —The honourable member spends most of his time trying to prevent his back bench colleagues from getting rid of him. Andrew is looking better by the day and we all know it. The honourable member is going to need more than yellow handkerchiefs to get out of this. Let me, for the benefit of the House, read a letter I received from Mr Cullen. He talks about the basis of our immigration policy and refers to the article which was printed. He says: The article neglects to mention two matters: That we cannot presently attract enough Business Migrants from all sources. Every person meeting the global requirements is admitted. No curb to Business Migrants is applied anywhere. There can be no reason for assuming that tapping new markets in the US and Europe is discriminatory when it is realised that we want more migrants from all sources than we are attracting now. There is also an accompanying document, the minute made of the oral direction given to Mr Cullen at the time of his appointment-- Mr Howard —Was it over lunch? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Howard —Cheap! What you would expect. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has the call. Mr HOLDING —I will incorporate both documents in Hansard so that we will not take up time during Question Time. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister may table the documents, but unless they are graphs they cannot be incorporated. Mr HOLDING —I seek leave to incorporate them, Madam Speaker. Leave granted. Madam SPEAKER —They will have to be within the guidelines. Mr HOLDING —If one looks at the business migration program, one knows that, at the same time as the Leader of the Opposition is talking of a policy of bringing in more skilled migrants, the business program will bring in to Australia this year over $1 billion. Over 79 per cent of that program involves people coming in from Asia. This is important when the Leader of the Opposition is running around his own Party and around Australia saying, `We are going to concentrate on business migrants or people with skills', when 79 per cent of the program in respect of business migration is Asian-based. What will the Leader of the Opposition say? He will say that he will have all these people with their skills and will say, `Thank you for the money'. But suddenly if there is a problem about social cohesion, will he then say, `Take your money away. We don't like the colour of your skin, we don't like the look of your eyes, and therefore you will not have your contribution to the program'? Before the Leader of the Opposition made statements on immigration programs and policies, he should have looked at the detail to understand what was happening. He should stop making statements which will not only be debilitating to the unity and the social cohesion of this nation but do great damage to Australia's standing in Asia. Madam SPEAKER —I point out to the Minister that the papers he has given me do not fit the guidelines for incorporation. Does the Minister wish to table them? Mr HOLDING —I shall table them, as I would like the Leader of the Opposition to be able to read them. Mr SNOW —I remind the Minister for Community Services and Health of the Government's establishment two years ago of the national campaign against measles as a bicentennial project. This was in recognition of the fact that the level of measles immunisation among Australian preschool children was disappointingly low, given that measles is not just a trivial childhood illness, as many people unfortunately believe. Can the Minister inform the House of the results to date of the national campaign against measles? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for Eden-Monaro for his question. I also wish to commend him for recognising the seriousness of measles as a disease which too often is not recognised in Australia. Indeed, the disease can be a killer and in other cases can lead to serious effects. One in 40 cases is complicated by middle ear infections and one in 25 cases leads to bronchitis and pneumonia. Measles encephalitis occurs in about one per thousand reported cases and often results in permanent intellectual impairment. Complications resulting in death occur in at least one per 100,000 cases, and that figure may be as low as one in 15,000 cases. Despite these facts, in 1983 a survey revealed that the number of Australian children between two and five who had been immunised against measles was only 68 per cent. This is why the Federal Government has to date provided almost $2m for the bicentennial national measles campaign. A figure of $1.3m has been allocated to the States and Territories so that they can implement and expand their own programs and activities to significantly increase measles vaccination in this country. The remaining money has been used by the Commonwealth for community education programs, including the outstandingly successful `Just One Shot' media campaign. I would also point out that over 100 radio stations were involved in the `Just One Shot' promotion, including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which contributed significant air time free of charge. Our aim in the campaign was three fold: First, substantially to increase community awareness of the danger of measles and the number of children vaccinated against it; secondly, to have measles under control during 1988; and, thirdly, ultimately to achieve its eradication. I am delighted to be able to inform honourable members that the campaign has already achieved the first two goals and is well on the way to the third. The States and Territories were required under the program to provide the Commonwealth with details of activities funded and the effect of measles vaccination among children. By the close of the 1987-88 financial year, the percentage of children vaccinated against measles had risen by almost 18 per cent to 85 per cent. That means that an additional 135,000 have been vaccinated against measles during the campaign. In South Australia, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory over 90 per cent of children aged two to five have been immunised. I think that this campaign is an excellent example of the effectiveness of preventive health programs. For a relatively small financial investment we have protected tens of thousands of children from illness, disability or death. I congratulate the States and Territories which have participated enthusiastically with the Commonwealth in this program, and also the Australian media which have made an inestimable contribution to the campaign. Mr HOWARD —My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. In the light of the answer he has just given regarding the reported comments of Mr Peter Cullen in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning, I draw his attention to an answer given by Mr Cullen: When the Minister- that is, Mr Young- saw me he pointed out that all the recruiting was going on from Asia and we weren't getting enough from North America and Europe, and part of my riding instructions was to have a look at those areas and see how we could get more. He then goes on to talk about people speaking English frequently finding it easy to establish businesses here. I ask the Minister whether in fact it was part of the riding instructions of Mr Cullen to get more from particular parts of the world, and therefore to alter the flow of migrants from one part of the world. Mr HOLDING —The Leader of the Opposition is absolutely desperate in endeavouring to indicate that there is some kind of aspect of racial choice or some choice in selection. The reality is-- Mr Howard —It is hypocrisy. Mr HOLDING —The Leader of the Opposition would be an expert in hypocrisy, so let me tell him the facts, which are these-and one need not be greatly surprised. Everybody knows the situation that exists in Hong Kong. There is a major area there where business migrants are leaving not merely for Australia; they are leaving for Canada and the United States, and we are competing there for migrants from that source. There are some sensitivities in areas like Malaysia, but we are also in there trying to recruit from that area. Equally there are skills and talents in Europe-age-old technologies are available there. Peter Cullen was told to recruit on a worldwide basis. Mr Howard —He was told to get recruits. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting across the table. Mr HOLDING —I refer this desperate Leader of the Opposition to the first page of the letter that I have tabled. This is what it says: This is the totality of basis for the utterly misleading headline `Disclosed: Curb on Asia inflow already being applied' and the assertion that increased European and United States Business Migration should be at the expense of Asian Business Migration. At no time did I mention that increased proportion of Business Migrants from Europe and US were to be at the expense of Asians (or anyone else for that matter). I note that no quotation marks support this. In any event business migration from all sources including Asia is increasing steadily. For the information of the Leader of the Opposition, who does not understand how this policy works, if an applicant for business migration, irrespective of his origins, meets the guidelines and has a capacity to bring resources into Australia, to provide employment for Australians, he will be allowed to come in. It is as simple as that and it does not matter from where he comes. Mr Sinclair —That is what Mr Cullen said. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. Mr HOLDING —When we have a policy that is so clearly successful in working in the interests of Australia, we shall not abandon any aspect of it to suit some of the present tendencies in the right honourable member's Party. Mr Howard —Why was he told-- Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting across the table. Mr Howard —Why was he told to recruit? Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will not argue with the Chair. Mr HOLDING —It is as simple as that. At this stage the 12,000 business migrants that have come in have created something like 30,000 employment positions. That is a positive. If we can find more business migrants-neither I nor the Government cares where they come from-we will encourage them. No-one will be excluded under that policy on the basis that he comes from Asia. Mr Howard —What about-- Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will stop interjecting. Mr HOLDING —If the honourable gentle- man opposite wants to take some comfort from that, I would say to him that he is drawing a very long bow. If he is going to try to justify his very odd policy, he will have to do better than to try to use these sorts of arguments. Mr Howard —What about-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will heed the Chair when the Chair speaks to him. The Chair has given a ruling. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —You will not argue with the Chair. I call the honourable member for Kingston. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, with your indulgence, I ask: Since when has it been the practice of this House during Question Time that, if a Minister responds to interjection from the Opposition and gets flustered, in some way the Opposition is out of order? Madam SPEAKER —I will just reply to that. The Leader of the Opposition is out of order, as he full well knows, when he continues to interject across the table and refuses to accept the authority of the Chair. I refer him to standing order 303 (e). I call the honourable member for Kingston. Mr BILNEY —I ask the Minister for Social Security whether there have been any recent developments relating to the situation of persons in Australia who receive a United Kingdom pension as a result of discussions held during Mrs Thatcher's recent visit to Australia when, as one understands it, those matters were raised. Mr Sharp —This was a couple of weeks ago. Mr HOWE —Let me say in response to the interjection from the Opposition that this matter has never been out of date for the honourable member for Kingston. It is a matter that he has pursued very vigorously. He has pursued it because there are tens of thousands of ex-British citizens in Australia who are not receiving indexed pensions because of the current policy of the British Government. This Government has chosen to pursue this issue within the context of negotiating a number of reciprocal social security agreements with some vigour. In February 1986 I announced in the House of Representatives that the Government intended to pursue this issue with the United Kingdom authorities. The Prime Minister wrote to Mrs Thatcher in September 1986. I also wrote at that time to the United Kingdom Minister of State for Social Security. Not only have we raised the matter directly with the UK but also we have had discussions with New Zealand and Canada, which similarly appear to be finding it difficult to persuade the British Government to address this very important issue. I can understand, and I think all members of the Parliament can understand, that very substantial costs-certainly well in excess of #100m-would be involved for the British Government if it were to bring pensions up to date, but this is an issue on which we believe some progress can be made. The Prime Minister raised the issue with Mrs Thatcher when she was here quite recently. Subsequently, he has written a letter suggesting an answer to some problems that she raised with him and asking for the matter to be pursued to the point of negotiation. When I was in Britain in June I spoke to my counterpart, Mr Nicholas Scott, and he indicated that he was personally more than sympathetic and concerned to find some solution to this problem and, indeed, that he was pursuing the issue in a Budget context this year. So I can assure the honourable member that the Government is doing all that it can to ensure that we bring this issue to a successful conclusion. Mr LLOYD —My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Is the Minister aware of the statement by the editor of the leading Italian newspaper Il Globo, Mr Nino Rendazzo, to the effect that the Government's current immigration policy discriminates against southern Europeans? Is he aware that Mr Rendazzo said on radio this morning, `Southern Europeans are totally out.'? Why do the Minister and his Government discriminate against southern Europeans? Mr HOLDING —I heard the comments of Mr Rendazzo. He has made those comments on a number of occasions. He takes the view that the way in which the points system operates does not allow sufficient numbers of Italian immigrants to come to Australia under the family reunion package. That is a package, of course, which is under attack by this Opposition. I will be sensitive on this matter and will not quote Mr Nino Rendazzo and what he said about the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Charles —Why not? Mr HOLDING —He described the policies enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition generally as racist, as deplorable and as policies which no-one in the ethnic community could support. That is the situation. I understand the problem of the Leader of the Opposition. His problem is this: he is trying to talk about a non-discriminatory policy while he knows that Senator Stone and the Leader of the National Party have said that they want to restrict Asian immigration. Mr Lloyd —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. That is not the problem. The problem is that the southern Europeans are discriminated against by this policy. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the National Party did not have a point of order when he got to his feet, and he knew it. I call the Minister. Mr HOLDING —The heart of the problem is that the honourable member and some of his colleagues are involved in a specious and dishonest operation in trying to abandon policies which have been traditional in this Parliament, not only for all governments but also within his own Party. Let me quote what I believe is a fairly civilised comment in terms of the statements made by the Leader of the National Party when he joined Senator Stone in saying that he wanted to curb Asian immigration: Such comments, certainly would have had no place in my Government. And they weren't made, Ian didn't make those comments when he was a member of my Government. I am, of course, quoting the former Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, who then went on to say: Comments based on race do not belong in the Australian political environment. I don't believe they belong in the Liberal Party. . . I'm very comfortable with the views expressed by Nick Greiner. Let me say that before the honourable member starts misquoting Mr Rendazzo he really should look at some of the principles and philosophies that this once great Party stood for in this immigration debate before he abandons principles that have served this country and his Party very well indeed. Mr DUBOIS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. I ask: What is the projection for the growth in tourism? Mr PUNCH —I think it is appropriate that a question has been asked today, with the Budget pending, about one of the great success stories of this Government-that is, tourism. I should inform the House that the goal of two million visitors to Australia in 1988 not only will be easily attained but also is likely to be well surpassed. In 1987 overseas visitor arrivals in this country increased by 25 per cent or 1.8 million. The House should be aware that, in the six months to June 1988, arrivals have increased by a further 25 per cent compared with the same period last year. During that six months, arrivals from Japan showed the strongest growth, increasing by 78 per cent; followed by Europe, 29 per cent; Asia, 25 per cent; and New Zealand, 25 per cent. The holiday market has continued to improve, showing a 35 per cent increase in 1987 over 1986. Only an 11 per cent growth over the full year is now required to reach the two million mark. Given that this is our bicentennial year, with such major events as Expo 88 we obviously have little doubt that the two million figure will be reached easily. The tourism industry in this country is clearly doing very well under the policies of this Government. It is now contributing 6 per cent at least of gross domestic product as of May 1988 and 430,000 people have been directly employed in the tourism industry. When one takes into account a number of initiatives taken by this Government-such as the Committee of Inquiry into Tourism Shopping, the report of which will be handed down very shortly-in an attempt to diversify the economic benefits of tourism, one can see that this Government is doing a truly wonderful job in that area. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services and Health. I refer him to a statement he reportedly made on radio station 2UE on 10 July 1987, when he said: If you were to have an effective tax file number then ultimately you would finish up with an Australia Card. I ask the Minister whether this is the case for the proposed tax file number system. Dr BLEWETT —Firstly, I am not the Minister responsible for the tax file number. Secondly, the answer to the question is no. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Can the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs inform the House whether there is any substance to allegations in recent media reports of secret instructions to discriminate against applicants for migration from Asia? Mr HOLDING —I understand that an allegation was made to the media by the Leader of the Opposition about secret instructions being given. He was told by an ambassador from South East Asia that instructions were given in terms which would involve the limiting of intakes from that area. I have received the following cable from Mr Holloway, the Australian Ambassador to the Philippines: I understand that Mr Howard has made a statement claiming that a South East Asian head of mission told him recently that his Embassy had received an instruction to slow down applications for migration. It may be that Mr Howard is referring to a conversation I had with him on 8 August at his office in Sydney during my recent consultations in Australia. 2. During that conversation I explained to Mr Howard that I would be meeting the Sydney Philippine community that evening and would inevitably be queried about immigration policy. He outlined his views in familiar terms and went on to ask about the program from the Philippines. I explained that the program had grown over recent years and had reached something over ten thousand in the last fiscal year. He asked me whether there had been any recent changes in the program to which I replied that we had received an instruction in February, which I understand would be worldwide, which asked us to slow down the processing of the concessional categories as it was feared there would be a blowout in the global figure and the Fitzgerald report had not yet been tabled. We had, of course, complied with that instruction. Later in the year we had received instructions on the Government's new policy which took the `pass mark' to 80 points. Given that Australia did not recognise many Philippine educational qualifications I thought that this would inevitably have the effect of reducing numbers in the Philippine program, but as I had not been in the Embassy for some weeks I could not assess by what percentage numbers would be reduced. 3. At no time did I say there had been any moves to establish any sort of quota within the Philippine program. What in fact happened-I think it is public knowledge-was that as a result of the bicentennial celebrations and the publicity given to those celebrations there was an enormous increase in applications throughout the world. That was particularly so in Ireland and in Great Britain, where the embassy had queues for three blocks and had to put in special telephone services. The only way it could handle the range of applications was simply to stop processing them. On my instructions, because this was a widespread phenomenon, the Department sent out cables to all our missions indicating that they should cease processing applications so that we could keep control of the program. To suggest that that was a unique directive going to any one community or to any one nation state is a distortion of considerable proportions. In order to put this matter beyond argument, and again trying to give the Leader of the Opposition some benefit of the doubt, I shall table all the relevant cables, which will show that that was an instruction that was given uniformly to deal with a particular problem and meant that we would stay in control of our program. We finally resolved that the best method of doing that was to increase the pass mark on a temporary basis to some 80 points. It is perfectly improper to suggest that any head of mission or any Australian ambassador has at any stage received an instruction from any Minister in this Government directing that a quota or limitation be imposed upon any applicant for immigration to Australia. The reality, and I come back to it again as it is the essential aspect of our program, is that any person can apply from anywhere in the world. All applicants fill in the same form, they are subject to the same test, and they know that that test is applied with integrity and honesty. That is the essential hallmark of our non-discriminatory policy. We are not in the business, and we will never be in the business, of saying to anyone who has fulfilled all those qualifications, `Although you may have met our standards, we do not like the colour of your skin, we do not like the slant of your eyes, we do not like your religious philosophy, and we believe you represent a threat to the social cohesion of Australia'. The only threat to the social cohesion of Australia at present is sitting opposite-the Leader of the Opposition. Mr COBB —Madam Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to the absence from this chamber of the Australian flag. You will recall that in the chamber in the provisional Parliament House an Australian flag was flown from each of the two front corners of the chamber. I ask you to give an explanation as to why no Australian flag is flown in this chamber. I also ask whether you could initiate steps to rectify this omission so that in future the business of the Parliament in this chamber can be conducted in the presence of our country's beautiful flag, preferably in the four corners of the chamber. Madam SPEAKER —I shall take the question on board and report back to the House a t a later date. 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- 1. Australian National University-Annual Report 1987-together with the Auditor-General's Report-sub-section 33 (3) of the Australian National University Act 1946. 2. Toomelah Report-Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Report on the Problems and Needs of Aborigines Living on the NSW-Queensland Border-section 46 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. 3. Northern Approaches-A Report on the Administration and Management of Civil Coastal Surveillance in Northern Australia. 4. Aerial Littoral Surveillance and Northern Australian Quarantien Strategy-Interim Report by the Quarantine Review Committee-December 1987. 5. Australian Quarantine Requirements for the Future-Report of the Quarantine Review Committee-May 1988. 6. The Efficiency of Interstate Transport Arrangements-Second Report-Harmonisation of Road Vehicle Regulation in Australia-Volumes 1 and 2-Inter-State Commission Report-section 10 of the Interstate Commission Act 1975. 7. Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission-Annual Report 1987-section 43A of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Act 1977. 8. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984-Report detailing Determinations made under the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984 in respect of the 1985-87 Triennium-pursuant to section 55 of the Act. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr DONALD CAMERON —Yes. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I refer specifically to a newspaper story which appeared on Sunday, 31 July in Brisbane and Sydney and which subsequently was reported fairly widely with less prominence across Australia. The story actually made the main Sunday newspaper, the Sunday Telegraph. In screaming headlines it stated, `MP faces charges over kangaroo dinner'. It even pushed Fergie's baby down to the corner and Casey into a side column. It was further reported on page 7-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The honourable member might get on to where he was misrepresented and not talk about Fergie's baby. Mr DONALD CAMERON —If you give me time, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will explain this very important matter. By the second part of the report, on page 7, things had improved to the extent that it said, `MP faces charge'-instead of the plural-`over roo dinner'. Many members of the House of Representatives and the Senate from both sides of the chamber attended a dinner in the old building on 18 April this year. I was the host at that dinner. Previous to that dinner I made inquiries as to whether there was any law in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) that prevented the consumption of kangaroo meat and, I think, wild boar meat. The dinner was cleared at the beginning of the year and following that clearance-it was okay; there was no contravention of any law-I went ahead. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think the honourable member-- Mr DONALD CAMERON —An historical account is all so interesting for you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will just wait for a moment. He has said that he was misrepresented in the newspaper and I take it he is now saying that he was not charged. I do not think we need to know the story of what led up to this-- Mr DONALD CAMERON —I think we do because there has been a lot of duplicity on this issue from your side of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member may think we do but the forms of the House do not require us to hear that. He can tell us where he was misrepresented but he cannot tell us the story that leads up to this misrepresentation. I would have thought as well that he would have told us that he was grievously misrepresented today in relation to this matter in a newspaper that said that he was a National Party member. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Sir, I have consulted my lawyers on that: it is a serious matter out of all proportion! The original story went on to say that I was about to be charged as a result of having imported kangaroo meat to Canberra and that the matter had been before Mr Temby since the end of May. It went on to say at the end that I had conceded that under the law I was responsible as the importer of the meat into the ACT. As a result of the story, on Monday, 1 August, the day after the report, I wrote a letter to Mr Temby. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I really think that, while this is very interesting and important, the honourable member must tell the House where he was misrepresented. Was he misrepresented by the newspaper, in relation to his letters to Mr Temby or in some other way? He must tell us where he was misrepresented. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Mr Deputy Speaker, if you listen patiently you will hear. Believe me, this is a saga. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If it is a saga he should take it up on the adjournment rather than as a misrepresentation. Mr DONALD CAMERON —No, sir, because it is my right, which has been given to me by Madam Speaker, to raise this issue. If you let me have a go it will be over faster. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —As long as the honourable member gets to where he was misrepresented. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Right. I wrote to Mr Temby expressing concern about the fact that I was allegedly facing charges and asking why, if this had been current since late May 1988, I had not been consulted. As I said, we should listen to the explanation. I had faxed my letter to Mr Temby and the following day a letter was faxed back in which I was advised: We have not received a brief of evidence in relation to any investigation concerning yourself. I was deeply concerned in terms of the whole process of law in this country. We had watched the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) go through the process of being hounded for allegedly bringing yellow fever into the country. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! We are not going to entertain what has happened to the honourable member for Deakin. I think that the honourable member for Moreton should very quickly get to where he was misrepresented or otherwise take this matter up at some more appropriate time in the proceedings of the House. I ask him to come to where he was misrepresented. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I wish to say that there was absolutely no truth in the story that I had been facing charges. I had not admitted or stated to Fia Cumming that I had actually imported the meat. Another reporter who was with me at the time took shorthand notes of my conversation with her on the Saturday and, on checking her notes, she substantiated my claim that I had never said that. Mr Milton —Why don't you sue them for libel? Mr DONALD CAMERON —There is a question of elementary justice in this whole business because it became apparent that this woman had had a leak from one of the ministerial offices. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! We have now come to the stage where you have told us where you were misrepresented and you have pointed out that it was in some newspapers. This is not the time in the proceedings of the House to go on with the intricacies of this. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Where does one get the justice? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The adjournment might be the appropriate time to go on with those sorts of intricacies. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Five minutes? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think we might move on to the next item. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I have made my main point that the charges I was supposed to face did not exist. Subsequently, a referral was made and the office of Mr Temby, the Director of Public Prosecutions, has advised that I had contravened absolutely no law, that I had not even been the importer. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your tolerance and your guidance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am always more than happy to guide the honourable member for Moreton: I just worry that I have to do it so frequently sometimes. Assent to the following Bills reported: Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1988 Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 1988 Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 1988 Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1987-88 Supply Bill (No. 1) 1988-89 Supply Bill (No. 2) 1988-89 Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1988-89 National Health Amendment Bill 1988 Departure Tax Amendment Bill 1988 Departure Tax Collection Amendment Bill 1988 Migration Amendment Bill 1988 Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988 Primary Industries (Recovery of Levy Collection Expenses) Bill 1988 Fertilisers Subsidy Amendment Bill 1988 Customs Tariff (Rate Alteration) Bill 1988 Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Bill 1988 Commonwealth Authorities Legislation (Pay-roll Tax) Amendment Bill 1988 Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1988 Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Social Security Amendment Bill 1988 Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 2) Bill 1988 States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988 States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988 Civil Aviation Bill 1988 Cash Transaction Reports Bill 1988 Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Crimes Legislation Amendment (No. 2) Bill 1988 Defence (Superannuation Interim Arrangement) Amendment Bill 1988 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1988 Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1988 Superannuation Benefit (Interim Arrangement) Bill 1988 United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Bill 1988 Anti-Dumping Authority Bill 1988 Audit Amendment Bill 1988 Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill 1988 Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill 1988 Customs Legislation (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1988 Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 1988 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Employment, Education and Training Bill 1988 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's handling of the referendum campaign. 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 SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.34) —In the next two weeks the Australian people will vote upon widespread and complex changes to the Australian Constitution. These changes will go to the heart of the framework of the government of this country. Nobody in this House and no Australian voter would doubt that the Government has a duty to explain fairly, openly, honestly, candidly what it is that it intends. Indeed, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) back on 10 May 1988, presenting the referendum Bills to the House, the Bills to bring about-so the Government hopes-these wide-ranging changes to the Constitution, said: We take the view that a genuine national debate on concrete and specific proposals is the best way to ensure that the wider questions of constitutional reforms raised by the Commission- he was referring to Constitutional Commission recommendations- are placed firmly in the forefront of the agenda of this nation. There is no doubt about that. That is what the Attorney-General says. What we need is an open, honest, genuine and informed debate. And it must be so, because the complexity of these proposals and the extent of the change that they would effect if they were adopted by the people must mean that the Government has a duty not just to excite some debate but to make sure that there is a wide-ranging debate and to be honest about the reasons behind these proposals. We are not dealing with a game of Trivial Pursuit. It is not a factions deal. It is not a squabble over who moves from what position in the Government to what other position in the Government. It is not a numbers game. We are talking about a set of proposals to change the Constitution of this country, and to change it in a way which is not just complex but extremely far-reaching. What have we had? We have had a campaign that was conceived in dishonesty and pursued in deceit, as I shall establish. There is a key proposal in the four questions. We are really dealing with seven questions, but only four questions have been put up-three have been lumped together under one question. That key proposal goes to the Senate-to the Senate's powers, to the way in which the Senate is going to be elected. What the Government proposes is to extend the life of the House of Representatives to a maximum period of four years-note that that is the maximum period. The Government did not accept the recommendation of its own Commission of a period of three years, which would apply in most circumstances so that we could not have quick elections. That was pushed to one side. The Government proposes that the Senate should have a term of four years, that the House of Representatives should have a maximum term of four years and that elections should be held at the same time. What is the reason behind that? This proposal was not recommended by the Constitutional Commission. The rest of these proposals are no more than makeweights which have been brought in as electoral camouflage, as a means of blurring in the minds of the electorate what the issue is all about. The issue is all about power. This one proposal concerns power, and giving greater power to the House of Representatives and to the Executive. It concerns lessening and cutting back the Senate's power as a first step in the destruction of the Senate. Anybody who doubts that should look at the record. Would the Attorney-General agree with me that the proposal limits the significance and influence of the Senate? They are not my words but the words of Senator Button, spoken on 22 February 1977 in the Senate when he was looking at the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1977. Honourable members will remember that under those proposals the Senate was to have the life of two House of Representatives terms but would come out on the occasion of elections. It would have two terms but would be bound to the House itself as to its own term. Senator Button said that that would limit the significance and influence of the Senate. How much more does this proposal do that? Why has it been put forward? The agenda is set. The Australian Labor Party has stated what the agenda is. Let us go back over what has been said by some of the great luminaries of the Labor Party on the subject of the Senate and their hatred of the Senate's powers. Back in 1980 Mr Whitlam was reported in the Hobart Mercury as having said: I'll smash the Senate. At the same time, Mr Hayden-who cannot speak to us any more because he is mute-said: Because we are committed to its eventual elimination, we must take it seriously. At the same time, he also said: The Labor Party is committed to its eventual elimination. There is no doubt about the intentions of Mr Hayden, who was then the Leader of the Opposition. What about this from Senator Gareth Evans: If one believes, as I do, along with all good Labor men and women true, that the Senate ought to be abolished, or at the very least deprived of its capacity to destroy properly elected government, there is surely no better forum in which to promote these insidious heresies than the institution itself. Senator Evans has never resiled from that statement. Indeed, a short time ago he corrected something that was said of him in the Senate. He referred to that statement but did not say, `Look, I have changed my mind. I no longer hold those beliefs'. What about this from none other than the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in December 1983: I've had enough of this recalcitrant Senate blocking the will of the Government. I'm not going to be in a situation . . . where we are dictated to- is that not rich; dictated to by an elected House- as the democratically elected government by the mishmash of opposing forces in this country. If they think they can determine the pattern of the Government, then they have got another think coming. Honourable members will remember that our Prime Minister expressed himself in detail in the 1979 Boyer Lectures when he was parading as an intellectual. He said that he would do away with all the States, `which no longer serve their original purpose and act as a positive impediment to achieving good government in our current community'. Well, there is no question that he would do away with the States; he would do away with the State Houses and with the House of review. Does anybody on the Government side say that that is not the Government's intention? Has anybody disavowed these words? Not one will come into this chamber at any time to disavow the words which have been spoken in attacking the Senate. Of course, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has bought into the matter as well. Back in 1984-in those halcyon days before the Treasurer cleaned up his act and decided to become statesmanlike-he said this when the Senate had rejected a piece of legislation that he had sought to get passed: . . . where it- that is, the Opposition- has made a mockery and a swill of that chamber. That is what he said of the Opposition along with other people who were elected to the Senate and who rejected the legislation that the Government had put up. The Labor Party has watered down its platform a bit because it does not want to be too obvious. The current platform says this: Labor believes in the primacy of the `People's House'- the lower House- and believes that a government enjoying the confidence of that House should be able to govern unobstructed by the `House of Review'. What that means in plain language is that the House of review should not be able to review. What have we had from the media, those serried ranks of people who on occasion sit up in the press gallery watching us and who conduct current affairs programs wisely and write columns? We have had nothing from them. Has there been any attempt to throw back into the mouths of Government speakers what they have said and to ask them, `How do you justify this? Is not the proposal that you are putting up really intended to do just one thing-to destroy in large measure the power of the Senate?'? Has anybody put that? No. Do we have in the press gallery a media alert to scrutinise what is happening, to question government, or do we have some fifth column of the Fourth Estate marching arm in arm with the Government towards the road of greater centralisation of power-accomplices, one might say, to centralism? Let us go back to what was said in 1977 by Senator Button, with characteristic candour, about the proposals which would have had the effect of reducing the Senate's term to twice that of the House of Representatives-not a huge change, not the huge change that is intended now. He said: Of course, the real importance and significance of this proposal from our point of view in the Opposition is that it does what many of its critics say it will do. It limits the significance and the influence of the Senate. That is something which I would have thought is desirable in the interests of good government in this country. Again, in the same debate, he said: We see the Senate as a sort of palsied hand or a withered leg or something of that kind attached to the House of Representatives-an encumbrance to the process of government in this country. And again he was open and direct and said with characteristic candour: We do not believe in the statement that the Senate is an independent and equal House or that it should be an independent and equal House . . . in the Labor Party we do have a very strong view that the powers of the Senate should be delimited at every opportunity; That is what this referendum is about and nothing else. There is a very simple way for the Attorney-General to answer this question. He can say, `This is not the case; we do not intend to limit the powers of the Senate. We disavow entirely what has been said.' He can parade through here the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and Senator Button. Mr Hayden cannot come here any more but perhaps he could write us a letter and that could be tabled. Perhaps we could get some words from Mr Whitlam on the subject. We could have speakers from the Government side disavowing what they have said about the Senate. That, of course, will not happen. The Attorney-General will not be able to answer the question because he knows, as everybody knows, that the whole purpose of the exercise is to limit the power of the Senate, to curtail that power as a first step in the destruction of the Senate. Where does it say that in this `Yes or No' pamphlet? The official argument put out by the Government urges people to vote yes on question No. 1 in the referendum. It says that all sorts of good things will result; that it will mean fewer elections. It will not, of course. We will have elections at the same time but there will not be fewer of them. The pamphlet says that a Yes vote will mean that future elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate will be held on the same day. That is right. It says: This will create an environment for more responsible long-term Government planning . . . That is, no Senate interference. There will be no review by the Senate. It also says this: A four year maximum term will ensure governments can get on with running the country. That is, no interference from the Senate. Everybody knows that what is intended is to break the independence of the Senate so that those who are in the Senate, with the knowledge that their term is ordinarily much longer than that of members of the House, will not exercise with the same independence the views that they have in the past, as they did when they blocked the ID card and other legislation. We have here a system of checks and balances. We have a system of checks and balances through our courts, as the Attorney-General learnt only very recently when the High Court held that advertising which his Government was putting out was contrary to the Referendum Act. The Senate is part of that system of checks and balances; it is an integral part of it. It is a barrier to autocratic and arrogant government. It is a burden to and an encumbrance on the centralists and an encumbrance to arrogant and autocratic government. Our Constitution diffuses power. It was intended to do that because the Australian people do not trust any group of people with too much power in their hands. What this Government could do at the very least in this rushed and cleverly stage-managed campaign is to say, `Yes, our purpose is to cut back the power of the Senate; forget about everything else.' The Attorney-General will probably say that that is not the Government's purpose, but everybody knows that that is so and Senator Button has said it as plainly as- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.49) —Let me make one thing very clear about the proposals-four of them-to update the Constitution and let me put the mind of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) at rest. There is no proposal in the first referendum question to cut back the power of the Senate. Let me give the reasons for that submission. They relate to the evidence that was given to the Constitutional Commission. It is very refreshing for this nation to have a Constitutional Commission in which the people can speak about their problems and their needs. I ask the House to listen to this: A system which fails to provide an environment favourable to responsible long-term Government planning is likely to have an adverse effect on the private, as well as the public sector. Those were the words of the Business Council of Australia, which was advocating the introduction of a four-year maximum term. This was evidence given to the Constitutional Commission and the honourable member for North Sydney is well aware of how and why such evidence is given. Does he think that we on this side of the House would encourage the Business Council of Australia to give this evidence? It did it spontaneously and it is still advocating a four-year maximum term. The Council said: A three-year electoral term usually generates a pattern whereby governments, if they stay three years, tend to spend their first year settling in; begin taking tough and far-sighted decisions in the second year; and then effectively shut up shop in the third year because it is getting too close to the next election. Such a `stop-start' approach to economic management is very destructive to business planning and confidence. That evidence was given by people who usually do not vote Labor. They have made the point that they want governments to remain in power for as close as possible to four years because elections interrupt business. They have given evidence that their takings go down 20 per cent when elections are called. They have given evidence of disruption and all sorts of problems as a result. Mr N.A. Brown —They have since changed their policy. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I want honourable members to listen to this argument. They can all make their contributions at some other time. I am trying to deal with this matter on a fair basis. All honourable members are doing is getting upset about the fact that I am giving the evidence. Mr Spender —What about the Commission and page 402? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney has already spoken. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —In talking about the evidence that was given, it is also significant to note that some solutions were offered. Is the Opposition really suggesting that it would accept these solutions? The proposed solution was an opportunity for Government to have a term of three years in which the Senate would not have the power to reject Supply Bills. Does the Opposition honestly maintain that that would not inhibit the powers of the Senate? That was the suggestion. An earlier suggestion was made which the honourable member for North Sydney must have overlooked. That was debated by the Opposition in October last year when an interim suggestion from the Commission was that, in order to overcome the problems of double dissolutions, there should be joint sittings of both Houses, which would resolve the matter. Opposition members quite properly said, `Outrageous. That is inhibiting the powers of the Senate. The Senate will be dragged in here on a joint sitting and because the Government has the numbers it will do away with the Senate's powers. The people of Australia should judge the issue of double dissolutions'. That suggestion was quite properly rejected, I admit. We could not possibly accept that proposition because it would inhibit the powers of the Senate. The other suggestion that was put forward was a natural follow-up from that. I spoke to Sir Rupert Hamer about the matter. I said to him, `Do you think this is a viable proposition?'. He said, `It is the best we can do in the circumstances. You will not be able to get a double dissolution in the first three years, so there is an immediate inhibition on the Government and the Senate will not be able to refuse supply in the first three years. At least that will give you three years'. I said, `It will give us three years in which we can do nothing. We in the Government cannot pass any legislation and the Senate will be denied its powers'. Does the honourable member for North Sydney seriously suggest that the Senate would pass a proposed law that it should not have the power to remove a government in its first three years? That is his proposition here today. Let me make the point that the Commission's proposition was to inhibit the powers of the Senate. Mr Spender —That is right. That is what Button said. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Not at all. The honourable member is back in the 1970s; he is back in the dark ages. We are talking about 1988. What about the honourable member's views when he talks about the issues he thinks are so deceptive? I have his own well researched proposition of the record of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) on constitutional reform. I look at matters such as extending the right to trial by jury and the question of compensation for private property. The Opposition was in favour of those things. Why did the honourable member come here today on a mission in which he obviously has an interest? All he did was talk about the 1970s and what other people had said. Mr Spender —What about the 1980s? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I ask the honourable member for North Sydney to wait a minute. He has had 10 minutes of his own already and he has taken five of mine. On the issue of what we are about here, he said that question No. 1 in the referendum was `whittling away the powers of the Senate'. It does no such thing. The proposition from the Commission would have done so and the Senate would not have granted it. One could not even have put that proposition up. The proposition that we have here is to guarantee that when the Senate decides to refuse Supply, it will certainly have to account for that action. That is a reasonable proposition because it puts a judgment on the issue. When the Senate says, `You are not worthy of government', we say, `Fine, we will go to the people, and we have to.' That is what this proposition does. Let me make this point: the Commission has said that we have had 21 elections since 1949, which was a significant year. Why? Because proportional representation was introduced for the Senate. That was the significant turn in the powers of the Senate. The question was whether a party had the control of the Senate. No future government will ever have control of the Senate because of proportional representation. The Commission properly said that in the first 50 years of Federation there was a first past the post election system, so the Government took not only the House of Representatives but also the Senate. But once proportional representation was introduced a third force was created. A party has to poll only 7 or 8 per cent and it can get at least 10 or 12 members elected to the Senate. Since 1949 those 10 or 12 senators, whether they be members of the Democratic Labor Party, the Australian Democrats, or some other force, have always held the balance of power in the Senate. Therefore, there has been a plurality in the number of elections held. There has been the rejection of Supply in 1974 and the failure to pass in 1975. Both Prime Ministers have had a number of opportunities to say, `Look, we want to try to keep the Senate in kilter. We don't want any more half-Senate elections.' We have not had a half-Senate election per se since 1970. We have not had a six-year term senator per se for the last 20 years. Where is this inhibition on the powers of the Senate? As the Commission properly says, `Let us make the point that when one is talking about the Senate one is talking about people who go to party meetings and get their riding instructions from the party as to how they will vote.' State interests can be and are represented by members in their party political rooms. Therefore, that is the issue. Come on! Can honourable members opposite imagine a senator keeping his position on the Senate ticket with the Liberal Party if he voted against it in the Senate? He would be removed from his position and would be out of the Senate. Let us wake up to this issue. Certainly, some extraordinary things are done in the Senate, but I am not blaming the Liberals for that. The National Party of Australia now has Senator Stone. It is certainly a remarkable effort to be able to come from Canberra and to represent Queensland. Nevertheless, that is its judg- ment. I make the point that what we are talking about is reducing the frequency of elections. The first proposal is to reduce the frequency of elections. No longer will Prime Ministers have the excuse, which Governors-General have been naturally anxious to accept, that if the Houses are out of kilter-they usually are because after a double dissolution the Senate period relates to the previous July as that is the constitutional requirement-the Prime Ministers will be given an opportunity to have an early dissolution of the House of Representatives. We have had a number of elections on that basis. There have been 21 elections since 1949-elections now costing about $50m. This will allow someone to say, `Look, we certainly cannot remove section 57 which is a double dissolution proposition and nor should we.' If a government has been elected on a mandate to pass legislation and the Senate has twice rejected it, why can the Government not take the risk of seeking a dissolution to deal with that particular legislation? That is not inhibiting the powers of the Senate. The Senate now comes out in toto. The whole lot are out. So why would it not be reasonable, if Supply were rejected which cuts the Government right off, for the Senate also to be accountable for its actions? Is it not as valid, as serious and as important as a section 57 rejection? Of course it is. This is the whole point. We will be removing two reasons which exist now for early elections, namely, to keep the Houses in kilter, and to avoid half Senate elections. They are two issues thrown right out the window and that is an improvement. We cannot do anything else because the powers of the Senate would be inhibited. Honourable members opposite ought to go back and read the Hansard debate of last October. I know the honourable member for North Sydney did not take part in it but the issue is clearly this: the Opposition said that it was inhibiting the powers of the Senate to have a joint sitting and not a double dissolution. I think it is inhibiting the powers of the Senate to say to it, as the Commission has now said, that it will not be able to refuse Supply. What if we do have a bad or corrupt government? Does it have to sit there for three years? Of course the Senate will not accept that. That is the clear issue. The Commission took evidence from former Clerks of the Parliament. They said that it would be a good idea to have concurrent terms of four years. They are right. At least they are impartial. They have in no way been infected by the politics of this place. Having sat here for years and having seen the difficulties of the plurality of elections, they have looked at what the Opposition's policy might mean. The honourable member for North Sydney did not mention the Opposition's policy which is eight-year terms for the Senate, which means a parliamentary pension as soon as one gets elected. What sort of a rort is that if senators are elected for eight years? Would they really be answerable from the point of view of the policy on which they were first elected. I tell honourable members this: the Opposition is dishonest. It had 34 speakers in this matter when it was last before the House of Representatives and only one member-not even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard)-mentioned eight-year terms. The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) said, `Of course it means eight years for the Senate.' The Opposition does not raise this point today. It now favours four-year terms. Everybody, including John Howard, came to us-this might help honourable members-and said, `I favour four-year terms but I want eight years for the Senate.' Who else wants eight years for the Senate? Mr Spender —I do. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member for North Sydney wants an eight-year term for the Senate. Let us put it on record that that is what he wants. But of course if there is a double dissolution under section 57 the Senate will come out straight away. He will agree with that. He does not say anything now. Of course, it has to, so what is the worry about that. I welcome the honourable member back into the fold. He has been out too long and is a bit rusty on the issues we have been debating. I make this point: in no way does the first proposal diminish the powers of the Senate or the senators. I make the point that 21 elections have been held since 1949. What does the honourable member think of that when he looks at the number of double dissolutions, and joint elections on the basis of double dissolutions, to avoid the Parliament being out of kilter? Mathematically, 21 elections since 1949 means that the House and the Senate are lucky to last two years each term. I have given the reason why, if this proposition is passed, two reasons for early dissolutions will be removed. We will never remove section 57. That is a risk the Government takes. So why do we not get to the issue? It was proportional representation in 1949 that gave the Senate the power because the Opposition could marry itself to the third force and in that sense could reject the Government's legislation, and it does so frequently. It can also reject Supply but it is not prepared to do that so frequently. The issue surely is this: The question of the Government not putting the question fairly has been thoroughly debated. I make the point that on 3 September this is one question that will be carried. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(5.03) —In opening the Opposition's contribution to this debate, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) exhorted the Government to be honest in its intentions and in its presentation of its arguments throughout this referendum campaign. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has 10 days to make amends for what has happened to date. In these four propositions we are really talking about a thinly veiled, a thinly masked attack on the Senate and its role in our bicameral Westminster system. The Attorney-General, in the opening of his defence in this debate, attempted to portray the Government as acting as some sort of innocent vehicle in the hands of the people who were expressing their views through the Constitutional Commission. Proposition one, which this referendum campaign is all about, has nothing to do with the frequency of elections. It did not come from the Commission. Even the evidence that the Attorney-General cited in support of four-year parliaments has been amended by those who gave that evidence when they subsequently learned that this proposal was all about an attack on the Senate. The Business Council of Australia now does not support proposition one. The Australian Small Business Association has never supported proposition one. The thankful thing about this campaign is that the Australian public is now also waking up to some of the true intentions behind some of these proposals. The balance of the Attorney-General's remarks is remarkable in that he did not attempt, or even purport to attempt, to defend our charge of the deceitful handling of this referendum campaign. It has been so deceitful that 3 September could well be called not only referenda day, but fraud Saturday, because that is what we are on about. This campaign has been fraudulent in a number of respects. Firstly, we are talking about not four changes to our Constitution but 33 changes. Has the Government come forward with an explanation of why there are, in fact, 33 detailed questions involving 20 new clauses, the repeal of nine further clauses and the amendment of yet a further four clauses? So, point No. 1 is that this entire campaign waged by the Government is fraudulent, even to the extent of the changes that will be made to our Constitution should any of these propositions be passed. Secondly, it is fraudulent in respect of the nature of the questions. If honourable members go through the booklet, as indeed Australians are starting to do now in the quiet of their lounge rooms, and read the questions to which they will be asked to say yes or no, they will find such seemingly innocuous propositions as: to alter the Constitution to provide for four-year maximum terms; to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections; to recognise local government; to extend the right to trial by jury, to extend freedom of religion, and to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by Government. The point about these innocuous questions is that the Government, for its own purposes, could well have asked the questions: Do you believe in motherhood? Do you believe in children? Do you believe in public holidays?' The thrust of these questions is that they are loaded and biased in favour of the Yes vote, designed to elicit the Yes vote, and that the secondary three questions are designed to mask the Government's real attempt to assault the powers of the Senate. Thirdly, the nature of this campaign, along with the fraud about the extent of the changes and the fraud with respect to the nature of the questions, has been essentially fraudulent as well from go almost to whoa. But I remind the Attorney-General that he has 10 days in which to conduct himself and the Government responsibly in their campaign. What has the Government attempted to do? Mr Lionel Bowen —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am not used to being charged with fraud. Three of the questions were actually framed by the Constitutional Commission. I do not want any withdrawal, but I would just like the honourable gentleman to know that. Mr SHACK —We are talking about a misrepresentation of the true nature of these referendum questions and part of that misrepresentation has to do with the way in which the Government has gone about its campaign to soften up the Australian people. Firstly, $6m was spent on the Constitutional Commission to soften up the electorate, as I said. Secondly, the announced changes came the day after the new Parliament House was opened by the Queen, in an attempt to get some of the good public feeling that was occasioned by that significant event. Thirdly, it is not by accident that the Government has also picked these changes to occur in the bicentennial year, again to get some of the good public spirited nature that is associated with this bicentennial celebration. The Government gagged parliamentary debate and in the old chamber down the hill we put the argument that if the Government was really serious about constitutional change the propositions would have lain on the table down there and we would have had adequate opportunity to debate them in the House of Representatives and Senate chambers. The referendum campaign is coming just after the Budget and there is an expectation on the Government's part that the Budget will occupy the headlines and that there will be little media interest as we build up to 3 September. There was the illegal advertising campaign put forward by this Government in an attempt to brainwash voters. There was no doubt in the judge's mind when bringing down the finding. He stated: I have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff- that was the shadow Attorney-General- has made out his case that the material to which he points in the two advertisements is in promotion of those aspects of the argument contained in the pamphlet in favour of the proposed laws to which he refers. That is a longwinded way of saying that the advertisements were illegal and the Government was funding those advertisements, funding the Yes case, when it was simply not entitled to do so under current legislation. The reality is that it is the Government's agenda that we find in these referenda proposals-not the people's agenda. They are Labor Party questions to achieve Labor Party ends. In terms of the campaign itself, the framing of the questions and the argument that has been put forward, the Government has not acted as a disinterested party but has done everything in its power to weight the outcome in favour of the Yes vote. One other remarkable feature about this campaign is: not only has the Government attempted to weight things in favour of the yes vote; but, in terms of answering the charges that we have been putting to it over the last couple of months, it has been running deaf from those charges and hoping that the innocuous nature of the questions will get the yes vote across the line. As the honourable member for North Sydney pointed out very clearly, questions Nos 2, 3 and 4, like motherhood, children and public holidays, are a smokescreen to veil this Government's attack on the Senate. Question No. 1 is not about fewer elections; it is about greater government and prime ministerial control over the Senate. As my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney has said, `You do not even have to take our word for it. You need only go back through the public record and find quotation after quotation from Labor Party spokesmen who have argued long and hard against even the existence of the Senate, let alone the proper discharge of its powers in our bicameral and Westminster system'. This referendum campaign is designed to give the Prime Minister power to sack the Senate at any time. When the Attorney-General charges that this argument is rooted in the 1970s, let me say to the Australian people that but for the Senate we would have had an Australia Card, and that is an issue of the 1980s. We say: no more power to Prime Minister Hawke, no more power to this Government, no more power to Canberra, and no to all four questions. Mr LAVARCH(Fisher)(5.13) —I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak on the first day of sitting in the new Parliament House. Even though I have been given that opportunity, I am rather disappointed at the standard of the debate on this matter of public importance. The last speaker, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), suggested that the last three questions were matters of motherhood, children and public holidays. I tell the House now that, if the Government put forward proposals in support of motherhood, children and public holidays, members of the Opposition would oppose them, not because they are necessarily against those things but because it is convenient for them to oppose them. That is what it is all about. It is about opposition for opposition's sake; it is not about opposition to the merits of the proposal. If honourable members listened as closely as I did to the contributions of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and the honourable member for Tangney, they will know that they heard no real appraisal of the proposals and what they propose to do. All they heard was the string of invectives about the Labor Party's hidden agenda, its great motives about destroying the Senate, of trying to fool people or being fraudulent. Not once did we hear a detailed argument against the actual proposals. There is a very simply reason why it has not happened: it is that there is no reasonable argument against each of the four proposals. It is interesting that the honourable member for North Sydney should lead for the Opposition in the debate because it was the honourable member for North Sydney who helped members of the Opposition to kick off their campaign in such a spectacular fashion when they made their decisions, particularly on the question of rights and individual freedoms, and it was the honourable member for North Sydney who, when he was the relevant shadow spokesman at the time of the last election, put to the Australian people the Liberal Party's policy, which was to entrench in the Constitution the very rights and freedoms, at least in regard to fair compensation and trial by jury, which it now opposes. The same honourable member, who no doubt argued in the shadow Cabinet in favour of a yes vote on that question, had to be muzzled by his leader. I think this is the first time he have heard from him since on the referendum debate. That shows the whole tenor of the Opposition's position on these questions. The Opposition throughout Australia is hopelessly divided on each of the questions. There is no clearer example of that than in my home State of Queensland where we have the ludicrous situation of the Federal Liberal Party proposing a no vote on question No. 2 and the Queensland branch of the Liberal Party proposing a yes vote. On 3 September, when voters go to the booths in Queensland, they will be offered how to vote cards from the Liberal Party with a little notation on the bottom saying, `Vote yes if you want to support your State parliamentary Liberal team, and no if you want to support your Federal parliamentary Liberal team'. Opposition members today have the gall to get up in this House and talk about honesty and fraud. If they had any honesty about their principles, the sorts of things they are supposed to stand for and on which they have gone to election campaigns, there would be no question of a yes vote on the one vote one value question. The main argument has been that these proposals are really some sort of hidden agenda aimed at destroying the Senate, but how would the powers of the Senate be destroyed by question No. 1? Did the honourable member for North Sydney oppose simultaneous elections when they were proposed in 1977 by his own party which was in government? Was he running around the countryside arguing against the proposal? I bet he was not. That again shows the hypocrisy of this whole stand. Is the Senate's power going to be reduced? Is its power to block Supply being removed? No. Is its power to block any piece of legislation being removed? No. What is happening? The term of members of the House of Representatives is being extended to four years. We have heard no great argument against that as such. But the real argument is whether the Senate's term should be four years. The honourable member for North Sydney today said that senators should have a term of eight years. That very proposition was rejected by a number of Liberal Party senators in 1983 when there was a debate about it in the Senate. Those very senators said that eight years is too long. It is ridiculous that we should have in this country a situation where anyone can be elected for a period of eight years. That is far too long. What is wrong with senators being accountable for their actions? What great threat to our democratic traditions is there if the Senate as a whole decides to reject government legislation, that it should be answerable for that decision? What is wrong with that? What great threat is being thrust upon the Australian people? There is no great threat. It is a simple case of the Australian people being able to judge the actions of both the lower House and the upper House at an election. The positive advantage of that question being successful, as far as the power of the Senate is concerned, is that by having a full Senate election at each election the rights of the minority parties would be very much enhanced. We know that the Senate acts as a watchdog, not because of the actions of the Liberal or National parties but because of the actions of the Australian Democrats, the minority party in the Senate. That safeguard-if it is there-is not enshrined anywhere in the Constitution. It is probably endorsed or supported by the Commonwealth Electoral Act under proportional representation provisions. We will not find that in the Constitution. It is a simple matter of getting good, decent and stable government. The honourable member for Tangney made great play of the fact that the Business Council of Australia has reversed its previous decision. He might be interested to know that Andrew Hay of the Australian Chamber of Commerce spoke in support of the Yes case on question one during the free time allocated last Thursday by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation for advertising the Yes campaign. He is a man who, I think most honourable members would agree, is no great friend of the Government or the Australian Labor Party. But at least he is honest enough-and that is particularly lacking in the Opposition these days-to say that a four-year term for both the House of Representatives and the Senate would be of great value to the Australian people and to our system of government. What about the other questions? We have not even heard about them. They are simply dismissed as some sort of smokescreen blurring the attention of the electors. I imagine that is very comforting to the 800 local government authorities we have in Australia! That is the way the Opposition views them. It says, `The question concerning them is some sort of smokescreen but we are not really concerned about that. Who cares about that? We will not even raise that'. What about those 800 local authorities, the aldermen and councillors throughout Australia who are working very hard for the better government of Australia? Those same councils, through their local government associations, have urged the Government to proceed with this recommendation. No-one was more pleased than I, coming from a local government background, when that recommendation of the Constitutional Commission was adopted by the Government. It is no wonder they are upset with the Opposition because at a series of local government conferences in all States Opposition spokesmen said, `We support constitutional recognition for you fellows. We will bring it in'. That was said at the local government conference in Toowoomba, Queensland, two years ago. It was attended by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), who made that very statement. Similar statements have been made at a number of local government conferences. We even had the ridiculous spectacle of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) writing a letter to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in relation to representation from a council in his own electorate saying, `I fully support this idea of constitutional recognition'. Of course we all know, as history shows, that those proposals were rejected in the full party room after being adopted by the shadow Cabinet. Yet we are regaled on the question of honesty and principle and of destroying the power of the Senate. If there were any honesty or principle in the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia they would be supporting these proposals. They would not be treating the Australian people as some sort of illiterate group which cannot determine between the questions, and therefore painting a broad no, even though they support the last two questions, because people might not be able to tell the difference. These proposals should be supported by the Australian people. The Opposition certainly has not made out its case today. All it has proven is that it has to hold on to empty rhetoric to try to grab at these hidden agenda type motives, because there is no argument whatsoever on the merits of any of the four proposals. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired. 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, 25 August 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 Thursday, 25 August 1988. The report read as follows- Pursuant to sessional order 28D, the Selection Committee has approved the items of private Members' business listed below to be accorded priority on Thursday, 25 August 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 Industry, Science and Technology. Report on investment in the Australian manufacturing industry. [The Selection Committee has determined that statements on the report may be made-all statements to be made within a total time of 25 minutes.] Private Members' business Order of precedence Item Time allotted *1 MR TICKNER: To move-That this House supports the principle of one vote one value for elections to State and federal Parliaments of the Commonwealth of Australia. (Notice given 23 March 1988). 30 mins *2 MR COBB: To move-That the first referendum question regarding 4-year parliamentary term does not guarantee 4 years between elections and will weaken the independence of the Senate. (Notice given 22 August 1988). 30 mins *3 MR P. S. FISHER: To move-That this House- (1) recognises the impact of the EEC and the US farm subsidies upon the viability of the efficient Australian wheat industry; 30 mins (2) acknowledges the contribution made to Australia's export earnings by primary industry; and (3) accepts an urgency to address the alarming increase in rural poverty. (Notice given 26 April 1988). *4 MR SCHOLES: To move-That this House- (1) expresses its disappointment at the selection of recipients of the Companion of the Order of Australia on Australia Day 1988; 30 mins (2) is of the opinion that the bulk of awards are issued to machinery positions, that is, to persons because they hold the positions rather than because they earned the award; and (3) notes that on the day of the 200th anniversary of white settlement, the Council has demeaned the Order and failed to give appropriate consideration to the main purpose of the Order of Australia to recognise achievements by Australians as distinct from the position, patronage basis of the imperial honours. (Notice given 16 March 1988). *5 MR MOORE: To move-That this House rejects the ongoing use of taxpayers' funds for public enterprises which would be more appropriately funded by the private sector. (Notice given 15 September 1987.) any remaining private members' time. * The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(5.24) —I move: Excise Tariff Proposals No. 4 (1988) and Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 5 to 8 (1988). The tariff proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and the Customs Tariff Act 1987. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 4 (1988) and Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 5 to 8 (1988) formally place before Parliament, as required by law, tariff alterations made by notices published in the Gazette during the recent recess. Excise Tariff proposals No. 4 (1988), operative on and from 1 July 1988, decreases the excise duty on kerosene for use in aircraft from $0.16634 per litre to free. This change was announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 25 May 1988. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 5 (1988), also operative on and from 1 July 1988, provides for corresponding alterations to rates of customs duty. It also removes these goods from the consumer price index provision of the Customs Tariff Act 1987. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 6 (1988), operative on and from 1 January 1988, contains a drafting alteration to the wording of sub-item 5v of Schedule 5 to the principal Act to ensure correct duty treatment of deerskin leather of New Zealand origin. Prior to the introduction of the harmonised tariff, all goods of deerskin leather from New Zealand were eligible for duty-free entry. This proposed alteration restores the Government's intended treatment of these goods. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 7 (1988), operative on and from 7 July 1988, contains a tariff change for glass fibre insect screening. On 1 January 1988 new tariff rates were announced for the glass and glassware industry following government consideration of an Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) report. It was the intention that the general tariff on glass fibre insect screening and on the glass yarn from which the insect screening is made both be phased down from 30 per cent to 15 per cent over a three-year period. Under the new harmonised tariff, glass fibre insect screening fell within subheading 7019.20.90 so that, instead of phasing down from 30 per cent, the tariff on this product phases down from 20 per cent. The tariff rate on glass fibre insect screening would therefore be below the tariff rate on the glass yarn from which the screening is made during the first two years of the three-year phasing period. The proposed alteration rectifies this situation. Honourable members would be amazed at how many electors have not picked this up. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 8 (1988), operative on and from 1 January 1988, proposes a reduction in the duty rate applicable to walnuts. This will be particularly gratifying to members of the National Party of Australia-or indeed, it might be horrifying to them. The reduction from 2 per cent to free reinstates a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) binding. Subsequent to introduction of the harmonised tariff it was found that the 2 per cent revenue duty in fact breached our obligations under GATT. Summaries of alterations contained in these proposals have been prepared and are being circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Sharp) adjourned. Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.28) —There is no doubt that on Budget night most of us are concerned about how the sums come out and the implications for the wider community of the rising general debt that flows from our adverse balance of payments. That lies behind the concern which most members of the National and Liberal parties have expressed publicly over a long period of time. We have been concerned that the Government has not recognised the role of the commodity exporters or mineral exporters. The Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), who has just presented the customs and excise tariff proposals to the House, has sought to promote high tech industries, and his colleague the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has promoted manufacturing industry. However, there seems to have been an almost total neglect by the Government of the great rural industries and the mining industries whose present contribution to our balance of payments has ensured that over the last 12 months we have been significantly better off than anyone had predicted. As a result, between $3.5 billion and $4 billion was added to our balance of payments and has contributed to the financial condition, about which we shall hear the eulogies of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) tonight. Honourable members on this side of the House appreciate the importance of encouraging manufactured exports, service exports and all those industries that are involved in a complex range of activities which might be able to promote Australia's position in correcting our adverse balance of payments. That includes all the high tech industries as well as industries such as tourism and so on. Having done that, we believe one also needs to look at development opportunities in traditional exports. The first thing the Government should understand as the House considers the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill is that exports involve a very wide variety. It is important to look at the breadth of opportunity and to understand that in the traditional export areas by additional processing one can develop job opportunities. In the overall creation of new products in those traditional areas one finds not only new industries springing up but the creation of new export opportunities. We want to see government encouragement of export effort right across the spectrum. There are a number of serious deficiencies in the export market development grant component. The Government, in its rhetoric, has ignored altogether those few areas where the export market development grants scheme has been extraordinarily effective. Indeed, now that it has been effective the Government is decrying that fact and saying, `We have to scrap that Bill; we want to change it, modify it and remove the incentive'. As an assistant to the late John McEwen, who as Minister for Trade and Industry introduced the first of these export market development grant schemes, it is a matter of particular concern to me that the Government has forgotten that the most important part about this kind of proposal is that once it has been introduced continuity must be maintained. The present scheme is scheduled to continue until 30 June 1990. As part of the changes in this Bill which flow from the May mini-Budget, the Government has decided that in order to save a few bob for the Government it will interrupt this five-year period and provide for reductions which in some industries will be very prejudicial to continued export effort. No doubt the Government will say that some of the changes have significantly addressed what it would call abuse in the whole area of export market development grant payments. But it does not deny the consequences that will flow now that it is interrupting the whole pattern of export stimulus by changing the rules in the middle of the game. The rules in regard to this Bill have been changed for the sake of those who are the most successful in exports. It seems paradoxical that at a time when Australia has major international funding problems the Government has decided to change the ground rules. What makes the position even worse is that both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the former Minister for Trade, the present Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), made some strong statements about this deal during the last election campaign. Ministers have now gone quite against what the Prime Minister said. His credibility is pretty poor in any case; one can no longer believe anything the Prime Minister says. A promise during an election campaign to provide some sort of export market development grant would be similar to his promise not to introduce a capital gains tax. Such promises are hardly worth a row of beans. The problem is that the Prime Minister has no credibility and his word cannot be believed. I shall say a little more about that in a moment. It is also true that the then Minister for Trade made some equally strong statements. He even wrote to exporters to tell them how important the scheme was and how he wanted to look after people into the future. However, he pulled the rug out from under their feet, and that is exactly what is happening tonight. People need to understand that increasingly this Government is governed by kneejerk reactions. Decisions are being taken not by the responsible Minister, but by the Government's finance committee. The finance committee believes that, despite undertakings that have been given, it has to save money somehow. This policy has been employed aggressively against the States and it is the States which significantly have been paying the price for cuts in government sector spending. It has not been reflected in individual areas of Federal Government expenditure. It concerns me that the export market development grants scheme, which has been worthwhile, has helped to generate new exports, provide diversification, generate employment and so on is being changed in a regressive way. It is worth examining the circumstances of Australia's overseas debt, the current account deficit, and considering why a scheme is needed to start with. In face of the appreciation of the Australian dollar, I know the Government will claim that our gross foreign debt has fallen. We saw the whole farce of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) paying back $700m to Japan when some debts fell due and he decided to repay that part of the loan. Of course, it just happened to coincide with a monthly and yearly current account deficit which demonstrated that, in spite of that payment, the debt across Australia generally had been increased by a $11.5 billion current account deficit over the 12-month period. We need to understand first that our gross foreign debt was about $115 billion at 30 June 1988, that it was up $10 billion during the 1987-88 year-in spite of the repayments which the Treasurer claims to have made-and that it was up $101 billion since June 1980. The important thing that people need to know is that the debt has in fact trebled under the custody and the responsibility of Treasurer Keating. So the whole of the circumstances of this Government's economic management, about which we are going to hear so much tonight, is that the country has been going backwards. It has been going backwards in a way which requires redress; it has been going backwards in an area which the export market development grants scheme was implemented to try to redress. Instead of allowing the scheme to continue to do its job, the Government is pulling the rug from under it. The overseas debt represents about $7,000 owed by every man, woman and child in Australia. When we went out of government, it was only a bit over $1,000. The interest payable on our overseas debt is about $9,200m. That represents about 22 1/2 per cent of 1987-88 exports at f.o.b. values. It is a very significant sum. Of course, the interest payment is now about the third highest outgoing in our Federal Budget. I think its growing size poses a foreboding for current and future generations of Australians. That should be the major concern of the Government. The Government is producing a Budget. It knows the situation is bad; it knows that something needs to be done here. It is doing nothing in industrial relations; it is doing nothing in cutting Federal Government spending. The Government has a few programs which might help to offset the current account deficit, but what is it doing? It is cutting it in midstream. The general situation of our current account deficit is that it is averaging about $1 billion in the red each month. That means we are going back by $1,000m every month because we are buying more than we are exporting. That is in spite of the increase in commodity values and mineral values. The cost of that increase is about the value of 10,000 homes per month; that is, homes valued at about $100,000 each, or $115,000 in a full year. It represents over 35 per cent of 1987-88 exports. The position in 1988-89 could be exacerbated if the dollar appreciates further and we find that imports continue to flood in and our exports become less competitive. As far as our exports are concerned, they represented $40.8 billion for 1987-88. That figure was up 14 per cent or $5 billion over the figure for 1986-87 but, as I said, the major increase was in earnings from wool exports. They went up by $1.730m. Gold export earnings went up by $1.097m; non-ferrous metals, $911m; metal ores, $375m; and petroleum, $321m. Average export prices increased by 9.5 per cent cent, but the real increase was only about 4 1/2 per cent. What we need to understand, then, is that export growth and export performance has not in any way related to anything the Government has done. The only thing the Government has done is in the area of export market development grants. And what is it doing? It is introducing a Bill to change its course in midstream. We all accept that the Government has to cut expenditure, but to cut expenditure in an area in which there was an opportunity to provide some stimulus to get rid of the current account deficit seems to us to be moving entirely in the wrong direction. What this Bill seeks to do is to modify several significant aspects of the present EMDG scheme. The principal Act provides grants up to a maximum of $200,000 per company as an incentive to export. The amount of grant payable is derived from allowable expenditures in the previous financial year. After an initial two-year period applicants face an increasingly stringent export performance test. Companies with export earnings greater than $20m will not be eligible. As I said, the EMDG scheme expires on 30 June 1990. The sad part is that if the Government had been prepared to wait until then many of the benefits of the scheme could have flowed through. Instead of that, the Government is introducing the changes mid-scheme. It is estimated that the cost of the savings to exporters would amount to something like $52m in the 1989-90 financial year and $59m in the 1990-91 financial year. The legislation will not lead to any financial saving in this financial year. What the Government is doing is putting the heat on those companies which might be able to export to give us diversification and jobs, to encourage our high tech industries and manufacturing industry. Instead of that, the Government is changing the ground rules in a way that is quite contrary to the original undertakings given, as I say, by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden). I will mention those undertakings in a minute. Of course, the real problem is that not only is the reduction now something to worry about but also the Government is unnecessarily creating a climate of uncertainty in the export community at a time when the dollar is appreciating, when we are not competitive, and when our interest rate regime-thanks to the Treasurer's economic policy-is far higher than that of our competitors and looks like rising further. So we have real problems. We need to understand that when the ceiling amount of $100,000 was introduced it was equivalent to $370,000 in current money values. The Government has not taken account of inflation. It has not understood that the nature of the changes it has proposed now is putting all those in the export industry in a very difficult position. We are concerned that in tightening eligibility provisions, which this Bill will do, the Government has failed to make the scheme suitably flexible in meeting exporters' requirements. We believe that the Government could have constructively addressed a number of areas. It could have made provision for the exporter to carry forward expenditure for one of the first four years of claims to enable those companies which have difficulty in generating exports to match expenditure with income. It could have phased out grant entitlements rather than setting an arbitrary cut-off point. There is no phasing in at all. It is just `Bingo, you are out'. Above all else, if changes are to be made to the scheme, such changes should be implemented after consultation with the industry-with proper notice given to exporters. Representatives of the Australian Manufacturers Export Council (AMEC) have come to see me, as they have come to see several other members around the Parliament. There is no doubt that AMEC has had no consultations with the Government. It has been arbitrarily advised that these changes are to be made and the result is to put it in a very difficult position. AMEC does not plan on a week by week basis; it plans forward. It plans with the expectation that the Prime Minister actually meant what he said. Honourable members might say, `More fool it'. More fool it, all right! It will now be caught having committed itself to expenditure when no funding is to be available. Let us look at what the Government did say. I turn to a press statement of the then Minister for Trade, the present Minister for Employment, Education and Training, on 22 June 1987 headed, `Media Release: Minister for Trade, the Hon. J. S. Dawkins, M.P.'. It stated: Dawkins reassures industry on Hawke Government support for export drive. Reassurance is right! That is what we are talking about now. It is no reassurance: the Government has pulled the rug from under the industry. The Minister said: `I have written to all recipients of EMDGS- that is, the export market development grants scheme- assuring them that the Hawke Government regards the scheme as an integral part of Australia's export effort . . . `I have also assured them that we will not undermine that effort by chipping away at the spearhead of Australia's export drive, Austrade. . . . `I find it particularly difficult to comprehend when so much of our export potential lies with small to medium sized companies for whom the EMDGS is an integral part of their overseas marketing effort. The point of it all is that the whole of that statement and the understanding that exporters had prior to the election was that the scheme would continue. As far as the Australian Labor Party was concerned, anybody who invested on the basis of expecting those funds to continue would be okay. In fact, the Minister not only made that statement, as I indicated, but also wrote to individual exporters. I have here one such letter, dated 25 June 1987, which states: Dear Exporter, your company is one of many which have helped put Australia back on the road to recovery. The Minister talks about lifting our export game and all the things that the Government has done. He said in particular: The export market development grants scheme has helped your company and many others . . . You have no doubt also been able to use the services of . . . Austrade . . . I think you will agree that both the EMDG scheme and Austrade give valuable help to this country's exporters. He goes on to criticise what we were going to do, without mentioning that I, as Leader of the National Party and National Party shadow Minister, had given an undertaking prior to the last election to maintain the scheme. The Minister goes on to say: Scrapping government help for exporters is folly. It is with that in mind that the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, gave me his personal assurance that a returned Hawke Government would continue the EMDG scheme and sustain the efforts of Austrade. This letter is dated 25 June 1987. The Government's word lasted for just a little more than 12 months. The letter states: It is with that in mind that the Prime Minister- this is poor old Bob's word getting cast around- gave me his personal assurance that a returned Hawke Government would continue the EMDG scheme and sustain the efforts of Austrade. What is the Government doing? That is what this Bill is all about. It is pulling the rug from under the exporters' feet. Of course, we had the rhetoric of the great man himself, and I will quote an extract of a speech given by the Prime Minister to the Australian Financial Review luncheon in Brisbane on 16 June 1987: I can only whole-heartedly endorse the recent statement of Daryl George, Chief Executive of the Confederation of Australian Industry: Stability and certainty in the formation and implementation of industry policies are crucial. Industry assistance policies must therefore be allowed to run their course. This Bill expires in the middle of next year. Run their course? The Government is pulling the rug from under them through the May mini-Budget statement and the Bill going through the House tonight. The Prime Minister went on to quote Mr George: Export assistance programs are particularly valuable to small and medium sized businesses attempting to enter foreign markets. The Prime Minister said: What Australia desperately needs now is more exports. How right he is. Why the devil could he not have allowed stability to continue? Why did he have to undermine this scheme half way through its life? The reality is that the Bill does affect small exporters. I have a letter here from a small exporter which was written because of its concern about the Bill. The letter states in part: We are classified as a `small business', employing here in Australia some 12 people. Together with our 12 employees, we also encourage the services of contract manufacturers. One particular contract manufacturer dedicates 25 per cent of his manufacturing capacity to our products. Because we are a small business, we are limited by capital constraints. Under the earlier Export Market Development Grant Scheme, and Expansion Grant Scheme, our company entered the export market and, as a result of reimbursements from the Government, we reinvested that money into the export markets. However, I think you would agree that a company which has three Shareholders and operating in this market situation, has limited capacity to expand the world market scene as a whole. The letter goes on to talk about the company's qualifications and its dependence on the export market development grants scheme. It says how important it is that the scheme should be reliable, that it should know what the scheme can do, and that it is dependent on the scheme to augment its limited capital base. The letter continues: I did not mind if some form of performance testing were employed. I would have thought that a reasonable test would be to allow a company to be subsidised for a period of say three or four years in any one market, that is to say, if we had been making claim for the Japanese market for say four years, then any rights for the claim of expenses to enter that market would have ceased. It is in the early stages that it needs help. It goes on: Rewards of the American market are high, but the costs of entering that market are also high. As a small manufacturing business, we find we now cannot really attack the American market because the finances will have to be found from within our own resources. . . . With these changes in policy, it will now be more expedient and economical for us to manufacture in New Zealand, United Kingdom and Japan, and from these regional areas, supply individual countries. This would, of course, result in loss of jobs and export earnings, a situation which I feel sure nobody would like to see occur. The reality, and it is very sad, is that this Bill is designed to send jobs offshore. It is not a Bill to help Australia or to help Australian exporters. It is a Bill designed to interrupt in mid-course a scheme of assistance which certainly had some warts and some problems and abuses in it. But it was a scheme which provided assistance to small manufacturers and to some highly sophisticated areas of production which provided diversification in Australia and helped correct Australia's balance of payments figures. My worry is that the Government has provided instability. It has withdrawn the assistance that the industry needs. Sadly, the result of all this is that, as I just indicated when quoting from that small manufacturer, the individual manufacturers are taking their business offshore. Is that what the Government wants? That is what this guy is doing. As he said, it is more economic for his company to manufacture in New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Japan. I think that is an appalling result. If there are particular problems and abuses that need to be corrected the Government could have corrected them without taking away so much incentive from these small manufacturers. We have to understand that we are not living in isolation. We are living in a very competitive world. We are in a region where many other countries can do as we can do. If Australian investors find it more competitive to produce elsewhere they will do so. The EMDG scheme presents a good opportunity to provide stimulus to an area where all of us accept that more stimulus is necessary to get the sort of growth we need. It is worth remembering that, as far as export incentive schemes are concerned, the Liberal and National parties have an outstanding record. We introduced the legislation and we are prepared to change or modify it. Of course we understand that the higher the cost the more successful the companies are. The scheme has been in place for more than 20 years. When we were in government we tried to make sure that we gave stimulus to new exports, and above all we gave them continuity. This Government says that it is doing one thing, but as soon as people begin to rely on it it pulls the rug from under them. Of course there are problems in getting the right sort of scheme. We all understand that. There have been some delays in payments. We know that the more successful companies are the more difficult it is for them to achieve what they want because it costs more and governments find that it becomes more expensive. But the whole purpose of this type of legislation is to stimulate exports. If we want people to be successful we have to be prepared to accept the cost at a government level. In 1986-87 the scheme provided export market development assistance for a total of $5.1 billion of Australian exports, a substantial increase over the $4.5m of the previous year. The number of claimants rose from 3,400 to over 3,500. The average claim rose from 36,000 to nearly 40,000. The exports achieved for each dollar in grant rose from $38 in 1985-86 to $41 in 1986-87. Those are figures of success. We should not cut out something because it is successful. The whole problem of this Government is that it does not understand where the difficulties lie. It gets something that is going to work and it pulls the rug out. That is the whole problem. We need to encourage diversity. We need to encourage Australian production. We need to encourage Australian processing of our resources. The Government is saying, `We have a good scheme, so let us destroy it'. This is apparently because in some areas there are some abuses. If the abuses are there, there is reason to change. But that is not the only reason that this is being done. It is being finance driven to save $52m. That is a lot of money, but the Government should have registered that that might be the cost if the scheme were successful. In 1986-87 exports of manufactures and services grew by 26 per cent over the previous year. While that figure sounds pretty good it should be remembered that the cost of exporting also increased and it is not all net benefit to the exporter. As far as the EMDG scheme is concerned, it is also worth remembering that Mr Bill Ferris, the Chairman of Austrade, said that he regretted that the Government had found it necessary to alter the eligibility criteria for the export market development grants scheme. He understood the wider policies; he had little choice. The point is that even the Chairman of Austrade regretted it. Mr Ferris pointed out that the scheme had an inbuilt escalator because the more successful it was in encouraging new and additional export activity the more funds needed to be allocated to companies seeking assistance with their export marketing. In other words, the scheme itself is created around trying to encourage people to perform. If people perform we cannot then say, `Gee, it is costing a lot of money because people are performing'. The whole character of the assurance given by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade was to encourage people to do what they have done. To come in now and say, `You have done it, therefore we are going to stop providing it any more' has no logic about it at all. We need to remember that small exporters make up about 80 per cent of Australia's export traders. Of course, we have the big exporters and they are very important. Some of those big exporters will be affected by the new limits that are being imposed. We need to remember that if we do not provide stimulus to the small traders they will not be able to continue in the marketplace. It worries us greatly that the Government has broken the Prime Minister's word and the undertakings given to exporters and created a climate where, sadly, exporters will not be able to continue to produce in Australia. Instead, they will be forced offshore. Mr Tim Fischer —Economically irresponsible. Mr SINCLAIR —As my colleague says, it is economically irresponsible. It is very sad. As somebody who comes from the country regions of New South Wales, I know that there are a lot of small businesses dependent on trying to get a bit of funding going to get into exports. There are some great small exporters in my electorate of New England. They do a tremendous job but they need help. They certainly do not want government to pull the rug out from under their feet halfway through a scheme. Accordingly, 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 is of the opinion that: (1) the Government has misled exporters; and (2) the amendments in this Bill constitute fundamental changes to the Export Market Development Grants Scheme and as such are a breach of the undertakings given by the Prime Minister and the then Minister for Trade during the 1987 election campaign that the scheme would be allowed to run its full course'. The Bill sure saves money but it saves money at the expense of Australian export performance. Whatever the Treasurer might say about the Budget tonight, what is important is making ourselves competitive. We have to offset our adverse balance of payments difficulties. We will not offset those if we are not prepared to provide help. The Government should not say that it will provide help for a term of a few years and then halfway through it say, `Oh, I am terribly sorry. It has cost too much'. That is exactly what the Government has done. If it wanted to change the scheme it should have stopped it at the end of its term. If there were abuses, the Government could have altered the areas in which there were abuses, and those areas alone. Instead, it is changing the ground rules in a way which will prejudice export performance. We on this side of the House very much regret that the Government has not had more understanding of the problems, that it has not consulted with exporters and that it is not prepared to provide the real stimulus in this area of great importance to Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Downer —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Debate (on motion by Mr Cleeland) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 5.57 to 7.30 p.m. Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. (Budget Speech) Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(7.32) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam Speaker, tonight I can report to the people of Australia that the nation is successfully emerging from its most severe economic crisis in a generation. Just a short time ago we faced grave economic difficulties. Adverse world developments hacked into our export earnings; our national income shrank; our foreign debt surged. The conventional response would have seen economic growth slashed and the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Australians destroyed. This is what happened in the past. But it did not happen this time. Instead Australia has continued to grow and we are now well on the way back to prosperity. This is because the Government moved quickly to institute a unique set of policy arrangements which have created the right conditions for recovery. Australians have responded with effort and enterprise, and just as importantly with good sense and understanding. As a result we are now systematically restructuring the economy, making Australia a much more dynamic place, more able to compete in the world. The evidence is there for all to see. This year our balance of payments deficit will be halved from its peak of just three years ago. Our foreign debt burden has already stabilised and begun to fall. Inflation is down. Real wage increases are in prospect. Our rate of job growth is unmatched in the Western world. Business investment is rising rapidly. On the export front, new manufacturing activities and tourism have blossomed. On the import side, Australian factories are now supplying a wide range of goods that we used to buy from overseas. Unquestionably, a dramatically better state of affairs now exists than when I warned in 1986 of the threat of Australia degenerating to the status of a banana republic. The Australian people can be proud that they have responded to economic adversity in a manner which the critics claimed was impossible. But a challenge remains. And that is to prove that we can turn the opportunities of better times into solid foundations for long lasting prosperity. International developments have been much kinder to us recently. Commodity prices have picked up. And the world economy has moved ahead strongly since the October stock market slide. But if we are to avoid the mistakes of the past we must abandon forever the myopic view that the world owes us a living and will go on bankrolling us whatever we do. Hard experience should have taught us that such illusions will not sustain us; that we need a better way to secure the future. Right now, that better way is to pay off the debt forced upon us by the bad times. The national debt is not some kind of accounting abstraction. It is something which touches every Australian, and above all, our children. Our policies are not only lifting the yoke of debt from our necks, they will also lower the burden on the next generation. Madam Speaker, last year the Government paid back $3,700 million of Commonwealth debt. This year we will pay back even more. We will be able to do so because tonight I am announcing a Budget surplus of historic proportions-a surplus made possible because this Government has been the first in the post war years with the courage to make real inroads into public spending. In ten budgetary statements stretching back to 1983 we have painstakingly sifted through Commonwealth outlays, attacking the waste, setting priorities and making quality changes with long term beneficial effects. The rewards of all this painstaking work are evident tonight. THE BUDGET OUTCOME Less than 12 months ago, in delivering the 1987 Budget, I forecast a balanced Budget outcome. In the event, our sound fiscal management delivered a much better result-a surplus of $2 billion, the very first in the 35 years for which comparable records have been kept. However spectacular that achievement, tonight I announce a Budget surplus approaching three times that size. Madam Speaker, we have budgeted in 1988-89 for a surplus of $5.5 billion. This is a massive turnaround from the prospective deficit of $9.6 billion we inherited from Mr Howard back in 1983. The surplus will be delivered with the total government revenue share actually falling. But the real measure of the worth of this surplus is that it exceeds the combined borrowings of all State and local government authorities and all public sector enterprises. It means that in 1988-89 the net public sector borrowing requirement will be zero. The whole government sector of Australia will borrow no new money whatsoever. This achievement is without precedent in our history. In just five years government borrowing has been reduced from almost 7 per cent of GDP to nothing-equivalent to more than $20 billion per year in today's dollars. This huge transformation in Australia's budgetary position is helping our balance of payments in three crucial ways. First, it frees up Australian savings to finance the business investment we need to maintain the momentum of our export effort. Second, it cuts public sector demand across the board, thereby moderating overall demand and reducing import pressures. And third, by enabling repayments, it reduces our overseas debt and our interest bill. These influences will help bring Australia's balance of payments deficit in 1988-89 to its lowest level as a proportion of GDP for nine years. They will also contribute to the further falls necessary in future years to ensure that we overcome our debt burden. ANTI-INFLATION STRATEGY Madam Speaker, while the balance of payments deficit is Australia's number one economic problem, inflation remains Australia's number one economic disease. It has infected our economic system for two decades. Its eradication is one of the Government's fundamental objectives. We have conquered the big inflationary surge stemming from the dollar's depreciation and for the first time in twenty years we have inflation locked well into single digits. We now have the opportunity to drive it lower. We will push home this opportunity through this Budget and the Government's unique wage setting arrangements. Our anti-inflation strategy will be accelerated by two key elements. First, a reduction in indirect taxes costing over $400 million in 1988-89, to maintain the downward impetus on the Consumer Price Index. And second, a wage/tax trade-off negotiated with the ACTU early next year. Tax cuts will then be paid from 1 July 1989. These arrangements will underpin the wage decision recently handed down from the Arbitration Commission and open the way for both higher real incomes and lower real labour costs. As the Government has stated previously, the size of the tax cuts to be provided will be dependent on wages growth during 1988-89 and the quality of the wage/tax trade-off to be negotiated. Success in these areas will secure for Australia an inflation rate of three to four per cent in 1990. This will put us back with the rest of the world, an achievement which has eluded us for a generation. OUTLAYS Madam Speaker, I now turn to the outlays side of the Budget. In doing so I emphasise that the unprecedented rigour we have brought to government spending will allow the tax cuts I have just foreshadowed to be paid without jeopardising the integrity of the Commonwealth's budgetary position. This means that our tax cut arithmetic will add up. It will not rely on fudged numbers, like the Opposition's blatant 1987 election bribe. Nor will it leave a black hole in the next Budget. That Budget will fund substantial tax cuts, and still provide a further surplus. I can give this commitment with confidence because we have made room for genuine tax cuts by making genuine spending cuts. Budget outlays this year will represent 25 1/2 per cent of the economy, compared with more than 30 per cent four years ago. A vast change. Decisions already announced will further slice that ratio to around 24 1/2 per cent next year, a rate not seen for 15 years. As a result, in dollar terms outlays will be over $20,000 million lower each year than they would have been if the 1984-85 spending share had remained unchanged. No major OECD country has reduced the size of its government sector on such a vast scale. This massive structural wind down renders irrelevant calls for further savage cuts in public spending. Such parroted calls in future should be seen for what they are; mindless shrieks by ideologues against the legitimate spending functions of governments. But notwithstanding its dramatic reduction in outlays, this Government has kept faith with the traditional social justice commitments of the Australian Labor Party. We have turned a smaller public sector into a better public sector. By better setting priorities, the groups deserving of greatest financial support are receiving it. At the same time the integrity of Government assistance has been restored by excluding the well-off and eliminating abuse. This action is central to the maintenance of public support for the social security system, which assists the weak, the poor, the elderly and the unemployed. Making the system perform properly and restoring public support for it is a very Labor thing to do. Tonight Madam Speaker, I announce further instalments in Labor's social agenda. Again, they are about fairness and support for the genuinely disadvantaged in our community. They include a lift in payments under Labor's landmark family income support scheme, the Family Allowance Supplement, which already benefits more than one million children from low income families. From December maximum payments under the package will be raised by about 10 per cent-by $2 to $24 per week for children aged 12 or under, and by $3 to $31 per week for children aged between 13 and 15. These increases will cost $69 million in 1988-89 and $133 million in the year after. There will also be a progressive restructuring of rent assistance payments, rising to a maximum of $30 a week for larger families by June 1990. This means that by the end of this financial year families with an income of up to $16,900 in the previous year, renting privately and with three children, one aged under 13 and two under 16, will receive an addition to their income of $106 per week free of tax. Two completely new programs will be introduced to help specially disadvantaged people re-enter the workforce. The `NEW START Program' will provide the adult long term unemployed with 25,000 places for re-skilling and training. A special feature will be a $100 employment re-entry payment to help these people meet the one-off costs associated with beginning a job. A counterpart program to assist sole parents will be known as `JET'-the jobs, education and training package. It will provide enhanced counselling services and additional child care places for participants and when fully operational will involve 12,000 employment and training places. Also, the study allowance paid to sole parent beneficiaries will be doubled to $30 a week. Madam Speaker, the same philosophy of self-help guides our Aboriginal assistance programs. In our bicentennial year, we have particular cause to reflect on the position of the original inhabitants of this continent, and to strengthen our resolve to assist this most disadvantaged group. Initiatives in this Budget will increase expenditure on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander assistance programs by $57 million in 1988-89 and by $96 million in 1989-90. A major target of this increased funding will be the Aboriginal Employment Development Policy, which helps Aboriginals into economic independence. There will also be an accelerated program to provide essential basic facilities to poor Aboriginal communities and improvements to health programs. Madam Speaker, from the outset this Government has placed the highest priority on education and training. If our nation is to compete effectively in the international marketplace we must have an even more skilled workforce. Sadly, in the past, we let ourselves down on that score. However, since 1983 there has been a dramatic turnaround in the number of our young people staying on at school and in the number going on to higher education. It is essential that we maintain this momentum. At the same time the present system of funding university education is unfair. All taxpayers fund the education of a minority who, by virtue of their qualifications, enjoy a higher income throughout their working life. It is doubly unfair that most university students already come from relatively better-off backgrounds. We need to change the system in two ways. First, the nation needs more graduates. But at the same time we need to open up the system to talented students who are not so well-off. We have therefore decided to introduce from next year a higher education contribution scheme which will require students to pay back about one fifth of the cost of their courses. This will be payable only when the income of each individual student has risen to a level comparable to average earnings in the community. All the proceeds of this measure will be devoted to expanding the number of student places and providing increased study assistance for the not so well-off. Within three years, there will be 40,000 new student places, equal to the combined size of the existing Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide universities. The introduction of the new scheme will enable us to abolish the $263 administration charge. In addition, study allowances for students from disadvantaged backgrounds will be increased and a liberalised income test applied to all study allowances. From the 1989 academic year the amount of money students can earn without losing any of their study allowance will be increased from $40 a week to $60 a week. My colleague, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, will be providing details of these new arrangements in a statement tonight. Madam Speaker, the vastly improved budgetary position has enabled the Government to embark on three major programs to enhance health and community services. The first will expand by 30,000 the number of child care places over the next four years. Two-thirds of these places will be for care which extends outside school hours, particularly helping working parents. The second major initiative is an expanded program of hospital funding involving expenditure of $3,000 million in 1988-89, and an additional $1,100 million in the next five years over and above previous arrangements. This will be devoted to providing more public hospital beds, shortening hospital queues. The third is the new `National Program For Better Health', directed at illness prevention. Madam Speaker, the Government has also decided to introduce a new scheme of income supplementation for our most accomplished performing and visual artists to encourage them to devote their talent exclusively to their chosen work. The new scheme, known as Australian Creative Fellowships, will be administered by the Australia Council. It will provide fellowships to a small and important group of artists whose work is of world standard and who have chosen to progress their career in Australia for the enrichment of Australia. Madam Speaker, the multicultural diversity of this country is bound by the common overriding commitment to Australia which is expressed by Citizenship. A Year of Citizenship campaign will be funded from the Budget in 1988-89 to encourage more than one million permanent residents to take up citizenship. Further details will be announced shortly. REVENUE Madam Speaker, I announced earlier that the Government would implement indirect tax changes directed at maintaining the downward momentum in the Consumer Price Index. The most significant of these is a major reform of the taxation of beer, designed to favour the consumption of lower alcohol beverages. These changes will involve a cost to rev- enue of $400 million in 1988-89, with the greatest impact on lower alcohol beer. The price of a carton of lower alcohol beer should fall by about $5.50, and the price of a carton of full strength beer by about $2.20. Sales tax on women's cosmetics and perfumes is to be cut from 30 per cent to 20 per cent, standardising the rate with men's toiletries. Photographs will now be sales taxed at 20 per cent, down from 30 per cent, and significant changes will be made to the sales tax treatment of computer software, costing $30 million. These changes should reduce the Consumer Price Index by about half a percentage point. The Prices Surveillance Authority will be directed to undertake close surveillance of these price falls. STRUCTURAL REFORM Madam Speaker, I return now to the subject of structural reform. As I stressed in the May Economic Statement, it is imperative that economic reform be extended to the very heart of the economy. Already we have made outstanding progress. Far reaching tax reforms have restored fairness and incentive to the system. Our financial markets are among the most dynamic and competitive in the world. The tariff walls which used to shield our industries from overseas competition are being broken down. The Australian economy has become truly international. Nowhere is this more evident than in the rapid growth of Australian business abroad following the float of the dollar and the removal of exchange controls in 1983. In the short space of those five years we have built a constellation of dynamic companies which are rapidly building assets abroad. Australian investment overseas is now worth $34 billion-more than five times the value of 1983. This dramatic increase is acting as a growing counterweight to our debt burden, and in time will be matched by an equally dramatic rise in a return of dividends flowing to Australia. Our far reaching company tax reforms will even further underpin this historic trend. Over time it will give Australia a higher living standard and a greater capacity to offset our debt. It is a development unique to this new age of Australian internationalism. But the changes do not end there. Not all the bottlenecks holding back economic progress have been cleared. The Industries Assistance Commission has embarked on wide ranging inquiries into the impact of government charges on business and the efficiency of our service and tourist sectors. We have started to tackle the deeply entrenched inefficiencies in transport and communications, ports and coastal shipping, all so important in our country of vast distances. In the industrial relations area the recent National Wage decision has extended the wage system to foster productivity and efficiency, including through award restructuring. Madam Speaker, tonight the Government is to further advance this deregulatory reform agenda with two major changes to the banking system, sweeping away the last significant elements of unnecessary regulation in the financial arena. The first is to remove the outdated distinction between trading and savings banks. The second is to wind down the present requirement for banks to place a percentage of their funds with the Reserve Bank in an outdated monetary instrument called Statutory Reserve Deposits. In future, savings and trading banks will be covered by a uniform 1 per cent ratio on the broadest base of their liabilities. These two changes will serve to enhance the efficiency of our banks and remove distortions in the allocation of financial resources to particular sectors of the economy. They will also exert downward pressure on interest rates. ECONOMIC PROSPECTS Madam Speaker, I now turn to Australia's economic prospects in the financial year ahead. As I indicated at the outset, the fundamentals are promising. Overall, we expect economic growth in 1988-89 to be about the same as last financial year, 3 1/2 per cent. What is especially welcome is that much of the momentum of growth will be provided by a huge 12 per cent real increase in business investment. Job growth will be strong, and average unemployment will fall again. Barring adverse external developments, then CPI should be running at 4 1/2 per cent by the end of the financial year. But we must be on guard against excessive import pressures threatening the recovery in our balance of payments. Last year the strong boost to incomes from the lift in commodity prices led to imports rising more rapidly than we had expected. As a consequence monetary policy was tightened and fiscal policy was taken in another notch at the Premiers' Conference and in the May Economic Statement. For the future, while other instruments have taken a greater share of the weight, monetary policy must continue to play its vital balancing role in the overall strategy of restraint. However, the further large fall in Commonwealth Budget spending will exert a powerful influence to restrain overall demand. All in all, we will make further significant progress in cutting the balance of payments deficit. CONCLUSION Madam Speaker, may I conclude by saying that it is an honour to present this particular Budget on this occasion. A Budget with a record surplus, presented in the year which opens Australia's third century, in the building which will permanently house the Nation's Parliament. It is a Budget which will do much to secure our future. It is a Budget which consolidates the progress since 1983, and locks onto our targets, the balance of payments deficit and inflation. We will pursue these targets with vigour and determination. We will not let Australia slip back into mediocrity, either through lack of purpose or through weakness. We will keep to the task; but we will also keep faith with our perpetual objective of providing for the disadvantaged and for those in need. Madam Speaker, this Budget is the right Budget at this time, and provides Australia with a unique set of outcomes and priorities which could only be delivered by the heart, creativity and intellectual strength of the Australian Labor movement. I commend the Budget to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —I present the following papers for the information of honourable members in connection with the Budget for 1988-89: Budget Statements 1988-89 The Commonwealth Public Accounts 1988-89 Portfolio Program Estimates 1988-89 Commonwealth Financial Relations with other Levels of Government 1988-89 Government Securities on Issue at 30 June 1988 National Income and Expenditure 1987-88 Income Tax Statistics Ordered that the papers be printed. Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of certain proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Communications Support and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(8.00) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill seeks appropriations of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1988-89 totalling $6,173.9m. Of this amount, $2,022.5m was authorised by the Supply Act (No. 2) 1988-89: The balance of $4,151.4m will be authorised by this Bill. The Bill provides for proposed expenditure on the construction of public works and buildings, the acquisition of sites and buildings, certain advances and loans, items of plant and equipment which are clearly definable as capital expenditure and expenditure on new policy initiatives for which legislation has not been approved previously. Provision is also made for grants to the States under section 96 of the Constitution and for payments to the Northern Territory. An amount of $140,000,000 is included under the Advance to the Minister for Finance, the same as was provided in the Supply Act (No. 2) 1988-89 which this Bill, when enacted, will subsume. Details of the proposed expenditures are set out in schedule 4 to the Bill, the main features of which were outlined in the Budget Speech. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure in relation to the parliamentary departments announced. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Communications Support and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(8.03) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate moneys of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the recurrent and capital expenditures of the parliamentary departments for the year ending 30 June 1989. The total amount sought is $100.3m. Of this amount, $42.2m was authorised by the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1988-89, the balance of $58.1m being sought in this Bill. Provision is made for increases in advances, the major one being in the joint advance to the Speaker and President from $200,000 to $1,000,000 in view of the significant increase in operational expenditure associated with the new Parliament House. Details of the proposed expenditures are set out in schedule 2 to the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr Nehl —Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that many members of this House have not been provided with a copy of the Treasurer's speech. Can action be taken to remedy this omission? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Copies of the Budget Speech are being distributed in the chamber. There will, no doubt, be sufficient copies of the Budget Speech available for honourable members. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members I present Budget related paper No. 6-Women's Budget Statement 1988-89. Ordered that the paper be printed. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members I present Budget related paper No. 9-Labour Market Reform: Industrial Relations Agenda. Ordered that the paper be printed. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —For the information of the House I present a paper entitled A New Commitment to Higher Education in Australia. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —For the information of honourable members I present Budget related paper No. 10-Towards a Fairer Australia: Social Justice Budget Statement 1988-89. Ordered that the paper be printed. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services) —For the information of honourable members I present Budget related paper No. 5-Commonwealth Capital Works Program 1988-89. Ordered that the paper be printed. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Trade Negotiations) —For the information of honourable members I present Budget related paper No. 4-Australia's Overseas Aid Program 1988-89. Ordered that the paper be printed. Mr PUNCH(Barton-Minister for the Arts and Territories) —For the information of honourable members I present Budget related paper No. 7-Australian Capital Territory Budget Statement 1988-89. Ordered that the paper be printed. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Communications Support and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(8.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will amend the sale value provisions of the Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 1) so that where a manufacturer sells goods only by retail, after 8 o'clock tonight, the sale value for tax purposes will be based on the manufacturer's own costs and profit. At present, where a manufacturer sells goods only by retail the sale value is based on the price charged by another manufacturer selling identical goods by wholesale. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Has the Minister presented the explanatory memorandum? Mr PETER MORRIS —I have not been supplied with an explanatory memorandum. It is a very simple Bill, as detailed in the speech; but I will make inquiries and provide it at a later time this day. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Communications Support and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(8.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Earlier this evening the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced, as part of the 1988-89 Budget, a number of changes to the scope of the present wholesale sales tax system. This Bill, and one other I have introduced, will amend the sales tax law to give effect to those changes. The changes will, with one exception, come into effect after 8 o'clock tonight. The exception is the announcement concerning the imposition of sales tax on beer, which will come into effect after midnight tonight. Given the comments already made by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech and the details contained in Statement No. 4 of Budget Paper No. 1 and the explanatory memorandum being circulated to honourable members, I will do no more than outline briefly the changes proposed. First, as part of the announced reforms to the beer excise, currently exempt beer with an alcohol content of more than 1.15 per cent by volume is to be taxed at the rate of 20 per cent. Secondly, the Bill will correct as follows a number of anomalies and inconsistencies in the various schedules to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. All plastic envelopes, courier type bags and all goods used by retailers to wrap or secure goods for marketing or delivery, which are currently exempt from tax, will become taxable at the rate of 20 per cent. The tax payable on wrapping materials marketed for household use will increase from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. The following exempt goods will become taxable at the 10 per cent rate: All containers, spoons, serviettes and accessories used by retailers in marketing take-away foodstuffs; mixes marketed for use in the manufacture of thick shakes and ice cream; and muesli bars and other health food bars. The rate of tax on toiletries, perfumes and cosmetics, and on photographs and photographic materials, will be reduced from 30 per cent to 20 per cent. All aircraft except gliders are to be exempt from tax. Food for fish and crustaceans farmed for commercial purposes, which is currently taxable at the 20 per cent rate, is to be exempt from tax. Soy milk which is currently taxable at the 20 per cent rate is to be exempt if it does not contain flavouring, and taxable at the 10 per cent rate if flavoured. Finally, the Bill will confirm the scope of the law in relation to the taxation of flavoured milk drinks and bathroom fittings and sanitary ware. I present the explanatory memorandum and commend the Bill to the House. I also present the explanatory memorandum to the Sales Tax Assessment (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1988. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Communications Support and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(8.14) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to authorise payments in 1988-89 arising out of arrangements agreed to by the Commonwealth and the States at the 12 May 1988 Loan Council meeting for the payment of interest free capital grants to the States, including the Northern Territory; and funds which the States and Northern Territory may nominate as being for the purpose of public housing, which are provided as loans on the same concessional terms and conditions as set out in the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. The $621m payable to the States and the Northern Territory under this Bill in 1988-89 will be distributed in line with the shares applying to the State governments' Loan Council programs and general purpose capital assistance to the Northern Territory in 1987-88. No provision is made in this Bill for payments for the Australian Capital Territory. However, provisions in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) allow for analogous payments to be made to the Australian Capital Territory Trust Fund. The Commonwealth agreed at the Loan Council meeting that half of the $621m would be provided as capital grants, with the States being able to nominate the remainder as loans for public housing, which the Commonwealth will provide on concessional terms and conditions. Any part of the loan component which the States choose not to nominate will be provided as loans at market rates of interest. Concessional loans for public housing under these arrangements have been available to the States since 1982-83. These loans supplement the specific purpose grants for housing made under the Housing Assistance Act 1984, which implements the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Accordingly, the Bill provides that as a condition of the making of these loans a State must be able to meet its matching requirements for the purpose of the Housing Assistance Act. Subject to that, the loans are provided on the terms and conditions set out in the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, and hence will bear interest at the highly favourable rate of 4 1/2 per cent per annum and will be repayable over 53 years. Although the same level of assistance will be provided to the States and Northern Territory this year as in 1987-88, it is to be provided on a more concessional basis. As I have indicated, one-half, rather than the one- third which was the case last year, will be provided as grants. The increase in the grant component has brought about a corresponding decrease in the loan component for public housing. The Commonwealth indicated at the Loan Council meeting, however, that in so far as possible the States should apply the additional grants to expenditures on public housing. The Bill also provides for advance payments to be made in the first six months of 1989-90, up to a limit of half the total amount payable in 1988-89, of amounts expected to become payable under similar legislation in that year. This Bill forms an important part of the Commonwealth's overall financial assistance to the States and the funds available for expenditure on public housing. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Beazley, and read a first time. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(8.19) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides for an increase in the salary of the next Governor-General after he is sworn in in February 1989. Section 3 of the Constitution fixes the salary of the Governor-General for the term of office, therefore the salary fixed at the commencement of the Governor-General's appointment must be set at a level that will still be appropriate at the end of the term. The Income Tax Assessment Act provides that the official salary of the Governor-General shall be exempt from income tax. The Governor-General Act 1974 provided for a salary of $30,000. It was amended in 1977 to increase the salary to $37,000, and by the Fraser Government in 1983 to increase the salary quite considerably, to $70,000. It is now proposed that the Governor-General's salary be $95,000-a figure that will remain unchanged throughout the period of the next Governor-General's appointment. The principle that has governed the calculation of this amount is that used to determine the salaries of Governors-General in the past-that is, to keep the average salary over a notional five-year appointment somewhat ahead of the estimated average annual income, after tax, of the Chief Justice of Australia. This approach was not followed strictly when the salary was last calculated, with the result that the average exceeded the after tax income of the Chief Justice by some $15,000 per annum over the first five years of the term. The current calculation, however, would result in less than half that differential over the next five years, based on no more than 5 per cent annual consumer price index increases in the Chief Justice's salary. This calculation, it should be noted, ignores the fact that changes will take place in the rates of income tax during the period, and does not take account of the possibility that there will be additional increases in Federal judges' salaries arising from the Remuneration Tribunal reviews. I would only add that this Government adheres to the three important principles that should apply to consideration by the Parliament of the Governor-General's salary; as put forward by Prime Minister Whitlam in 1974 and endorsed by the Fraser Government. They were that the Governor-General's salary should be dealt with in a non party way; that the salary should recognise the importance and place of this high office; and that the appointment of a Governor-General should not depend on personal wealth or the availability of other income. The proposed salary is commensurate with the office, it is economically responsible, and it re-establishes the traditional relativity between the Chief Justice and the Governor-General. I commend the Bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(8.22) —I move: Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Proposals No. 1 (1988). Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Proposals No. 1 (1988) which I have just tabled introduce a customs tariff change relating to uranium exports foreshadowed in the Budget Papers tabled by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) earlier this evening. The proposals, which operate from 8 o'clock this evening by standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, increase the export duty on uranium concentrate produced from uranium ore obtained from the Alligator Rivers region in the Northern Territory. The duty which applies to anhydrous triuranium octoxide contained in the uranium concentrate is increased from $1.02 to $1.15 per kilogram. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(8.24) —I move: Excise Tariff Proposals No. 5 (1988) and Customs Tariff Proposals No. 9 (1988). Excise Tariff Proposals No. 5 (1988) and Customs Tariff Proposals No. 9 (1988) which I have just tabled introduce changes to excise on beer foreshadowed in the Budget Papers tabled by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) earlier this evening. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 5 (1988), which operate after midnight 23 August 1988, change the excise regime relating to beer which will move from the current basis of litres of beverage to one of alcohol content as currently applies to spirits. The excise will be converted to a rate per litre of alcohol and applied on the basis of the alcohol content of the beer, less 1.15 per cent, which is the upper limit of the ultra-light beers. As a result of this change and other changes announced by the Treasurer, the excise regime will be better targeted to discourage excessive alcohol consumption. Alternatively, it will recoup social costs from such consumption. It will ensure that the largest reductions in excise occur for those beers with relatively low alcohol content. The rate of excise to apply to beer under the proposals is $11.70 per litre of alcohol. Application of this rate to a typical light beer-alcohol content of 2.2 per cent-will see excise reduced from 77.688c to 12.285c per litre of beer. For a normal strength beer (alcohol content of 4.9 per cent) the reduction will be from 88.403c to 43.875c per litre of beer. These arrangements for excise are reflected in the changes proposed for imported beer under the Customs Tariff Act subject to the protective element of 2.7c per litre of beer being retained. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 9 (1988) make complementary changes to the Customs Tariff Act. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(8.26) —In the first full day of sittings of the House of Representatives in this new chamber, I think it is appropriate at this early stage to pay tribute to a group of Australians who in many ways helped to retain freedom and democracy in our country in a very sacrificial way. I refer, of course, to our veterans and our war widows and the contribution that they have made to this great nation. Sadly, there are so few of the veterans of the World War I conflict left. They made a monumental commitment to our nation, particularly at Gallipoli and elsewhere-one which I place on the Hansard record in this new and magnificent Parliament House. I refer also to World War II veterans. This year we have focused on the former prisoners of war from both World War I and World War II, culminating last week in the dedication of the rebuilt Changi chapel at Duntroon during a magnificent commemorative service led by Sir Edward `Weary' Dunlop. As we enjoy the fruits of their labours from those two great conflicts, I should also mention that during the winter recess I had the opportunity to inspect some Australian war graves in Burma. At times the situation was quite tense and certainly very different, but it was a privilege to see that Australian war graves around Rangoon were in magnificent condition-as, indeed, they should be-and well maintained, notwithstanding the enormous difficulties being faced by Burma at this time. I refer also to the contribution made by Korean veterans, Malay Emergency veterans and, of course, Vietnam veterans. In regard to Vietnam veterans, we have seen Long Tan Day develop into the official Vietnam veterans' memorial day. I think that is a most appropriate move by the Government, and one which I welcome. It will serve this nation well in the future in the commemoration of the Vietnam conflict. In regard to all of those veterans who have fought for their country and all of the war widows who have made their particular contribution, I express, as the representative for the Federal electorate of Farrer, and on behalf of members of both sides of the House, our sincere thanks for the role that they played in the retention, expansion and enhancement of our parliamentary democracy, manifested so magnificently by this new Parliament House. I guess that this Parliament and the magnificent facilities which are available will ultimately be judged only in the context of the performance of this Parliament for the people of Australia and in the performance of this Parliament for the retention of our democratic traditions and the further improvement of those democratic traditions. Finally, I hope that Madam Speaker will consider further the matter raised by the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), which also relates to a cause held dearly by so many veterans, namely, the retention of our great national flag. I strongly believe that it would be most appropriate to see our national flag properly displayed once again in the House of Representatives chamber and, indeed, in the Senate chamber. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(8.30) —During the recent recess I took part in a demonstration in the city of Melbourne, which is not a pastime in which I indulge very frequently. I feel that there may be further calls for demonstrations in the future on such issues. This particular demonstration was to protest against one of the current policies of the Government of Romania; one of those countries which, of course, the Australian Labor Party curries favour with, looks up to and admires as part of its progress towards dragging Australia into Third World status. The particular policy of the Romanian Government being protested against on this occasion was its policy of destroying some 8,000 villages in a part of Romania known as Transylvania. What the Government of Romania is proposing to do and, indeed, what it has started to do, is to destroy, to level to the ground, some 8,000 villages in Romania and forcibly remove the population of those villages into what are quaintly called agro-industrial centres, that is to say, government built, government owned and government controlled blocks of apartments. Of course, the people who will be forced against their will to live in those surroundings will be subject to the scrutiny of the state authorities. In the course of destroying these villages what the Government of Romania is proposing to do, indeed, as I emphasise, what it has started to do, is to destroy not only the villages themselves but also the houses, the churches and the ancient monuments in those villages, some of which have been standing and which have been part of Romanian culture and history for not hundreds but thousands of years. I believe that this is a cruel and inhuman policy of the Government of Romania and one which I hope every member of this House would protest against. It is a policy which I hope the Australian Government, if it can muster enough backbone to do it-which I doubt-will protest about to the Romanian authorities in order to try to have this stopped before it proceeds any further. Of course, this policy would be bad enough if it were a single, isolated instance of the destruction of villages in pursuit of this mad, crazy policy of the equally mad and crazy dictator of Romania, but it is not simply that. It is not simply an ad hoc exercise. It is part of a continued denigration of the Hungarian people who live, in particular, in the Transylvanian part of Romania. One of the saddest but, unfortunately, unpublicised series of abuses of human rights which has occurred in my lifetime and yours, Mr Deputy Speaker, is the abuse of human rights of the Hungarian people of Romania. They have had their religion stamped out; they have had their ancient cultures and the use of their own language stamped out and prohibited in a particularly cruel way. This has been a major abuse of human rights. It is a serious abuse of human rights which is quite impossible to defend in any way at all. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that the Government of Romania has been adopting a policy of genocide-cultural, and in every other respect of that word-directed at the Hungarian people whose misfortune it is to live presently in Romania. Of course, they were never asked whether they wanted to live in Romania. They do not have the process of a referendum as the people of Australia will have on 3 September. The people of Romania have been given no choice. It is about time that we in this House, particularly the Australian Government, stood up for minorities of this sort, recognised the abuses of human rights to which people are being subjected and protested as vociferously as possible against the inhuman policy which is now being put into practice. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 8.35 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 23 August 1988: Acts Interpretation Act-Statement relating to failure to furnish periodic report within specified period-Christmas Island Services Corpor- ation-Report for 1986-87. Aged or Disabled Persons Home Act-Certificate pursuant to paragraph 9 (1) (b), dated 25 May 1988. Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 129. Air Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 159, 160, 163. Air Navigation (Charges) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 162. Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 114. Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Act-Ordinance-1988-No. 1-Migratory Birds (Amendment). Audit Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 130. Australian Antarctic Territory Act-Ordinance-1988-No. 1-Migratory Birds (Amendment). Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 170. Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 145. Australian Horticultural Corporation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 187. Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 134. Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 116. Bounty (Ship Repair) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 174, 175. Bounty (Ships) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 148, 176. Christmas Island Act-Ordinance-1988-No. 1-Migratory Birds (Amendment). No. 2-Lands (Amendment). Civil Aviation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 158, 161. Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act-Ordinance-1988-No. 1-Migratory Birds (Amendment). Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 169 Commonwealth Electoral Act-Australian Electoral Commission-Certificate pursuant to subsection 49 (1), dated 30 June 1988. Commonwealth Electoral Act and Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 182. Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determination-1988-No. 3 Companies (Acquisition of Shares-Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 104. Companies (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 106. Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 122. Copyright Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 125. Coral Sea Islands Act-Ordinance-1988-No. 1-Migratory Birds (Amendment). Currency Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 137. Customs Act- Declaration pursuant to subsection 164 (5a), dated 27 July 1988. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 111, 136, 177, 178, 179, 195. Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 132. Defence Act- Determinations- No. 20-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 21-Charge for Rations and Quarters. No. 22-Charge for Excess Water. No. 23-Expense of Office Allowance. No. 24-Salary of Permanent Force Members and other allowances. No. 25-Travelling Allowance. No. 26-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 27-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 28-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. No. 29-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. No. 30-Overseas Living Allowances and other allowances. No. 31-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. No. 32-Overseas Living Allowances and other allowances. No. 33-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 34-Transfer Allowance and other allowances. No. 35-Medical and Hospital Expenses of a Member's Family Overseas and other allowances. No. 36-Higher Duties Allowance and other allowances. No. 37-Payment of Financial Entitlements Consequent Upon the Death of a Member or a Former Member. No. 38-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. Regulations-Statutory Rules-1988-No. 127. Departure Tax Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 157. Designs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 103. Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 146. Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Levy Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 173. Excise Act- Declaration pursuant to subsection 78a (5a), dated 27 July 1988. Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 135. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1988- No. 7-Export Control (Fees) as amended (Amendment). No. 8-Export Meat as amended (Amendment). No. 13-Export Control (Animals) as amended. Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 141. Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 140. Export Inspection (Service Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 142. Export Market Development Grants Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 168. Extradition (Foreign States) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 186. Family Law Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 164, 165. Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 166. Federal Court of Australia Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 144. Fisheries Act- Copy of agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Ulludulla Trawling Company Pty Ltd, dated 27 June 1988. Notices-Nos. 212, 213, 214. Fisheries Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 131, 133, 172. Futures Industry (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 105. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 185. Health Insurance Act- Approval pursuant to subsection 23db (1), dated 27 May 1988. Determinations pursuant to- Section 4a, dated 2 June 1988. Subsection- 23dc (2), dated 27 May 1988. 23df (2), dated 27 May 1988. 23dn (2), dated 27 July 1988. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 184. Heard Island and McDonald Islands Act-Ordinance-1988-No. 1-Migratory Birds (Amendment). Horticultural Export Charge Act and Horticultural Export Charge Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 190. Horticultural Levy Act and Horticultural Levy Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 188, 189. Horticultural Levy Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 191. Housing Loans Insurance Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 121. Income Tax Assessment Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 196. Interstate Road Transport Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 152. Interstate Roads Transport Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 153. Lands Acquisition Act- Land acquired for- Airport purposes-Parish of Toombul, Qld. Pipeline Authority purposes-NSW. Telecommunications Services-NSW. Statements (5) of lands acquired by agreement authorised under subsection 7 (1). Life Insurance Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 180. Live-stock Export Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 110. Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 118. Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 119. Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 109. Meat Export Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 143. Meat Inspection Act-Meat Inspection (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1988-No. 4-Meat Inspection (South Australia) (Amendment). Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 126. National Health Act-Determination under subsection 4 (1) for purposes paragraph (dd) of the definition of the ``basic private table'', dated 16 June 1988. Naval Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 128. Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 154, 155. Passports Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 147. Patents Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 100, 101. Postal Services Act-Australian Postal Commission-By-laws-1988-Postal-Amendments-Nos. 3, 4. Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall come into operation- Audit Act 1901-Amendments of section 34 made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1987-1 July 1988. Australian Film Commission Amendment Act 1988-1 July 1988. Cash Transactions Reports Act 1988-Provisions of Part 1 other than sections 1 and 2, section 24, and Parts IV, V, VI, and VII-1 July 1988. Civil Aviation Act 1988-Part III, section 98 and Part X and the amendments made by Part IX-1 July 1988. Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988- Parts I (other than sections 1 and 2 and subsection 4 (1)), II, III, IV, V and VI, section 98 and Parts VIII, IX, and X of, and the Schedule-1 December 1988. Subsection 4 (1) and Part VII (other than section 98)-1 July 1988. Defence Legislation Amendment Act 1987-Sections 4 to 8 (inclusive), 11 and 12, subsection 13 (2), sections 14 to 22 (inclusive), subsection 26 (2), sections 28, 30, 32, 59 and 60, subsection 61 (2), sections 63 to 68 (inclusive), subsection 69 (2) and section 70-1 July 1988. Employment, Education and Training Act 1988-1 July 1988. Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Act 1988-Sections 22 to 26 (inclusive), 28 and 31 to 45 (inclusive)-1 July 1988. Fisheries Amendment Act 1987-Provisions other than sections 1 and 2, paragraph 15 (a) and section 16-2 August 1988. Health Legislation Amendment Act 1986-Section 25-6 June 1988. Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987-1 July 1988. Parliamentary Precincts Act 1988-Provisions other than sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 11 and the amendment of the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979 made by the Parliamentary Precincts Act 1988-1 August 1988. Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements (Maintenance Income Test) Amendment Act 1988-17 June 1988. Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1988-Subsection 2 (7)-1 July 1988. Transport Legislation Amendment Act 1988-Subsections 3 (1) and (2) and sections 5, 6, 17 and 18-1 July 1988. Wine Research Repeal Act 1986-Section 5-1 July 1988. Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 194. Public Service Act- Determinations-1988-Nos. 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169. Parliamentary Presiding Officers' Determinations-1988-Nos. 1, 2. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 151. Public Works Committee Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 124. Quarantine Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 192, 193. Radiocommunications Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 120, 156, 181. Remuneration Tribunal Act-Determinations- 1988/6-Chairman, Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. 1988/7-Chairman, Australian Airlines Limited and holders of public offices on other bodies. 1988/8-Royal Commissioner, Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and holders of public offices on other bodies. Seamen's Compensation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 123. Seat of Government (Administration Act)- Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Credit Ordinance-Credit Notices- No. 11-Variation of Insurance. No. 15a-Trustee Licensing Exemption. No. 15f-GIO: IPMA. No. 15l-National Mutual Royal Savings Bank (NSW) Limited (American Express Lines of Credit). No. 15m-National Mutual Royal Savings Bank (NSW) Limited (Loan Contracts). No. 24-Petrol and Taxi Cards. No. 35-Farming Property Transactions. No. 36-Business Finance. No. 39-Standard Chartered Bank Australia Limited: Visa Card. No. 40-Mercantile Credits (Furniture One Card). No. 41-ANZ Sportsgirl Credit Card. No. 42-ANZ Continuing Credit Contract. No. 43-Trustee Exemption. No. 44-National Mutual Royal Savings Bank (Visa Cards). No. 45-AGC Adjustable Credit. No. 46-Citibank Savings Limited. No. 47-Natwest Australia Bank Limited: Visa Card. No. 48-Angus and Coote Dunklings Diamond Card. Determinations-Listing fees and/or charges for purposes of ACT Ordinances-1988- No. 12-Health Authority. No. 14-Gaming Machine. No. 15-Taxation (Administration). No. 16-Electricity and Water. No. 17-Water rates. No. 18-Electricity and water. Ordinances-1988- No. 24-Foreign Judgements (Reciprocal Enforcement) (Amendment). No. 25-Gaming Machine (Amendment). No. 26-Gaming Machine (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 27-Liquor (Amendment). No. 28-Community and Health Service (Amendment). No. 29-Community and Health Service (Consequential Provisions). No. 30-Electricity and Water. No. 31-Electricity and Water (Consequential Amendments). No. 32-Payroll Tax (Amendment). No. 33-Taxation (Administration) (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 34-Administration and Probate (Amendment). No. 35-Classifications of Publications (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 36-Interpretation (Amendment). No. 37-Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum Products) (Amendment). No. 38-Canberra Institute of the Arts (Amendment). No. 39-Parole (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 40-Co-operative Societies (Amendment). No. 41-Legal Aid (Amendment). No. 42-Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Amendment). No. 43-Canberra Theatre Trust (Amendment). Regulations-1988- No. 6 (Motor Traffic Ordinance). No. 7 (Building and Services Ordinance). No. 8 (Electricity and Water Ordinance). No. 9 (Electricity Ordinance). No. 10 (Community and Health Service Ordinance). No. 11 (Meat Ordinance). No. 12 (Public Health Ordinance). No. 13 (Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance). No. 14 (Magistrates Court (Civil Jurisdiction) Ordinance). Securities Industry (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 107. Sex Discrimination Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 183. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments to the Schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated- 17 June 1988 (2). 2 August 1988. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984-Directions-1988-Nos. 1, 2. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1987-Directions-1988-Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 113, 149, 171. Telecommunications Act- Australian Telecommunications Commission-By-laws-Telecommunications (General)-Amendment No. 51. Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 167. Territory Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 150. Trade Marks Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 102. Wine Grapes Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 117. Wool Marketing Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 115, 139. World Heritage Properties Conservation Act-Notice of consents pursuant to section 9, dated 4 July 1988. Veterans' Entitlements Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 138. Mr Campbell to ask Madam Speaker: (1) How many photocopiers are available to Members in the areas in which their suites are located. (2) Will she ensure that there is a more equitable distribution of photocopiers throughout the House of Representatives so that Members do not have a long distance to go to a photocopier. Mr Campbell to ask Madam Speaker: Will she take steps to ensure that the Australian flag which was present in the old Chamber is also installed in the new Chamber. The following notices were given: Mr Wright to move- That this House condemns the insidious, sinister activities of the League of Rights in this country which are aimed at undermining public respect for, and public confidence in, the democratic institution of Parliament and its elected representatives. Mr Langmore to move- That this House notes with profound regret the financial crisis in the UN due principally to the arrears of the USA, and also the threat to the effectiveness of the World Bank posed by the failure of the US to ratify the General Capital Increase, and calls on the US Administration and Congress to swiftly authorise in full payments due to both the UN and the World Bank. Mr Hand to present a Bill for an Act to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, and for related purposes.