Monday, 29 August 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a courtesy, I inform the House that the Treasurer, Mr Keating, will be absent from Question Time today on Government business. Questions which would normally be directed to Mr Keating should be directed to the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, Mr Peter Morris. Mr TUCKEY —I address my question to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that, as the Treasurer is claiming in business circles, the Treasurer is the driving force behind the Government and that the Prime Minister is just a figurehead? Mr HAWKE —All I can say is: some figurehead! I know where in Australian politics the reality of division and divisiveness lies; that is, amongst those in the Liberal Party and in the National Party. In their desperation they grasp at any meagre straw to divert public attention from their inadequacy and their internal bitterness. After 5 1/2 years of a government led by me, and with the enormous support of the Treasurer, we are able to point to a country which has been rescued from the devastation in which those on the other side of this House left it. I am very grateful that in the leadership of this outstandingly successful Government I have had the wholehearted support and cooperation of not only the Treasurer but a magnificent frontbench and a loyal and cooperative backbench. I speak with pride of the past and I speak with certainty of the future, and that is a future in which this Labor Government will continue to dominate this rabble of an Opposition and provide this country with the government which it deserves and which it needs. Mr LAVARCH —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General advise the House whether support for the proposal for fair and democratic elections in next Saturday's referendum will impinge upon the concept of States rights in any way? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —This relates-- Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I submit that under standing order 144 (a), where second occurring, in the way that question has been drafted it is clearly seeking an expression of opinion and as such should be ruled out of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I thought the honourable member for Fisher was asking for an explanation rather than an opinion. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable gentleman asked whether a question proposed for next Saturday, which is the second question dealing with fair and democratic elections, would affect State rights. The answer is that it would not affect State rights if the States were acting in accordance with fair and democratic processes. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr Dawkins —What are you worried about, Wilson? Mr Tuckey —We just think it is about time you ran the place properly. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will put his point of order to the Chair. Mr Tuckey —I was just responding to the interjection. Madam SPEAKER —There is no need to do so. Mr Tuckey —Further to the previous point of order, I draw your attention to standing order 144 (c), which of course forbids honourable members asking for a legal opinion. The Attorney-General is clearly being asked for a legal opinion on a matter that will be eventually resolved by the High Court of Australia. It is consequently out of order. Mr Beazley —Madam Speaker, I wish to speak to the point of order. The question clearly referred to an issue of State rights which is in the ambit of political debate. It was not seeking a legal opinion. Madam SPEAKER —I agree. The question is in order. I call the Attorney-General. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I state in answer to the honourable gentleman's question that this matter of fair boundaries was the subject of substantial evidence given to the Constitutional Commission. The Commission identified that, particularly in Queensland and Western Australia, there was a massive malapportionment of electorates brought about by the drawing of boundaries. If one looks at it from the point of view of Western Australia, one sees that the Commission has identified that in the lower House the apportionment is about 2 : 1 and that in the upper House it is about 3 : 1. An honourable gentleman who sits behind the Leader of the Opposition has suggested that the States might be able to adjust this matter themselves. The Government of Western Australia has been seeking an adjustment but the upper House, which is elected on rigged boundaries, refuses to agree. It is understandable why. It is because the boundaries are rigged. The Government of Western Australia, on that basis, has sought the assistance of the people of Australia to guarantee that people are elected to both Houses in Western Australia on a fair basis. In Queensland it is even worse. This situation has been recognised by no less an identity than Russ Hinze who, last week, said: I've carried the National Party unlike some of the seats in Queensland that are rigged to the extent that . . . all you have to do is to get the National Party tag and you can win it for ever and a day. In 1983 Russ Hinze-we give him credit for consistency-said: We have got the boundaries so beautifully rigged it doesn't matter. Is it any wonder that even the Liberal Party in Queensland, with one or two exceptions including one opposite, is prepared to suggest that there ought to be fair boundaries in Queensland? The only difficulty the Liberal Party has in Queensland is that it has now issued a how-to-vote ticket on the basis that one can vote yes or no to the second question. If one is a `fed' following the honourable member for Ryan, one votes no and if one is a State Liberal one votes yes. This is the fair and democratic process which honourable members opposite are so interested in. Let us look at some of the seats in Queensland. We have what is called the doughnut seat. In other words, the seat of Barron River has a hole taken out of it because the people in that area happen to vote Labor. That area is then placed in another electorate. The people in this big hole, because they vote Labor, have been moved into an electorate to the north. On that basis, it is deemed to be fair and equitable. The seat of Peak Downs, which is called a pendulum seat, stretches for miles right over to the coast on the basis that that is where the local member lives. Let us look at the real seriousness of the issue. The Queensland Parliament sat for 49 days last year. The Queensland Government was not very worried about Parliament, nor should it have been when one looks at the Fitzgerald inquiry. Bad boundaries, corrupt boundaries, lead to bad government. Is that not the issue that is being faced here? Even Mr Ahern is agreeing. He said that when this referendum is carried he will adjust the boundaries. All he has to do is adjust them now. He does not have to wait for the referendum. Everybody elected to the House of Representatives in this Parliament is elected on a fair vote-by fair and democratic elections. There is no problem talking about getting members from Queensland-even though we could do with some improvement when we look at some of them. The issue is that they are elected on a one vote one value basis. The same situation applies in Western Australia. Why can these matters not be adjusted? In Western Australia they cannot because of the hostility of an upper House elected on bad boundaries. In Queensland they cannot get any consideration because of bad government. It is important that we understand the nature of what we are about with this question. I congratulate at least the Liberal Party in Queensland which is urging a yes vote. It is about time. I see that I am getting a conciliatory wink from the honourable member for Ryan. At least that is half a vote. Perhaps if he shut both eyes we would get the lot. This is a fundamental matter from the point of view of democracy. It is what democracy is all about. If governments are elected on the basis that they need not worry about a majority, that all they have to do is rort the boundaries, have the west of a division weighted 3 : 1 and not worry about parliament because they have the numbers and can run the whole business of parliament-they will run all the business, whether it relates to law enforcement, corruption or anything else; they will be able to get their money on the side if they want to because that is the way the game has been played-that is the unfairness of the situation and Queensland people know that. That is why there are the problems in Queensland and that is why there is malapportionment in Western Australia-because of a lust for power; not for the sake of representing the people, which is the false attitude introduced. I will not lose the referendum. When I look at the letter which I was given regarding the local government question, I see that the Opposition has a good chance of losing its position. If the people want to look at the issue fairly-that is all it is-they will look at it in accordance with the same weighting of votes as applies in Federal elections for the House of Representatives. Mr Blunt —Tell us about the position in the Tasmanian upper House. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —On this basis we ought to deal with the interjection, `What about the Senate?' The National Party suggests that we ought to affect the representation of the Senate in Tasmania because it says that the current position is unfair. Members of the National Party forget that section 128 of the Constitution says that State boundaries cannot be altered without approval. Mr Blunt —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Attorney-General is responding to an interjection incorrectly. I was talking about the Tasmanian upper House. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not talking about the honourable member's interjection. I am talking about the National Party's blurb about how unfair it is-the honourable member is a member of the National Party-to suggest that Tasmania should have 12 senators. The honourable member should not try to worm his way out of it. The issue is that it is in his Party's own propaganda that it is unfair for Tasmania to have 12 senators. It is on that basis that we are trying to say, `If you look at the issue you will see that the question of interfering with States rights cannot be that way', because under section 128 the only people who can agree to alteration of representation or boundaries are those in the States. That would apply to Tasmania. We will have a chance to debate some of these matters later. I thank the honourable gentleman for the question. I am sure that on 3 September we will have a chance to correct the situation. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from the Republic of Korea. On behalf of the House I extend to the delegation a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Prime Minister. In light of the Prime Minister's public comment last week that the Treasurer is expendable to his Government, has the Treasurer told the Prime Minister, as he has told others in the Australian Labor Party and others around the Parliament, that he has been offered a private sector job worth half a million dollars a year? Has the Treasurer also told the Prime Minister that he is considering accepting that offer unless the Prime Minister sets a date for his retirement? Mr HAWKE —Like most things that emanate from the mouth of the Leader of the National Party of Australia, this is a falsehood. As the question of who makes the decisions was raised in the previous question and, in a sense, by implication added to in this question, I suggest to the Liberal and National parties that they ought to sort out who is running what on that side of the place, particularly in the light of the devastating comments made by the honourable member for Goldstein since we last met. This is what the honourable member had to say on the weekend: There's a very great concern that the National Party is in fact now determining many of the most sensitive policies of the Liberal Party or policies facing Australia, there's a very widespread concern within the Party. Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. We really ought to hear about the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. Have we heard about the honourable member for Kalgoorlie? Madam Speaker, I suggest to you that there is a question of relevance. While I am very interested in what the honourable member for Kalgoorlie and the honourable member for Goldstein say, I suggest that that has no bearing whatsoever on whether the Treasurer has been offered a job at $500,000 a year. Madam SPEAKER —Yes, the Prime Minister will answer the question. Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, of course I believe that what I have said is relevant and I have established all I wanted to about what the honourable member for Goldstein has said. The Treasurer has not said to me as Prime Minister that he has been offered any such job. Because he has not said to me that he has been offered such a job, it follows as a matter of logic that no amount of money has been mentioned. He has mentioned neither a job nor an amount of money. Mr FREE —I ask the Minister for Employment, Education and Training whether he is aware of suggestions that the expansion in higher education places announced in the Budget could have been undertaken without the establishment of the higher education contribution scheme. Are those suggestions true? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question. I did see a remark to the effect that perhaps the Government could have been able to fund the expansion of the higher education system without moving to the introduction of a contribution scheme. I want to make it perfectly clear for the honourable member and to those people who have suggested this that the Government's position is very clear: there will be no expansion of the higher education system of the magnitude which we have foreshadowed unless there is the simultaneous introduction of a contribution scheme. We say that because we think that there ought to be an essential fairness in the way in which the higher education system is run. In the first place, only about 10 per cent of taxpayers have been to a higher education institution; indeed, only about 20 per cent of school leavers attend a higher education institution. Therefore, we say that it is unfair to suggest that taxpayers as a group should pay the entire cost of the higher education system. We are about to embark on an historic commitment to the higher education system which will see an additional $840m being spent in the next three years, creating some 40,000 new places and providing much needed extra funds for capital, amounting to $214m over a three-year period. That is a major new commitment to the higher education system which will ensure a bigger and better system to help Australia. However, to suggest that taxpayers should pay the entire cost of that expansion would be, I think, to impose an unfair burden on the taxpayers. It is the case that Australia as a whole will benefit from this expenditure, so we will continue to underwrite and subsidise it to the extent of 80 per cent. But we believe that 20 per cent is a reasonable imposition on students after they graduate or have finished at the institutions. I want to say that there have been some suggestions that we should have introduced an income tax surcharge. If it had been introduced, the level of funding required to raise the equivalent amount of money would have been in the order of a 7.4 per cent increase in the marginal rate for incomes over $40,000, 10 per cent for those over $45,000 and 12.4 per cent for those over $50,000. That would mean that there would be a small number of people, including of course some graduates, who would not only pay a contribution for the cost of the courses but also pay substantially more tax for ever. Of course, a lot of the people who would be paying would never have been near a higher education institution at all. There have been suggestions that we ought to impose an industry levy. The Government is very interested in ensuring that industry makes a bigger contribution to education and training because it realises that in a changing economy, particularly in the context of the restructuring of awards-as my colleague the Minister for Industrial Relations has pointed out-we need a better training infrastructure, and we believe that industry ought to pay more of the cost of that. But that, of course, will involve an expansion, particularly at the subdegree and diploma level, to support industry training. Every dollar that is taken from industry to support the higher education system means a dollar less for that very important task of industry training. We did look at the alternatives that were put to us. I must say that they were not very well worked out; they were not very precise; but we did look at them. The Government concluded that any matter relating to the tax system was a matter which ought to be dealt with by the Treasurer in the context of his considerations over the next few months-perhaps 12 months-and the industry matter should be taken up in a different context. It is perhaps worth making the point that the scheme we propose is one which will require a payment of only $4 a week initially, and only after graduates reach the point where they are amongst the top 37 per cent of wage and salary earners in the country. I think it is a fair system. It is a system which will have wide support, but more importantly it will over time provide half the costs of the very great expansion that we wish to underwrite in the higher education system. Mr HOWARD —Does the Prime Minister agree that, as alleged by the Labor member for Kalgoorlie, he and others in the Government are using fascist tactics to blur the immigration debate? Is it a fact that, as the honourable member for Kalgoorlie said today, a substantial section of the Government's Caucus believes that multiculturalism is a disaster? Mr HAWKE —Let me make it clear that I have already repudiated the remarks made by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. I repeat on the floor of the House that I totally repudiate the remarks made by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie on immigration and multiculturalism. I repudiate them as being offensive, inaccurate and contrary to Government and Australian Labor Party policy. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to contrast the unequivocal repudiation that I make on behalf of the Government of those remarks by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie with his spinelessness in being unprepared to repudiate similar sorts of remarks that have been made by people on his side of the House. It is that spinelessness on the part of the Leader of the Opposition which has led the honourable member for Goldstein and others to comment as they have upon the inadequacy of the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition. It is not a fact that the remarks made by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie reflect the view of any substantial body of opinion on this side of the House. The Leader of the Opposition may seek pathetically to divert attention from his own inadequacies by the reference to the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. I repeat that I repudiate the remarks made by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. The tragedy is that the Leader of the Opposition will not do the same in regard to the Leader of the National Party or in regard to Senator Stone. He does not have the guts to do it. As the Leader of the Opposition introduces the question of repudiation or otherwise, it is extremely interesting that one should note what was reported in the South Australian Sunday Mail of yesterday. There not only does the Leader of the Opposition in South Australia repudiate the position of the Leader of the Opposition in this House but worse than that he accuses the Leader of the Opposition here of telling untruths on this issue. I refer honourable members to the front page of the Sunday Mail of 28 August: The SA Opposition Leader, Mr Olsen, also criticised Mr Howard, virtually accusing him of not telling the truth to the media about an exchange the two had at the conference's top table. ... ... ... Mr Olsen said regardless of the wording, the popular perception of the policy was that it was racist. At a media conference later, Mr Howard claimed Mr Olsen had told him those remarks had been misquoted. But Mr Olsen said he had not even discussed the Asian issue with Mr Howard. `I was not misquoted and I did not tell Mr Howard I was misquoted. `It is my view that Mr Howard's policy is widely perceived to be racist and I do not support it,' . . . Not only do we have the situation where the Leader of the Opposition has not got the courage to disown and repudiate his own people; we now have it on the public record that the Leader of his own Party in South Australia accuses him of telling lies on the issue. Mr LANGMORE —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade: What were the results of the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament held in New York in June? What recommendations were proposed for inclusion in a final communique? What were the roles of the superpowers in the failure of the conference to reach a consensus about a final communique? Are there any consequences from this failure to reach agreement? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for his question. The third United Nations Special Session on Disarmament failed to reach consensus on an agreed document. Nevertheless, discussions among the participants allowed greater understanding of and support for a number of issues, including the positive contribution to security of the Treaty of Rarotonga and the major contribution of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Agreement on a document could not be reached due to fundamental differences on issues of major importance to some of the participants, including such areas as nuclear testing; the arms race in outer space; responsibility to encourage nuclear non-proliferation by non-proliferation treaty members; naval disarmament; and the relationship between disarmament and development. Both the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) participated constructively, but the United States saw threats to its national security in some of the proposals placed before the session. The USSR adopted a generally low profile approach. Failure to reach consensus on an agreed document means that, firstly, the international community does not have an agreed up to date agenda for disarmament issues. Secondly, there is concern at the rapid increase in conventional forces by many countries and that was not properly registered. Thirdly, the major international disarmament forums, such as the Conference on Disarmament in the United Nations, will continue as before and Australia will continue to contribute constructively within those forums. Mr McGAURAN —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer to the release last weekend of the opinion prepared by Sir Maurice Byers dealing with a referendum question in relation to religious freedom. I ask the Attorney-General: Why has he refused the request under the Freedom of Information Act by the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders, for the release of seven legal opinions, including two prepared by the Solicitor-General, obtained by the Government in regard to the referendum issues? I further ask the Attorney-General: Does this selective approach in releasing legal opinions indicate that the seven withheld legal opinions contain views contrary to the Government's stand on the referendum questions? If not, will the Attorney-General reconsider his position and authorise the immediate release of those opinions? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is not the practice to release opinions or advice given within government departments. The real thrust of the question related to the opinion of Sir Maurice Byers, which I am very happy to talk about; in fact, I will table it if the honourable member wants me to do so. The issue there relates to the very matter that we are talking about. Sir Maurice Byers was the Commissioner in charge of the Constitutional Commission. The issue has been put before the people on the basis that an opinion was given to the Opposition. By the way, the shadow Attorney-General never seems to be present in the chamber these days-he was not here last week and he is not here today. He needs to do something because he is not getting much help in this chamber. We are talking about the opinion that has been given of section 116, and on that basis I make the point that Sir Maurice Byers has said: I have no doubt that the adoption of the proposal to amend section 116 would in no way imperil the grant by the Commonwealth of aid to the States for non-government schools or to government schools in which religious instruction is allowed and given. The Opposition is running on an opinion which says, `Look at the american authorities'. This is the other point that has been made by Sir Maurice Byers. Even a cursory reading of those authorities shows that, in this century at least, opinion has been much influenced by President Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in construing the First Amendment. In this letter there occurs reference to the amendment as, in Jefferson's view, building `a wall of separation between the state and religion'. Sir Maurice Byers says this: We have no such history nor do our legal principles admit of interpretation by presidential correspondence. That is the basis of the opinion on which the Opposition is now relying. Finally, I make this point: when the Constitutional Commission came to consider its recommendations on section 116, Sir Maurice Byers said he had not forgotten the challenge mounted in the state aid case and neither had his colleagues. He said: None of us had any doubt that the proposal would not imperil State aid. His colleagues included two very distinguished professors of law, Professor Zines and Professor Campbell of the Australian National University and Monash University respectively. I make the point that the Opposition is running on a case that is founded on an opinion which in a nutshell says that the High Court is not bound by its own previous decisions. We have the issue in the High Court-the state aid case-that the `establishment of a religion' means there is to be no establishment of an official religion in Australia. That is very clear. We also know that, in the decision in the South Australian case in 1984 called the Grace Bible Church case, Mr Justice White said that there was no common law freedom of religion and that a State government could do away with freedom of religion or, alternatively, establish a State religion. On that logical basis the Constitutional Commission asked, `What sort of freedom is this? If we have only the freedom against a Commonwealth action or a Commonwealth law, we have no protection against State law'. We have this concept even now in New South Wales in which it has been claimed that people might not be able to say their grace before meals. The State could legislate to ensure that they would not be able to say grace before their meals. It has the power to do so at present. The honourable member for Gippsland asks questions about opinions. I suggest that he get opinions that will stand up to examination of the judgment given by justices of the High Court in the state aid case. That clearly says that there is a Commonwealth prohibition which does not guarantee the freedom of religion, nor does it prevent the establishment of a religion. That is the gap that we want to close. It applies in the same way to the other two matters in that question. Mrs HARVEY —Is the Minister for Social Security aware of Opposition claims that Budget changes to the treatment of pensioner investment income will be retrospective? Mr HOWE —I am aware of the scare campaign being whipped up by the Opposition relating to pensioner investment income. I wish to make it very clear that first of all-- Mr Connolly —You have scared them singlehandedly. Mr HOWE —Well, first of all there is a question of equity, in which I would have thought the honourable member would have some interest, in terms of the treatment of all investment income earned by pensioners in the same way. Perhaps it is because equity has not featured in Opposition policies that there is so little interest in that question of equity, despite the fact that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been advocating very substantial cuts in expenditure-presumably including social expenditure. The claim that these changes are retrospective is quite false. The changes come into effect from December this year. I remind the Opposition that that is something like three months away. How can the changes be retrospective if they do not come into effect for three months? Mr Connolly —Because they are backdated for three years. Mr HOWE —There will be no backdating. No pensioner will have his or her pension payment affected in any way. There is no element of retrospectivity. Let us take the case of a pensioner who has had one of these market linked investments for the past three years. The pensioner may well have been earning substantial returns for the past three years but he or she would still have been receiving the full pension. It is only from December that the income earned from these investments will be taken into account. The pension that he or she has been paid for the past three years will in no way be affected. Mr Connolly —The previous years. Mr HOWE —I would just put it to the Opposition that its policy-and it has argued this year in and year out, Budget after Budget-argues that we need to make substantial cuts in government expenditure. I say to the Opposition-- Mr Connolly —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Minister is not answering the question put to him by his own colleague. This is based on the previous three years' deemed income. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is out of order. The Minister will continue. Mr HOWE —I just say to the Opposition that again and again we have seen in this Parliament that in general terms it is prepared to argue that there ought to be substantial cuts. But as soon as we put a proposition which, whatever else it is, is an entirely equitable one, we find the Opposition bleating and inventing figures. A figure that has been thrown around suggests a saving of $130m a year as a result of these changes. I draw the honourable member's attention to page 147 of Statement No. 2, where the estimate for the savings in 1988-89 from this measure is $1.2m over an expenditure on age pensions of $7 1/2 billion. Mr Connolly —But your estimates are always wrong. All your tax estimates for the last five years have been wrong. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bradfield will cease interjecting. Mr HOWE —The reality is that this Opposition has no concern about equity. It has no ability to make firm judgments that will ensure that expenditure is targeted in any way. While honourable members opposite argue for income testing and targeting, they are not interested in a proposition which is fair but in which they can see some short term political advantage. It is that very opportunism of the Opposition upon which the Prime Minister remarked the other day in relation to the question of race. It is not that the Leader of the Opposition holds racist views; it is that he is essentially opportunistic-and so it is in relation to this matter. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who has again and again targeted social security expenditure for deep cuts, confronted with an equitable measure, runs away because he sees an opportunistic political advantage. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I direct my question to the Attorney-General. It relates to the $5m 1988-89 household expenditure survey now under way. Is the Attorney-General aware that the independent legal opinions which say that the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), and hence the Government, has failed to comply with the law in this matter, came from the office of the Clerk of the Senate, a barrister, a Queen's Counsel, the Professor of Law at the Australian National University and now the barrister who successfully defended an Adelaide Advertiser journalist against the ABS in a case decided by the court last Friday? Is the Attorney-General aware that his Department's now released and understandably guarded opinion was based on a now released ABS submission that so misrepresents the vital facts that it makes the submission a document of desperate and disgraceful expediency? Is the Attorney-General prepared to stand by the Government's view that all is fair, square and above board, or will he at the very least order an immediate review by an outside legal expert of all the legal opinions so that the matter of compliance and what presently constitutes a misappropriation of $5m can be settled and rectified in accordance with the law of the land? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable gentleman has raised this matter and, I think, sent me a copy of an opinion which I then asked my Department to look at from the point of view of what was the real issue here. I am told that the relevant Act has the following wording-I refer to subsection 6 (3): Subject to sub-section (4), each new proposal for the collection of information . . . shall be laid before both Houses . . . In a nutshell, the argument is: Is this a new proposal? I am advised that this is not a new proposal, that it is just a continuance of the earlier surveys. Mr Donald Cameron —It is not. This is compulsory. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton has asked his question. Mr Donald Cameron —I am talking to him. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I regret to tell the honourable member that he does not have the call. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The point is that the relevant provisions do not require the laying before Parliament of every proposal; they require only the laying before Parliament of every new proposal. Mr Donald Cameron —This is different. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member for Moreton seems to be married to his cause. He does not understand the law. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton will not proceed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member is becoming a bit excited. The point is that the information is sought in respect of a household survey, and that has been sought in previous years. Such surveys go well back. What is being said is that this is merely a continuation of the system of seeking information about household expenditure in order that that can be related to statistical information which is of some interest in respect of the consumer price index. I have had the issue examined, as the honourable gentleman wanted me to do, and I am advised that there is no reason to change the advice already given that this is not a new proposal. Dr CHARLESWORTH —My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services and Health. Notwithstanding the Opposition's continuing criticism of and misrepresentation about Medicare, is there any evidence to suggest that the level of public support for the health insurance system has risen to an all-time high? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for his question. I note that he is a person who has used his medical knowledge as a very ardent and active defender of Medicare. I do not need to remind the members of this House of the general social and economic benefits brought to this country by Medicare. However, I want to report on the results of a national tracking study, commissioned by the Health Insurance Commission and carried out in May 1988. That study shows that Medicare is not only a social and economic success but also that it is a most popular social reform. Medicare now has an all-time high approval rating of 67 per cent. Indeed, it has become an accepted part of life in this country. Over the past four years support for Medicare has risen from 52 per cent in April 1984 to 67 per cent now, while opposition to Medicare has dropped from 39 per cent to 29 per cent. The survey shows that the main perceived advantages of Medicare are that it provides basic cover for all and that, of course, it helps the financially less well off. Certain concerns are noted and, in the belief that we should have rational discussion about these issues, I point out that the survey did suggest that there were some public concerns about possible abuse and overservicing by doctors. There were perceptions about public hospital problems and, indeed, a belief that Medicare should cover even more services. There is a general satisfaction with Medicare refunds although, rightly I think, the satisfaction is greater for general practitioners' charges than for specialists' charges. Interestingly, the level of community support for bulk billing has increased from 64 per cent in 1984 to 70 per cent in May 1988. Finally, the level of community support for the Medicare claiming service is now 93 per cent. If any private organisation had a level of service satisfaction of that order, it would certainly be a matter of very great pride, as it is for us. The survey shows that some 54 per cent of people would like to see some aspects of Medicare changed. But that is not in relation to the basic principles; because it has worked so well, they want to see more procedures and services covered by Medicare. They would also like to see some of the operational aspects further improved. Of course, all of these advantages of Medicare would be wiped away if the equity and the access provided by Medicare were removed by a scheme such as that which has been dribbled out by the Opposition. This would give us a United States-type system, which would either bankrupt the country or bankrupt the individual. Mr Tuckey —The only equity you gave was to a waiting list. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. Dr BLEWETT —The honourable member for O'Connor can yap away. What he should concentrate on is trying to fix the rubbery figures of his latest scheme. We, as a government, will continue to improve what has been Australia's most humane, effective and popular scheme, and indeed with the ambition of taking those levels of support even higher. As the question came from the honourable member for Perth, I think I can say on this occasion on behalf of the whole House that we wish him and his team mates well and hope that, in the words of the Treasurer, they bring home the bacon from Seoul. Mr CONNOLLY —I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. In view of the growing concern, especially among pensioners, which has not in any way been assuaged by the quality of the Minister's last answer about the Government's latest changes to the rules covering access to pensions, and following the Minister's recent concession that at least 33,000 pensioners will have their weekly pension cut by his decision to change retrospectively the assessment of investment income, which for the benefit of the Minister does not take into account even the effects of inflation on dividends, would he advise the House how many pensioners will also lose their fringe benefit cards which entitle them to a range of discounts, for example, free pharmaceuticals, and which are estimated to be worth to most pensioners who get them between $20 and $50 a week? Mr HOWE —That really is extraordinary, coming from this Opposition. We have heard this Opposition preach year in and year out for expenditure restraint. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I raise the question of relevance. We are talking about 33,000 pensioners-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —who are going to lose their pensioner health benefit cards-- Madam SPEAKER —Sit down. Mr Tuckey —and the Minister will not answer. Madam SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr HOWE —I cannot imagine anything less relevant to the people of Australia than the economic policies of the Opposition, because whenever they are tested it does not deliver. Whenever there is a hard decision to be made, the Opposition does not know where it stands on the question of-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Could the Minister cease for one moment. With the acoustics as they are, I am not sure whether the honourable member for O'Connor heard me warn him. Mr Tuckey —No, I did not. Mr HOWE —Let me make it perfectly clear that, rather than decisions in this Budget having come out of thin air or people not having received warning, we indicated very clearly in the May statement this year that we intended to tighten the rules in this area. We have further indicated in the Budget that we intend to legislate to achieve that tightening. We have further indicated that we will consult with people in the investment community in terms of the precise design of those rules. No-one who looks fairly at what the Government has suggested would suggest that more than 2 per cent of Australian pensioners will be affected by this measure. I repeat: the savings in the first year are of the order of $1.5m, hardly a measure, or set of measures, likely to have some massive impact. We are talking about the numbers of people who would be affected over three years. Rather than people being assessed retrospectively, they will be assessed as they come up for review over the next three years, so there is not likely to be some massive impact on age pensioners. Honourable members must recall that in the income spectrum we are talking about the top one to 2 per cent of pensioners, those people who have significant assets and who are currently effectively avoiding, as has been acknowledged in almost every article that has been written on this subject, the current income test rules. I ask the honourable member: In terms of the-- Mr Connolly —You will be catching people with $15,000 in their accounts. They are not rich people. Madam SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Bradfield. Mr HOWE —Let us hear from the Opposition what it intends to do. The reality is that when this measure, which is part of the Budget, comes to legislation the Opposition will support it because effectively it is equitable and fair and, if it touches a proportion of age pensioners, it touches a proportion of age pensioners who are at the better off end of the spectrum. The test in terms of social security is access to current income. This measure makes a fair assessment of where people are at a particular point in time-not in the past but at a particular point in time over the next three years when people come up for assessment. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —A paper is tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the paper will be recorded in Hansard and the Votes and Proceedings. The schedule read as follows- Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia)-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-sub-section 53 (3) of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission Act 1946. Madam SPEAKER —I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —During Question Time today, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) drew attention to a story in the Adelaide Sunday Mail yesterday referring to a conversation between the South Australian Opposition Leader, Mr Olsen, and me. I had intended in any event to make a personal explanation about this matter. The situation is that Mr Olsen and I did have a discussion, as he agreed yesterday when I spoke to him on the phone, when I arrived at the Liberal Party conference in South Australia. The conversation was about aspects of the current debate on immigration and multiculturalism. He told me that certain aspects of the reporting in that day's Adelaide Advertiser of remarks he made the night before were not entirely accurate and that I should bear that in mind in any subsequent press conference. I was later asked a question about his reported remarks. I indicated in general terms that he had informed me that he had been misquoted. Apparently there was then some further exchange between Mr Olsen and some journalists which led to the report in yesterday's Sunday Mail which Mr Olsen yesterday, and again by way of confirmation through his press office a few moments ago, confirmed involves remarks of his being taken totally out of context and words being put into his mouth. At no stage did Mr Olsen say or imply that I had misled the press or said anything untrue. Assent reported. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The threat to our federal system and in particular to smaller States by the ``simultaneous elections'' first proposition in Saturday's referendum. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.53) —The four referendum questions to be put before the electorate next Saturday are deceptive and deceitful. This afternoon I want to talk a little about the implications of the first proposition. In so doing, I think every one of us needs to understand that the background behind constitutional change has been established not just by way of referendum but also by the decisions taken by the High Court of Australia and by the degree to which this Government has sought to extend the decisions of the High Court by the extension of the external affairs power in particular. We have seen a number of instances where the powers of the Federal Government, as distinct from the State governments, have been taken way beyond those that were originally in the minds of our forebears when the original Constitution was laid down. When we look at the reason for the propositions coming to us next Saturday, we need to bear in mind first that these four proposals lie outside the area in which this Government believes it is possible for it to be able to get its powers extended by virtue of High Court decision alone or the application of the corporations power or the external affairs power. It also needs to be borne in mind that, as far as this Government is concerned, a number of its members for a long period have sought to reduce the powers of the Senate. They have sought to reduce the power of the States and instead put in place a system where the decisions taken within this House alone are supreme in the matters of the administration and affairs of the Commonwealth. It is worth commenting that, if we look back to the origins of the Commonwealth, we realise that the concept and the nature of the Senate-quite contrary to the views that have been asserted by men such as the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Gareth Evans, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-all of whom have consistently sought to downplay the role of the Senate-was to provide an opportunity for the smaller States of the Commonwealth to have an equal voice within the Federation. In the book The Coming Commonwealth, Garran spoke about the way in which the two chambers have been developed to provide, through the application of the American-type system as distinct from the United Kingdom-type system, a principle of State equality. That is essential if we look at the way the first question is put. The first proposal to be put to the Australian electorate on Saturday will, without any doubt, reduce the Senate's powers and hence the ability of the individual States to have an opportunity equal to each other. The question itself does not even accord with the recommendations of the fairly expensive Constitutional Commission. In Question Time there was some reference to Sir Maurice Byers, QC. Sir Maurice Byers is a senior member of the bar in Australia and was a principal participant in the Constitutional Commission. It is of interest that the first proposition, when it was framed by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), did not even follow the recommendations of the Commission. We need to remember that the first question does not specifically, as the Constitutional Commission recommended, provide for the continuation of a Senate with the same status as it has at the moment; that is, a Senate with fixed terms. Instead, what the Attorney-General and the Government have done is provide a far more complex proposal which puts in place, again, simultaneous elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives. I want to look for a few moments not specifically at the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission, for they did provide that the term of the Senate should essentially be twice that of the term of the House of Representatives, but at the basis on which this question is being put to the people. The Attorney-General has said that the proposal ensures that there will be fewer elections. I want everybody to understand that that is demonstrably false. There is nothing in the question that will ensure that there will be fewer elections. The whole basis of the proposition of when elections will be held remains in the exercise of the judgment of the Prime Minister of the day. There is nothing in the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill, which is the substance of the first question, which provides that there shall be an election every four years. On the contrary: the power remains in the Prime Minister of the day to call an election whenever he sees fit. The important part about this is that it immediately puts those who are members of the Senate within the same constraints as apply to members of the House of Representatives. They know that if they dare to contradict the wishes of the Government or take to task proposals that are in a legislative form when they go to the Senate, they are likely to be called on to go to an election in exactly the same way as are members of this place; for the product of the passage of the first question is essentially to put in place the exact parallel of the simultaneous elections questions which have been rejected by the Australian electorate on three successive occasions. People need to understand that-never mind the beguiling words and the phrases that are there-the reality is that this is not a question to extend the terms of Parliament to four years. It is a question to reduce the Senate's power so that the term of senators will be identical to the term of members of the House of Representatives. While it is true that similar questions have been put in other forms and while it is true that this question is slightly different, the electorate at large must remember that, were this question to be passed, exactly the same result would apply had they accepted those earlier three propositions. Of course, the significant part about this particular question is that it does far more than just provide for an extension of the maximum term of the House of Representatives to four years. It provides equally that elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate will be held on the same day, and it provides for senators to be chosen for a term equivalent to one House of Representatives term. Unfortunately, when the question goes to the electorate so many people will look at the beguiling question and say, `It is only for four-year terms'. That is not true. It is demonstrably not true. It is significantly designed to reduce the capacity of the Senate to act independently and to act in a manner in accordance with the founding fathers' decision to give the smaller States some opportunity to have equality of opportunity and equality of voice within the Federal Parliament. I was quite fascinated during Question Time to hear the Attorney-General talk about the extent to which there is within the ranks of my own party a suggestion that in some way the representation in the Senate should be reduced. The reality is that the Senate is the only chamber in this Parliament in which Tasmania, New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland, Western Australia and Victoria-all of the States-have an equal voice. We should remember that, irrespective of the number of electors, the concept of having an equal voice in the Senate ensures that a State such as Tasmania, that has been so aggrieved by the decisions taken under the external affairs power by this Government, has an opportunity to express a point of view as equally as others. The problem that we see in this first question is that the ability of those 12 senators from each State to act independently will be significantly reduced. Mr Kerr —Tasmania will be returning more Labor Party members. Mr SINCLAIR —I am interested to hear the interjection of the honourable member for Denison, who is a Tasmanian Labor Party representative, because he is a pretty solitary figure. We all need to remember that if he supports this question what he is really doing is saying that his own State does not really want to have an equal voice within the Senate. The passage of this first question puts all those who are senators at the risk of going to the polls whenever the members of the House of Representatives are called on to do so. Of course, as far as the attitude of the Government is concerned, we have known for years that it has really wanted to get rid of the Senate. It was only in 1977 that the Australian Labor Party finally removed its platform commitment to abolish the Senate. We have heard even the Prime Minister come out fairly vocally and say that he believes that the Senate really does not have a place in the Australian scheme of things. Our concern is that any question which is approved that reduces the power of the Senate and that gives the Government more authority over senators affects the independence of the Senate and, of course, reduces the power of those smaller States. For example, Senator Evans said on 31 May 1988: If one believes, as I do, along with all good Labor men and women true, that the Senate ought to be abolished . . . The Prime Minister has said: I believe the logical implication is that Australians would be better served by the elimination of the second tier of government-i.e. the States . . . We have had a succession of Labor speakers-such as the Prime Minister and the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans)-all of whom have asserted that they do not believe the Senate should be maintained in its present office. Let us look at the core of the argument. The core of the Government's argument is that it wants four-year terms. There is no certainty that a four-year term will be implemented if this question is passed. It is a four-year maximum term; it is not a four-year term at all. The Constitutional Commission in fact suggested that there should be qualifications on the four-year term. Honourable members will remember that the Commission said: The House of Representatives shall not be dissolved within three years of its first meeting . . . That recommendation has been dropped. The question that is going to the people is not that there shall be no dissolution of parliament within three years of its first meeting. In fact, it is the reverse; there is a so-called maximum term of four years. As all of us on this side of the House know, the average term at the moment is less than two years. Over the last six years it has been less than 20 months. We have had a succession of elections. There is nothing in the passage of this referendum question which will in any way change that position. The concern we have is that what is really being put to the people is a deceptive question, a question that supposedly is framed around two propositions: that there will be four-year terms and that there will be fewer elections. The simultaneous elections question, rejected already on three occasions by the Australian electorate, would be far better framed by asserting that it would still put in place a situation that would enable the Prime Minister to call an election at any time. The Australian has said it all. Its editorial on 4 August said: If the powers of the Australian Senate are not to be so reduced that it will be little more than a feeble appendage of the House of Representatives, it is essential that the proposed constitutional amendment `to provide for four-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament' should be rejected by voters at the referendum on September 3. The reality is that Australia is an extensive continent. As we all know, our population is concentrated essentially in the south-east corner. We are all aware that with the dispersal of population there lies difficulty in providing equality of opportunity. We know what Brian Burke, the former Premier of Western Australia, said about question two of the referendum that is to go to the people next Saturday, but we need to understand also that Brian Burke was asserting the rights of his own State. We need to understand that when Premier Robin Gray, on behalf of Tasmania, tells Senator Graham Richardson that he does not think very much of what he is doing about taking over the opportunity for a reasonable development and at the same time preserving the environment in Tasmania, he is speaking on behalf of about 350,000 voters whereas when Premier Nick Greiner, for example, speaks he is speaking on behalf of about 3 1/2 million people. The only place in the Parliament where we can properly attain a balance between the States lies in the Senate. If as a result of the passage of this question the Senate and the House of Representatives are put on exactly the same basis then we will remove what at the moment is a check on what otherwise could be the dictatorship of a simple majority in the House of Representatives. The question itself is beguiling in the extreme, yet the implication for the independence of those in the smaller States is profound. Already three questions relating to simultaneous elections have been put before the Australian electorate. On each occasion there has been a firm rejection-in 1974, 1977 and 1984. What is of interest is that it has been in the smaller States in each instance-Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania-that there has been a recognition that were that proposition to be passed then the States' own interests and prerogatives would be prejudiced. I strongly put it to the Australian electorate and to this House that exactly the same would happen today were this question, although in a different form, passed. The question is in a beguiling form and is not really about extending the term of the House of Representatives or having fewer elections. In fact, neither of those two consequences need take place. What this question is about is making the Senate and members of the Senate subject to the constraints that the Prime Minister of the day wishes to impose on them. I strongly urge every individual voter on Saturday to reject this proposition as it will do no more than prejudice a federal system that has worked so productively since 1901. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.08) —The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) is endeavouring to make the best of a bad case. This is the second matter of public importance we have had on this subject. The debate on the other one was led by the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). He has not been able to come into the House to debate these matters in the last two weeks. However, I doubt whether he would have been able to make a better job of a bad case than the Leader of the National Party has. The Leader of the National Party was desperate to say that the Constitutional Commission had recommended something and that we had not followed it to the letter. He should have read the whole recommendation instead of just talking about the House of Representatives not being able to call for a double dissolution in the first three years. The other essential part of the recommendation is that the Senate should not be able to reject Supply in the first three years. Why is it that the right honourable gentleman could not find that part of the recommendation? Why is it that he made the point that we were not putting forward exactly what the Constitutional Commission recommended? Firstly, does he recommend that the Senate's powers be inhibited and restricted so that it cannot reject Supply in the first three years? I very much doubt it. If he did I do not think he would be acting in accordance with the dictates of the Opposition's policy. Secondly, does he think that the Senate would approve of such a proposition going to the people if it could lose its present power to reject a government if it feels it has to? Where is the logic in the argument that this is dangerous and that it affects the States? I would like the right honourable gentleman to face up to the issue. He should not mislead the House by quoting only part of the constitutional recommendation. He should read it all out and, in regard to the second recommendation, say, `Look, do you really think that you can expect the Houses of Parliament, including the Senate, to agree that the House of Representatives should not have the power to pass any legislation which is objected to by the Senate in the first three years?'. Do those opposite really think that the members of the Senate are prepared to say, `We will put up with a government on the basis that we will not be able to refuse Supply?'. Of course that cannot be done. Why am I able to say that with so much conviction? In October last year the Constitutional Commission suggested that when there was disagreement between the Houses-particularly relating to legislation-there could be a joint sitting of both Houses. Members of the Opposition thundered in here and said, `What an outrageous proposition. A joint sitting of both Houses means that the powers of the Senate are negated because the House of Representatives has the numbers to negate the powers of the Senate'. The right honourable member for New England is virtually suggesting that we should again be putting a proposition which I think has not got much chance; that is, that the Senate has a three-year restriction on its power to refuse Supply. The right honourable gentleman is a professional politician. I am sure that he has read the proposition, but he did not want to read it out. He is objecting to four-year terms for both Houses. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) made an interjection about one vote one value in Tasmania. As he wandered on to question No. 2, he asked, `How can you talk about one vote one value when there has to be only 57,000 electors in Tasmania?' We have no objection to that. I make the point to honourable members that when they read the National Party's No case they will see a very strong inference in respect of fair elections. Those opposite say, `It is all very well for the Labor Party to talk about numerical equality, but that does not apply'. For example, despite Tasmania's small population, it is guaranteed five seats in the House of Representatives. What is the objection to that? Mr Hunt —We don't object to it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, those opposite do; they put it in their reason for voting no. Honourable members opposite should not try to get away from the point. They are saying that the next question about this issue, which relates to the Senate, blatantly discriminates against State upper Houses. Those opposite say, `What about this issue?'. I point out that Senate elections are not mentioned in this manner. Look at Senate representation in Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania. All these States get 12 senators. Why raise this matter? The populous State of New South Wales gets the same. Why are those opposite objecting to that? The inference is that they object to this issue of one vote one value. The interjection from the honourable member for Farrer suggests that in Tasmania 57,000 electors can elect a House of Representatives member. We have no objection. But an insidious remark has been made again today. The argument is that we are going to interfere with the powers of the small States. Those opposite are the ones who have picked on the small States. They highlight the small States in their own propaganda. Why do they want to mention the small States? They are trying to say, `Oh well, one vote one value ought to apply to the Senate. Tasmania should not have 12 but five senators; it has only a small population'. Is it any wonder that the Tasmanians have left the House-they are frightened to hear what is being said. The issue we are talking about is one of fewer elections. The right honourable gentleman eventually got to what he was about. He said, `This does not guarantee fewer elections'. I think it does, for this reason: no longer will Prime Ministers, no matter what party they come from, have the excuse which they have been able to use legitimately that they want to keep the Houses in kilter. If honourable members look at the correspondence to Governors-General, they will see that Prime Ministers have been saying, `We want an early dissolution because we want to avoid a half-Senate election'. They have been very successful. Again the right honourable gentleman did not look at the evidence given by the Constitutional Commission. We have not had a half-Senate election per se since 1970; we have been able to avoid it. Prime Ministers have been able to avoid such elections by going across to the Governor-General and saying, `We want to keep the Houses in kilter'. They have been able to get a double dissolution on that basis. That reason will no longer be available. There will be no more half-Senate elections either. Two major causes for the frequency of elections have already been resolved. We have had 22 elections since 1949. The last six-year senator was elected in December 1964. That is how out of date the Opposition is! The last half-Senate election was held in 1970. The Opposition is trying to perpetuate something that has disappeared. We are trying to modernise the situation and be accountable for our actions. Prime Ministers will not be able to say, `We think it is convenient to have an election'. They will have to give a reason. The only reason would still be the rejection of legislation twice by the Senate. When legislation is rejected twice, the whole of the Senate comes out. It has been very convenient, because the Senate has been pretty difficult, in its way, over a long period now. We could find plenty of legislation that has been rejected twice; yet the Senate is not worried about coming out in toto. That is exactly the position now. The reasoning now adopted by the Opposition is that it wants eight-year senators. I do not hear Opposition members saying that, but that is their reasoning. When this matter was before the House of Representatives for approval as a submission to the people of Australia, it was made very clear by one man only that that was what the Opposition was about. That man was the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur). There were 34 speakers in that debate, but only one man said, `But of course we want eight years for the Senate'. Why did the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) not say this? Why did the Leader of the National Party not say this today? Senators would be there so long that they would receive a parliamentary pension with one election. Perhaps that is not a bad idea. However, they would be so far removed from the reality of their election that they would not be very interested; in fact, they would be even more difficult if they were able to stay in the Senate for eight years. Why should they not be accountable? We are talking about accountability and honesty of representation in this Parliament. Top marks to the honourable member for Corangamite, but it is remarkable that he was the only member who was prepared to say that the Opposition favoured eight years. Honourable members should have heard what Senator Walters said in the past about eight-year senators. She disowned them as being `decrepits, who wander on to the back bench and who are of no use'. Another senator made similar comments about eight-year senators. Why did the right honourable member, the Leader of the National Party, not refer to eight-year senators today? What is silencing him on this issue so he cannot spell it out? I think the issue is this: the Leader of the Opposition came to us and told us that on a bipartisan basis his Party was in favour of four-year terms. So it should be; the world is in favour of them. Of the 148 parliaments in the world, fewer than 10 per cent have three-year terms. Every State parliament in Australia except Queensland-and one always makes exceptions for Queensland-has four-year terms. Why is it that we cannot have four-year terms? It will not inhibit the power of the Senate; the Senate will be just as dangerous to a House of Representatives and a government in the future as it has been in the past. It will continue to reject legislation and, when it rejects legislation, it is accountable. However, the point I am trying to make today is that we will overcome half-Senate elections and we will overcome the excuse given by Prime Ministers to keep the Houses in kilter. That excuse will no longer be there. Let us look at elections in the past, particularly in the 1960s. We had about three or four half-Senate elections which proved nothing. It is important to talk about equality of opportunity. When the Leader of the Opposition came to us with the suggestion that four years would be acceptable to the Opposition, we said, `Yes, but what about the Senate?' He said, `We would need eight years for the Senate'. We said, `That is far too long'. He said-and let me put this on the record-`I think it is, too. What about five years for both?' That was his proposition and we asked him whether he thought he could get five years for both Houses when we only have three now. He said, `No, I do not think so'. And in that sense he is right. Therefore, honourable members should not come in here suggesting that something is wrong when the Leader of the Opposition himself said that there should be some equal opportunity in respect of equal terms. The Commission has done some valuable work in looking at the Constitution. One of the most interesting things is this: governments never had much difficulty with the Senate for the first 50 years of Federation. Why? It was because it was first past the post in the Senate. When a party won government it usually swept the Senate. The Senate really did not have much power; it was just the numerical result of a landslide for a government. Mr Hunt —Who changed it? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, who changed it? It was Arthur Calwell. In his honesty and understanding of minorities he said, `I will change to proportional representation'. So, since 1949, which is the relevant period, there have been 22 elections-all of them related to a reason. In most cases there was a half Senate election or a dissolution on the basis that if an election were not held we would get the Houses out of kilter. Those were the reasons for the great majority of those elections. Of course, other elections were called on the basis of the rejection of legislation. That, too, has always been an election trigger. In fact, when we were sacked in 1975-it is worthwhile remembering the history-we were not sacked because the Senate did not give us Supply; honourable members will recall that the Governor-General relied on the fact that the Senate had rejected 21 Bills. We did not ask for a dissolution on that basis-but we got sacked on that basis. Honourable members opposite talk about what is fair and reasonable and about equity. They should just put out of their minds the issue of external affairs powers; that has nothing to do with this question, and nothing to do with the merit of the right honourable gentleman's case. The issue here is fewer elections. Elections cost money; they upset the business community. The business community led evidence as to what it thought was upsetting its understanding of what was to be the economic policy. I read this evidence out in the last matter of public importance debate. I said that that was the evidence given to the Commission. This is the problem with the Opposition: it never wanted the Commission; it was always against it; it has fought furiously to say that its recommendations should not be listened to. But at least the Opposition might look at the evidence from its own kith and kin; that is, the business community, which it purports to represent. It wants fewer elections. What damage would it do to have four-year terms? The Senate can still reject Supply tomorrow and we are out straight away, no inhibitions at all. As I said, the last six- year senator was elected in December 1964. How ancient can honourable members opposite be with this proposition to keep up this sort of nonsense-this proposition of wanting eight years for the Senate? Even the Senate does not want it. So the point that we want to make today is that the first question guarantees fewer elections; and the second question guarantees fairer elections. Honourable members opposite are frightened to agree to the suggestion that the people of Australia can be the judge of the issue and not them. Honourable members opposite never wanted them to judge the issue. For the first time the people of Australia will judge the issue-and they do not want to have to listen to the advice of honourable members opposite, because it is not valid on the basis of the evidence given. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(3.23) —I welcome the opportunity to rise in this matter of public importance debate and support the contribution made by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) in focusing the attention of the Opposition, and indeed of the Parliament, on the fraudulent and deceptive nature of the Government's case in terms of proposition one. It is an interesting experience to follow the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in a debate such as this because, as was the case when I followed him last week, his argument is to restate the Government's case, in its own terms, but never to try to defend the Government on the charge that its basic arguments are fraudulent and deceptive. Mr Deputy Speaker, as one of Australia's 7 1/2 million or 8 million voters, you would have pulled out the official Yes or No case document from your letterbox, you would have taken it inside and perhaps reserved some family time to look at it in your loungeroom. On reading the sample ballot paper you would have seen proposition one: To alter the Constitution to provide for 4-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament- That is a very simple, plausible and, on the face of it, innocuous proposition. Further, on reading the Yes case-and we have heard a restatement of the Yes case this afternoon by the Attorney-you would perhaps not only think that it was a simple and plausible proposition, but you might even go on to conclude that it is worthy of support. The Attorney has basically put forward this afternoon a restatement of the Yes case, which is headed: `Vote Yes for fewer elections'. That is the thrust of the Attorney's case. To quote from the official document: A four year maximum term will ensure governments can get on with running the country. With four year maximum terms business will be able to plan and invest with more certainty . . . The public will be spared the disruption caused by having too many elections. As the Attorney said in his contribution, we have had some 21 elections since 1949. Elections cost something like $50m. If we are to accept the Yes case argument, if we are to accept the arguments of the Attorney in this debate this afternoon, we should vote for proposition one because it will provide governments with more time, and it will provide governments, business and the community generally with more certainty. In short, it will provide for more stable government. The Government's case, which we have heard this afternoon and which we have read in the document outlining the Yes case, has been simply blown out of the water. It has been blown out of the water by the Leader of the National Party, and let me buttress and support that argument now. Proposition one about four-year terms has absolutely nothing to do with fewer elections, and hence our charge that the case that has been outlined for that proposition is fraudulent and deceptive. This proposal does not mean that elections will be held only every four years. It merely provides a maximum period of four years between elections. If we are talking about the reasons for early elections-and the Attorney has made great play of the removal of the excuses for early elections-the reality is that the passage of this proposition would enable a Prime Minister to call an election for both Houses of Parliament at any time of his or her choosing simply to gain political advantage. Let it be quite clear that this proposal will not mean fewer elections. Mr Lionel Bowen —Yes, it will. Mr SHACK —It will not mean fewer elections. There is no guarantee in the passage of this proposal that has anything to do with there being fewer elections than has been the case. This proposal gives a Prime Minister more power to call early elections. It does not require a government to serve out its term, and it does not mean better government. So, there we have it in one: this has nothing to do with reducing the frequency of elections. The entire Government case is predicated on that false, misleading and deceptive proposition. This proposal has got nothing to do with fewer elections. In turning to the other side of the Yes case, it is interesting that the Government should even spend some time on what are perhaps the negatives of the yes argument, of facing up to the charge that maybe the passage of proposition one would have something to do with reducing the power or the independence of the Senate. One finds in the Yes case argument the following bald proposition: A `Yes' vote will not touch the powers or the independence of the Senate. The misrepresentation is certainly compounded with that statement, because not only is this proposition not about fewer elections but also it is another attempt by the Government to introduce simultaneous elections. It is another attempt to perpetrate a device to reduce the powers of the Senate. In short, this proposal is a direct attack on the fundamental purpose and structure of the Senate. At present, the House of Representatives has a maximum term of three years, while the Senate has a fixed term of six years. By turning the Senate into a mirror image of the House of Representatives, with an identical four-year flexible term, the whole purpose of the Senate would be fundamentally undermined. What is interesting is that in the run-down to the vote next Saturday, members of the Australian public are understanding the true nature of this proposition which is designed to strip the Senate of its powers and independence. A Prime Minister would be able to sack the entire Senate whenever it disagreed with the Government or voted against bad legislation, like-dare I remind the Attorney-General?-the identity card. The Prime Minister could do this immediately, sending the whole Parliament to a new election. This proposal, under the guise of a four-year term proposal, is an attack on the integrity and independence of the Senate, and it is this integrity and independence which provide the fundamental checks and balances necessary for a truly democratic parliament. I come from one of the less populous States, Western Australia. Since Federation we have held the view that it is in our interests, as one of the less populous States, in common with Tasmania, South Australia and Queensland, to have a truly independent Senate. This proposition strikes directly against that independence. It strikes directly against the independence and the freedoms of the less populous States in our Federal compact. This proposal will radically change our parliamentary system. It will abolish the Senate's fixed term and will abolish the rotation of senators. It will cripple the Senate's independence by bringing it firmly under the power of the Prime Minister to take out both the House of Representatives and the Senate at any time of his choosing. Mr Lionel Bowen —You have to have a reason. Mr SHACK —The Attorney says in response that the Prime Minister has to have a reason. But to argue that it will mean fewer elections is absolute nonsense. This proposal is a strike and an attack against the Senate, against its independence and against its powers. It is a strike against the Senate's role to protect the rights of all States, especially the less populous, and their people. We do not have to go far back historically to find the real root of this proposition. It is to be found in the Australian Labor Party's long held view that it is in its direct political interests to get rid of the Senate. Back in 1980 Gough Whitlam was quoted in the Hobart Mercury as saying, `I will smash the Senate'. Bill Hayden said, `The Labor Party is committed to its'-meaning the Senate's-`eventual elimination'. Gareth Evans, only in May of this year, said, `If one believes, as I do along with all good Labor men and true, the Senate ought to be abolished', and so he went on. But it was only last week, at a high school in Eltham, Victoria, that Senator Button admitted to students that proposition one would reduce the Senate's powers, but saw it as not important. We regard it as fundamentally important. It is why we are asking the Australian people to understand the true nature of proposition one. It is not about fewer elections; it is about reducing the role of the Senate. We ask the people to vote no on this proposition, and no on the three other occasions. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LEE(Dobell)(3.33) —Next Saturday the Australian people will have their chance to say yes or no to the four proposals which are the subject of this matter of public importance this afternoon. Those four proposals will allow the Australian people to have their say as to whether they want our Constitution to be updated and modernised. When considering proposals to alter our Constitution, I believe all politicians have a responsibility to put party political views aside so that issues concerning the Constitution can be discussed calmly and rationally and so that the people can make informed decisions when they have their opportunity to vote. That is the test. Will the proposed alterations be good for Australia? Unfortunately the considered discussion which took place earlier this year and later last year on constitutional reform has now given way to exaggerated and partisan contributions from the Liberal and National parties. Their spokesmen apparently believe that it is not in their short term political interest for these proposals to be carried. Forget about the support of the Business Council of Australia (BCA) for a yes vote for four-year terms. Forget about the pleas from Angus Innes, the Leader of the Liberal Party in Queensland, for a yes vote on one vote one value. Forget about the call from Sallyanne Atkinson, the Liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane, for a yes vote for recognition of local government. And forget about the call from the bipartisan Constitutional Commission for greater protection of our civil liberties. Forget about all those things. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is desperate for an issue on which to attack this Government to maintain his position within his own Party. Today's matter of public importance claims that the first referendum question threatens the Federal system, in particular the smaller States-a ludicrous claim. The only thing the first referendum question threatens is the excessive number of Federal elections which we have in this country. Since 1945, as the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) rightly pointed out, there has been a Federal election on average once every two years. I have not come across any Australian who thinks that is good for our country. We have too many Federal and State elections. I think all of us in this chamber have a responsibility to seek to reduce that instability which is caused by early elections. I assure honourable members opposite that we will continue to win at future elections. Currently we have a maximum House of Representatives term of three years and a maximum Senate term of six years. Mr Deputy Speaker, during your membership of this House you would have seen Prime Ministers from both the Labor and the conservative sides of politics calling on different occasions for early elections for one of two reasons. Either they wanted a double dissolution to settle some dispute between the two Houses, which has the usual consequence of putting the House of Representatives and the Senate elections out of synchronisation; or they wanted an early election to bring the Houses back into synchronisation. So we often find that at one election a Prime Minister will ask for the Houses to be taken out of synchronisation, and shortly thereafter will ask for another early election to bring them back into synchronisation. It is crazy. With the current maximum three-year terms for the House of Representatives, any Prime Minister-Labor or Liberal-who is in the last year of his term, if he believes that he could possibly win an early election and if he thinks he is ahead in the polls, he will ask for one. That is why we are having elections every two years. Who thinks we have a problem, and who thinks we should do something about it? The Business Council of Australia, an organisation which is not from the Labor side of politics, has argued that-- Mr Miles —You are out of date. Mr LEE —The honourable member interjects that I am out of date. Let me quote the following statement by Eric Mayer, the Managing Director of National Mutual and spokesman for the BCA, on 10 May 1988; it is not something from last year: with House of Representatives elections being held every two years and four months, Government decision-making inevitably focuses on short term political consequences rather than the long term welfare of Australia; this has major adverse implications for government decision-making, particularly budgetary policies and therefore the economic climate; Let me give another comment from someone from the other side of politics, Mr Andrew Hay, from the Australian Chamber of Commerce, although he does not seem to be saying many nice things about the Liberal Party these days: Four-year terms would enhance the Government's capacity for long-term decision making and facilitate the making of necessary but unpopular decisions. They are the comments of two people who have expressed their views on why we need four-year terms. I also point out that, as the Attorney-General stated to the House, all of the Australian States, except Queensland, now have four-year terms. In my State of New South Wales local government now works on a fixed four-year term. The Constitutional Commission put forward to the Government an alternative proposal. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) interjected during the Attorney-General's speech and asked why we were not putting the Constitutional Commission's proposals to the people. The Constitutional Commission's proposals provide for a maximum four-year term, a minimum of at least three years for the House of Representatives and a proposal to have joint sittings within those first three years to settle any disputes between the Houses. That was something which I believe the Opposition could justly have argued was a reduction in the powers of the Senate. In fact it said that very thing in a similar debate on a matter of public importance in October last year in the old House of Representatives chamber. The Opposition roared its opposition to the Constitutional Commission's proposals, and I quote the following passage from the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition: I fundamentally reject the concept of fixed term parliaments. Four-year parliaments, yes; four-year fixed terms, no. Let me repeat what the Leader of the Opposition said: `Four-year parliaments, yes'. He did not say, `Four years for the lower House and eight years for the Senate'. He said yes to four-year parliaments in a debate on a matter of public importance in October last year. He went on to say: What the Constitutional Commission is proposing is nothing short of a constitutional revolution so far as the Australian Senate is concerned. The main proposal is not the four-year proposal. That may be the public relation gloss. The main proposal is that which would in effect take away from the Senate any power to do other than delay for more than six months a measure passed by the House of Representatives. So in a spirit of compromise our Attorney-General said, `All right, if you are against the Constitutional Commission's proposals, let's talk about a compromise so that we can both go to the people united with a commonsense reform to our Constitution'. The Attorney-General bent over backwards to try to reach a compromise so that we could go to the people united. We decided that we would not go ahead with the Constitutional Commission's proposal because the Oppositions was against it. It said it would reduce the powers of the Senate. We have instead proposed a maximum four-year term for both this House and the Senate. Having done that, what happened? The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) suddenly changed his tune. Suddenly, his previous statement in which he said yes to four-year parliaments was history and inoperative. The Leader of the Opposition then set a new condition which was that he now needed eight-year terms for the Senate when, as the Attorney-General had stated, even some of the Liberal Party's distinguished senators such as Shirley Walters have said that they cannot wear eight-year terms. I rightly endorse the Attorney-General's decision to reject the Liberal Party proposal of eight-year terms for the Senate. Eight years is too long for anyone. What choices have the Liberals had to choose between throughout this debate? First, there was the Constitutional Commission's proposal for a minimum of three-year and a maximum of four-year terms. Honourable members opposite said that was no good and that they were against it. Secondly, we have the current position of a maximum of three-year terms for the House of Representatives and six-year terms for the Senate. The Business Council of Australia and Mr Andrew Hay-anyone who has an informed opinion on public life in Australia-know that elections every two years are not working. We could have had a four-year fixed term. John Howard said in the House of Representatives chamber of the old Parliament House last October that fixed four-year terms are no good and that five-year terms are too long. The only option left is a maximum four-year term which this Attorney-General and this Government have put before the Parliament of the people. I believe that next Saturday the people, through an informed debate, will make sure that they cast their votes on the first question in favour of a reasonable compromise for longer parliaments and a maximum of four-year terms. It is a major embarrassment to this House that we have not been able to go to the people with a united Parliament endorsing commonsense reforms. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The debate is concluded. Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Beazley: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr FIFE(Hume)(3.43) —The House of Representatives (Quorum) Bill 1988 before the House is designed to reduce the number of members required to constitute a meeting of the House of Representatives from one-third of the total number of 148 to one-fifth of the total number of 148-namely, from 50 to 30 members. Section 39 of the Australian Constitution provides: Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the presence of at least one-third of the whole number of the members of the House of Representatives shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of that House for the exercise of its powers. It is interesting to note, particularly in the week leading up to the referendum, that in the 87 years since Australia was federated in 1901 the quorum of the House of Representatives has not been reduced. This Government has the worst record of any government since Federation in regard to its treatment of the Parliament. This Bill is further evidence of the disregard that the Government has for the Parliament and, through it, for the people of Australia. On 9 December 1987, which incidentally was the last occasion this House gave consideration to this matter when a motion was being debated, the Government could not muster a quorum. As a result, under Standing Orders, the House stood adjourned for a period of 10 minutes whilst the Government got its members together in order to provide the quorum necessary under the Constitution and the Standing Orders. As I said, the quorum of the House has not been reduced since 1901 and it should not be reduced now. This is just another example of the Government treating Parliament as a rubber stamp. Day after day in Question Time Ministers increasingly do not keep their answers relevant to the questions asked. We had another classic example of this at Question Time today when Madam Speaker had to refer to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in relation to this matter. Minister after Minister, including the Prime Minister, flouts the Standing Orders. It is another example of how they treat the Parliament with contempt. Time is often taken up with long explanations of Government policy when ministerial statements should be made outside of Question Time. This is done to reduce the number of questions that might be put to the Government by the Opposition and it is another example of the Government flouting the Standing Orders and bringing this Parliament into disrepute. In recent times some sitting weeks have been reduced to three days instead of four days. This Parliament should be sitting for more time rather than less time. Yet this Government has reduced some of those sitting weeks from four days to three days. We are here to represent our constituents and to ensure that there is adequate time to consider the matters before Parliament. Parliament now meets for fewer days in a year than what would have been the average number of sitting days for an average year. The rules have been changed to make it necessary for House of Representatives committees to have a quorum of government members. In the past, quorums were made up in committees by members from both sides of the House. Recently the rules were changed so that these committees cannot meet until a quorum of government members is present. Frequently, Opposition members who are present at the scheduled time of a meeting are forced to wait and waste time when government members fail to arrive until long after meetings are due to commence. This is disgraceful. It makes a mockery of the committee system. I ask the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) to give consideration again to this matter because, as we said at the time the decision was taken by the House, these new arrangements should be kept under constant review. They have now been under review for long enough. Obviously, they are not working satisfactorily. If government members are unable to be present when those meetings are scheduled to commence, they should be removed from the committee or, better still, the quorum system should be changed so that Opposition members can make up the quorums and the committees can continue with their business. At the end of the autumn session earlier this year a large amount of legislation was rammed through the House with members on both sides having only a short period to consider very complex Bills. Many members wanted to contribute to the debate but because of lack of time were denied the opportunity to speak. As I said earlier, in the week preceding the referendum when people are being asked to change the Constitution and to grant Canberra more power the Government is seeking to downgrade this chamber by reducing the quorum from one-third to one-fifth of the members. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, did well at school in mathematics. You would know, as well as I and all other members of this House do, that the effect of the legislation currently before the chamber, if enacted, is that Parliament could continue in session if 118 members of the House of Representatives were in some other part of Australia. Under this proposal a quorum of only 30 members is necessary to enable Parliament to remain in session. It is a disgraceful proposal. As I indicated when we dealt with this matter by adopting a resolution last year, the Opposition is opposed to it. We are opposed to the legislation before the House and we will vote against it. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(3.51) —I compliment the honourable member for Swan and Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) on bringing forward the House of Representatives (Quorum) Bill. For those who are listening to this debate, the background to this legislation is that the Procedure Committee of the House has worked on this proposal, among many others, for some time to try to improve the operation of the House of Representatives. We should recognise that the Leader of the House has given it this importance by bringing it before the House. I think that we should set a picture in this debate, which perhaps the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) missed in terms of the analysis. When I became a member of this Parliament in 1983 I had worked in the private and public sectors. When I came here I observed that this was the least efficiently managed institution I had ever worked in. Mrs Kelly —That is right. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —It was a time wasting, largely irrelevant activity in which we engaged here. I could not believe it. I thank the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), who is at the table, for her compliment that that is correct. I, like many who became members of parliament, came with high aspirations, some background and experience and a great deal of energy to get things done. I found that many people on both sides of the House, like me, had good convictions and a determination to get a job done. However, I found that, largely, the procedures of the House were there to obstruct us from getting it done. They represented a museum piece, if you like: they were not designed to encourage debate or to allow backbenchers a contribution. The procedures were there, largely, to ensure that certain formalities were met. In some branches of the Australian Labor Party we see that people are more preoccupied with making sure that minutes are kept rather than having a debate about policy. In many senses, that is a bit like what occurred in this place. It seemed to me, as it did to many backbenchers, that we should make some changes. I was very encouraged by the determination of my colleagues on both sides of the House to do something about it, to say, `Let's modernise this institution so it can work better'. One of the things that I got on to very quickly was the quorum provision. It seemed to me that the quorum call was being used simply as a procedure for harassment. The analogy I used was that it would be a bit like frustrating a board meeting of CSR Ltd in Sydney in that every time a maintenance fitter at the CSR refinery at Pyrmont ran into some trouble with overhauling some bearings on a sugar boiler, the CSR board meeting would be stopped and members of the board would be dragged over to Pyrmont while the maintenance fitter repaired the bearings in the sugar boiler. Anyone with any sense would realise that that would be a stupid way to behave. However, I saw people opposite, who were being paid a lot of money, behaving no better than school kids in the playground-I resist saying that of school children generally because they are well motivated and well behaved-and being obstructionist. They were being obstructionist for the worst reasons: when they felt that they were not getting their way they would come in and call quorums. As a result, lots of people from all sides of the Parliament were dragged in so their heads could be counted. That is a nonsense. If honourable members opposite want to do that they should put a turnstile on the door and then we can all walk out again. That is what they do in the Victorian Football League and the New South Wales Rugby League and it works. If that is what Opposition members are about, they should put a turnstile on the door: they should not pretend that it is something serious. The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) has been part of this process. He has called quorums as part of a way of getting back at the Government because Ministers may have spent too long answering questions in Question Time. Sometimes it happens when honourable members opposite have had a very productive dinner break. They come into this chamber filled with the joy of life and decide to be disruptive in the evening. I could not believe that when I first came here. It was only later on, when I encountered some Opposition members crossing the chamber during divisions, that I realised what motivated their behaviour. It was not motivated by parliamentary procedure and democracy, which the honourable member for Hume talked about; it was motivated simply by the fact that they had not disciplined themselves during the dinner break and had decided to make fools of themselves after the dinner break. All Opposition members are responsible for that. I see it every Question Time as well. (Quorum formed) I thank my colleagues for joining me. We are talking about the House of Representatives (Quorum) Bill and the obstructionist Opposition, which has not been able to develop one policy. At the weekend someone asked me, `What's it like being in the new Parliament House?' I said, `It's like watching a Jeff Fenech fight. You know who is going to win; it's just a question of which round we win in'. That is what that mob opposite has to face up to. It is interesting to note that John Cain has called a Victorian election for 1 October. That is another round which the Opposition is going to lose, so let it get ready. That is just another defeat for the Opposition because it cannot get on to the real issues. What it does is engage in this sort of obstructionist behaviour. My colleagues say to me, `What kind of obstructionist behaviour is there in terms of quorum calls?'. Let us look at the figures. Since one or two people opposite, including the honourable member for Wakefield, have contributed to the delicacy of this place, let me inform them that 152 quorums were called in 1986. By behaving like a lot of mug lairs, they have wasted taxpayers' money and resources. People come into this place and say, `Why is there such disreputable behaviour?' The answer is simple. I say to the-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Corio, the honourable member for Streeton, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Ryan might resume their seats and the honourable member for Reid might not speak to the officials while a member is trying to make a speech. Mr Uren —I was seeking advice. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Reid, more than anyone, would know that if one wishes to seek advice, one does not do it on one's feet or one might be called to take a point of order. The honourable member for Reid might resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Stirling. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Honourable members opposite are somewhat motivated and animated by the fact that we are going to win this one again. It is football finals time; honourable members opposite like to be on the winning side, and that is what they are all over here for. Might I say that, when we look at the disreputable behaviour in this place, such as we see during Question Time and most other times, we see that the Opposition still has not come to terms with the fact that it has to have policies and that it has to have something substantial to put forward. I put forward that figure again: there were 152 quorum calls in 1986. This was the year in which the Australian economy was in difficulty. We had the Federal Treasurer (Mr Keating) trying to rescue the economy from the mismanagement over the years of the mob opposite. Honourable members opposite called 152 quorums in that year. What sort of performance is that? They ought to ask themselves that question. It is no wonder that honourable members opposite are in Opposition. It is no wonder that they lost the election in 1987. I can tell honourable members opposite that they will lose the election when we have it next year too because the same sort of behaviour is continuing. Just to show that honourable members opposite had not lost their touch, in 1987 they called 84 quorums. Way back in 1982, when we were in opposition, we had 27 quorum calls. What distinguished members we proved ourselves to be-restrained, responsible and working on policies. We were so busy working on policies to take government from honourable members opposite that we set a standard of behaviour. In 1983, honourable members opposite were just getting their act together under young Andrew and called only 24 quorums. All of a sudden, though, honourable members opposite decided to engage in a macho, red-blooded fight and in 1984 called 68 quorums. Someone must have got to them. Someone must have pumped honourable members opposite up and said, `What you have to do is get muscly'. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) must have told honourable members opposite, `You have to get muscly in this House. Be a thug like I am; then you can get away with it'. There were 68 quorums called by the Opposition that year. In 1985, there were 41 quorums called by honourable members opposite. What happened to honourable members opposite in that year? They must have taken Valium or Mogadon. Something must have slowed them down. But no, just to show that honourable members opposite had not found a brain amongst them all, there were 152 quorums called in 1986. What disgraceful behaviour! From 27 quorums called in 1982 when we were in opposition to 152 quorums called in 1986. Mr Brumby —What did that cost the taxpayer? Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I inform my friend from Bendigo that that was at an extraordinary cost to the taxpayer. People out in the community asked: `When are you going to get on with the business of government?' I said: `That is all right. We get on with the business of government; it is just the Opposition that cannot get on with anything, certainly with themselves. They have a great deal of difficulty forming any organisation'. What did honourable members opposite do? They went for the quick mug-lair tactic of disruption. That is what quorum calls are; they are disruptive behaviour. As I said, it is a bit like the board meeting at CSR Ltd. There is a board meeting but as soon as something goes wrong over at Pyrmont sugar refinery, they stop the show, bring all the board members over and say, `Wait until that maintenance fitter fixes up that sugar boiler. Then we will start work again'. That is what a quorum is like. What we are saying is: let us cut down the numbers; let us be a little civilised. All the good people who are sitting in the public galleries listening to the debate operate in institutions that are sensible and civilised. These include their own families. However, they come in here and see this lot opposite. It is little wonder that they walk away scratching their heads saying, `We put all that money into that new Parliament House, and look at them. They are like people in the outer at the MCG-behaving like a mob of mugs'. I can tell honourable members that I would not put them on television. Mr Beddall —You would not let them into Bay 13. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —They are not good enough to be in Bay 13. That is where the Collingwood supporters go. Mr Brumby —Who is going to win? Mr RONALD EDWARDS —There is no doubt about who will win. Very clearly, this matter is about sensible management of the Parliament. It is about getting this Parliament relevant. It is about ensuring that we bring the procedures up to date. What we have to say is that the Opposition still has not come to terms with that. Let me complete this tale of disruption: in 1987 there were 84 quorums called. Honourable members opposite lost an election so they said, `Let's be disruptive; let's not get on with policies. The Australian electorate has given us another hiding. It has sent us back and said: ``Get your game together''. No, we will not do that. We will not work out any policies. We will come into the chamber and put on a turn each night. That is all we will do; we will call quorums. Particularly, if some of us have a very productive dinner, the worst amongst us can get in and call quorums'. We have sat here and watched that behaviour. I have my colleagues here. They are all distinguished members. They are all hard-working members. They work on speeches. They do a lot of good work and research. I just say that to the honourable member for Hume because he has said, `They are not doing enough work and do not want to put as much into the Parliament'. They do want to put a lot into the Parliament. They also want to work with the good people of Australia. They want to get out there and work with them. My colleagues here are all trying to meet those twin goals of working on in the Parliament and working out there in the community. All my colleagues here work very hard at those tasks. What do we find? We find that we cannot get our speeches going. As my colleague the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) will find, there will probably be a quorum called on her. The honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee), who will also add to this debate with distinction, will find that there will be a quorum called on him. Why can we not get our speeches going? The Australian people are prevented from hearing the good policies of this Government and the sensible policies of the back bench as a result of this tactic. What I want to say now is very important. Another aspect with which we have not dealt is the fact that there is also an assumption among some honourable members here that the only goal in life is to spend one's time in the chamber. Now it so happens that some honourable members like to work with their electorates. Some honourable members like to work with their Labor Party branches. They also like to spend time with their families. It seems to me that, in any debate of this kind, one never gets to hear honourable members opposite talking about families. First of all, they do not have any policies on the family. We know that. Secondly, when it comes to their individual consciences, they do not give the family any role to play. What they say is, `Let us sit more often. Let us sit longer. Let us become more irrelevant so we will never get to see our electorates'. I can see why honourable members opposite do not like facing up to their electorates. They do not like going back to their electorates because they are so unpopular when they get out there. When honourable members opposite get back to their electorates they find that they have been about as effective as the St Kilda football team. They have a tradition of being losers. They do not want to get back to their electorates. Not only that, because they are so narrow in their view they also do not want to realise that members on this side of the chamber believe that they actually have a responsibility to their families. They do not believe that honourable members on this side might want to spend some time with their families. The important thing about this Government is that it consists of a lot of good people who have that sort of background. They are people who want to spend time with their families. I say to honourable members opposite that, when they get in here and preach about longer hours and sitting more often so that we can listen, for example, to the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) more often, I must say, `Goodness me, for what purpose?' We looked at that five years ago. Someone said to me the other day, `How long do you think that he will stay on as Leader?' I said that it was a question of when he stumbles next, when John Stone decides to trip him up and when the new Turks on the back bench of the National Party get fired up. They need a little bit more red blood in their veins. As I say, they mostly exhaust their red blood by calling quorums. There were 152 in 1986 and 84 in 1987. I have been in Parliament for 5 1/2 years. I came in believing that we had a job to do and that we would get on with it. The only time I find the job being disrupted is when honourable members opposite call quorums. The rest of the time we are busy. We are getting the economy going. We are getting people back to work. We are getting people involved in education programs. We are firing up the general Australian community and enabling the people to participate in the operation of Parliament. I am pleased to see everyone here today doing that. They are very proud of their country. However, what sort of disruption do we get? Honourable members opposite behave like an English football crowd. That is how honourable members opposite behave. Honourable members opposite show no respect for the institution. I see honourable members opposite standing up here misrepresenting the Australian Constitution and the referendum proposals. I see honourable members opposite getting up and being disruptive in the chamber. It is time they learnt the lesson. The lesson-I will close on this-is that we came to government with a determination to get the economy and the society moving. We have done that. We also came in with a belief that there were certain ways of acting in terms of public life. That is the way we operate. We also came in with the view that there was a way of getting this Parliament to work better. This Bill is about getting this Parliament to work better. It is not about disruption, not about the mug-lair, and not about behaviour like that of the people in the outer at the footy who want to disrupt things and throw beer cans. This Bill says that there is a sensible way to behave in this society, and that is to have a debate. What did we do in this respect? On Thursdays, we have given honourable members opposite all the chances they like. Honourable members opposite can get up on Thursdays and give their little speeches. If that is what honourable members opposite are saying they want to do because that is part of the democratic process, let them go right ahead. Let them stand up on Thursdays and make their little contributions. It is wonderful! We like to hear from honourable members opposite particularly because Thursday is broadcast day. When honourable members opposite stand up on broadcast day, that is helping us in the electorate. We get more votes. That is why we try to make sure that each Thursday is a broadcast day-when honourable members opposite have their chance to speak. We are happy about that. I ask honourable members opposite not to worry about that because we have given them the chance. That is very good. What we also wanted to say is that we do not want to stand for any more nonsense and disruption. That is what this Bill is about. This Bill is about reducing the number of members required for a quorum so that we can run this place more efficiently. We all have committees on which we work. We all contribute to the running of this Parliament from outside this chamber. We are prepared to do that. I believe that we should look at the experience of Government members here. Many have been elected many times. Obviously, what those members are doing works. Therefore, the only thing I say to honourable members opposite is that what they are doing is not working. I will close on this note: it is just like a Jeff Fenech fight. We know who is going to win; it is just a question of which round. This is another round which we are going to win. I am pleased to commend this Bill to the House. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(4.10) —To put it mildly, we have just sat through a very wide-ranging speech by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards). I remind the House that the Bill before it is the House of Representatives (Quorum) Bill. I must say that the honourable member who spoke previously should be very grateful for quorums because when he stood up to speak he had only one member of his Party and three members on this side in the chamber. The other member on his side was the Minister at the table, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), who was doing her ministerial duties. So I believe the honourable member should be grateful-- Ms Jakobsen —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There was another member from the Government side in the House at that time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member has no point of order. Mr DOBIE —I acknowledge the point of order by confessing that I did not notice the honourable member. I am sorry that I have to be ungallant and fall into the traps that the honourable member for Stirling says we fall into on this side. What is being discussed today is the role of the quorum. I did not really appreciate the matters of policy that the honourable member for Stirling spoke about. I was a little disturbed to find that he seemed to have one eye when it came to behaviour in the House. Perhaps I should point out to him that, having been here 5 1/2 years, he has not had the exquisite pleasure of sitting in opposition. Mr Ronald Edwards —No, I won't either. Mr DOBIE —He probably will not; he will probably go as I did. When we went into opposition in 1972 I lost my seat as well, and that could happen to the honourable member for Stirling. The real matter we are discussing here today is the role of the quorum in this Parliament. When we make comparisons with other parliaments, as Clerk Browning did in his paper which we have all read, we seem to fall into a trap of discussion of the numbers of quorums called by relevant parliaments around the world. The debate so far and papers prepared on this matter, I regret to say, have been very superficial. The tradition of the Australian Parliament has been one of rugged, solid and hard debate. When we had Mick Young here he showed only too clearly and well the role of hard debate, the role of using the forms of the House with great strength and telling effect. Whether members of the Government like it or not, the quorum represents a form of control, minuscule though it may be, against a government which is riding roughshod. The honourable member for Stirling proudly spoke of the Fenech-type speeches. If we were to fall into the trap that he wants us to fall into of saying, `Because you have got the numbers therefore we will never oppose you' then I suggest he start reading about Parliament, and what it is meant to be, all over again. The Opposition, whether it is the present Liberal-National Party coalition or whether, as it has been for most of this century, the Australian Labor Party, must continue to have some form of control. If the Government members believe that by their bringing in this Bill and reducing the quorum to 30 the Opposition will have less control, they are correct, but in respect of quorums only. As happened some 20 years ago in this place, we will start to use other forms of the House which are available to us. It will then be interesting to see to what extent the Government tries to change those forms of the House because, as the honourable member for Stirling so aptly said, it has the numbers. We know it even more than Government members do. We know they have the numbers. But in this debate we must surely talk about the role of Parliament and not fall into the trap of talking about cheap politics and cheap tricks. The important line in this debate has to be the role of Parliament in a continuing phase. Surely if ever we were to talk about the role of the Parliament in the community then this second week in the new Parliament House is the time we should be talking about it. Last week one of the world leaders, the Speaker of the British House of Commons, said that the Westminster system is the politics of confrontation. He said that the politics of concession or consensus are the politics of dictatorships where everything is decided in backrooms and it is a fait accompli to everyone. If we move away from those points in this Parliament then God help us. The role of oppositions can never be whittled away. They must remain if we are to maintain a strong and healthy Australia. Being a member of the Opposition does not mean coming into this House every time to destroy everything the Government is bringing forward. What it means is that one comes into the House to defend those principles and platforms by which one stands. They may be different from the Government's views. If they are then we should have robust debate, robust rules and rules that do not fall away on trivia and talk of how people behave before and after dinner. I support everything the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) said in his most eloquent speech earlier. I refer to the paper that people seem to be reading as the Bible, `The Quorum in the House of Representatives'. It was prepared by the Clerk of the House. I pay due respect to him, having known him for 22 years, since I was first elected. However, I believe his paper is superficial; I believe it talks about the mere technicality of quorums. In the paper, on which this Bill is based, when he mentions the House of Commons he makes no mention at all of the role of the Speaker of the House of Commons in determining the day's program. What happens there does not happen here. Clerk Browning mentioned in his paper the Speaker deciding whether a committee would meet the next day on the same subject. We do not have that power in this House, it is not part of our Standing Orders and we are not going to change to that. When we talk about the role of quorums we have to look not just at quorum numbers but at the whole situation as it affects the Parliament, how it functions and how oppositions continue to have their opinions made known in this place. We talk of media comments. We cannot call a quorum for the media but as we look at the Press gallery we find only one representative present. Where is the Press when we are talking about the role of Parliament and the role of oppositions? So often in this place we hear people say that we should be talking to pander to the Press, electronic or written. The real debate, the real argument of politics in Australia, is in this place. A billion dollars has not been spent to make this place a receptacle for Press releases for the media. It is a place where heavy, strong and at times ruggedly offensive debate should take place and should continue to take place. The role of the quorum in this place must not be seen by the public as some cheap little gasping part of an opposition. It must be seen within the whole role of where the Opposition can stand in the running of the government of Australia. As all of us who serve here know, the most significant debates of the week take place in the respective party meetings of the Labor Party and the coalition. But this in itself must never be allowed to remove our interest from this place. As the honourable member for Stirling so correctly said, our lives are not ruled by what we do totally in this place because we all belong to the committees and we all have constituents. But despite all that, in our daily lives as members of parliament this place is the place where it should be seen to happen. This is the place where the public may come and see us. It is fascinating that today there are about five times as many people in the public galleries as there have been in the House, even when a quorum has been called. The public wants to see the debate here; it wants to know why the place is empty. It is not enough for us to say to the public that we are away on Cabinet meetings, shadow Ministry meetings or committee meetings. We have to come back to this place at all times and fight across the chamber, as democracy encourages us to do. Part of the pride we must have in the Westminster system is the pride we have in what we do here. It would be foolish to remove the quorum from part of our practice. I am glad, therefore, that the Standing Orders Committee has not tried to do that, despite the paper by the Clerk, Mr Browning. We have at least checked it. I do not know whether I am always in agreement with the number of quorums that are called, but one must never allow that situation to be removed from our daily practice. I am disappointed that the size of the quorum has been reduced from 50 members to 30 members. Very often quorums are called not for some simple reason of causing irritation, which I think was the word used by the Government member; they are called to show the Government that there are occasions on which the Opposition will not put up with the fact that the Government is riding roughshod over the Opposition in the running of the Parliament. If we were to follow the line taken by the honourable member for Stirling about the time taken with quorums, goodness gracious me, to quote another politician, we would start to consider the time taken by people speaking in this place as a waste of taxpayers' money. Of course we do not and of course we should not. We know that the numbers are against us. As much as I hate to admit it to the honourable member for Hume, I regret that our oratory will not sway anyone from the Government side to cross the floor. I have been here for 22 years more or less and I remember only one occasion on which a member of the Government has been allowed to cross the floor, and that was the then honourable member for Hunter a long time ago. One strength we have on this side is that our members cross the floor and, as much as some of us may not like it, it happens and I do not think it should weaken us in any way. The one point that I am concerned about when we talk of quorums is what is happening with regard to joint standing committees. I am distressed to see that when I raised this matter in recent months with certain officers of the Parliament they were not aware that a Government majority was required for a quorum to be formed in joint standing committees. Yet the Standing and Sessional Orders as at 15 March state: Each committee shall elect a Government member as its chairman. I point out to some people on the Government side that that was not always the case when the Liberal and National coalition was in government. I remember having taken over the chairmanship of a foreign affairs subcommittee from Mr Ralph Jacobi, who had been forced to retire because of ill health. He had been given chairmanship of this important committee as a member of the Labor Party, as a member of the then Opposition. He was able to do that because there was no such rule in the Standing Orders at that time. Paragraph 28b (g) states: For a standing committee of 12 to 15 members, 6 members of the committee shall constitute a quorum of the committee including 4 Government members, and for a committee of 10 or 11 members, 5 members of the committee shall constitute a quorum of the committee including 3 Government members. This means that there is no occasion on which a standing committee in this place can meet without a full score of Government members. One committee on which I served, which is loyally attended by both Labor and Opposition members, is chaired most superbly by the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren). We have the situation on occasions when, for perfectly acceptable reasons, members of the Government are late. It does not happen often, but it does happen. I have reason to believe that this has been a great encumbrance in respect of other committees. The stupidity of the Standing Orders as they presently stand is shown should a committee create a subcommittee-indeed, the Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts has done just that. We find the following in paragraph 28c (g): The quorum of a sub-committee shall be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. Without going into the whole mechanics of it, those who study these Standing Orders will understand that that means there can be a subcommittee without a government majority, and yet the parent standing committee must have a government majority before it can get under way. Let us face it, that provision was introduced to ensure that standing committees did not bring hostile reports into the Parliament. I suspect that now the Government has been in for five years or so some members of the Government who sit on these committees today would rather wish that this was not the case. I can assure them that when I was a member of the Government back bench for many years, the committees I sat on and chaired occasionally did not necessarily follow the line of the Executive direction. Mr Fife —I can vouch for that. Mr DOBIE —Yes, the honourable member can indeed. I believe that while members of the House and the Executive are in the mood to look at the Standing Orders, they should look very closely at paragraph 28c (g). I am going a little beyond the House of Representatives (Quorum) Bill-the previous speaker, the honourable member for Stirling, spoke much more broadly-but one of the great disadvantages we have in respect of standing committees is reflected in paragraph 28b (b), which states: A standing committee appointed pursuant to paragraph (a) shall be empowered to inquire into and report- here is the restriction- on any matters referred to it by either the House- therefore with a government majority- or a Minister- which is Government policy- including any pre-legislation proposal- which, by nature, is a government matter- Bill, motion, petition, vote or expenditure, other financial matter, report or paper. By these standing orders, standing committees may not choose their own areas of interest and this, I think, is again a very backward step for the Parliament. I do not throw this at the Government because it is a Labor Government. I say that we should not be looking at this matter in a petty party political way; we should be looking at it to see what is the real role of standing committees in this place. If it is to be merely a prolonged agonising endorsement of some ministerial policy, what in creation have we established those committees for? The very role of these committees is to be critical in the broad and true sense. I am sad to see that what I am putting has had so little response. I hope that the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) will take note of this and will do something about it as time goes on. My time has expired. Mr Deputy Speaker, I hear you say, `Well done'-or `Thank goodness', was it? I hope that this proposal stands the test of time. If it does not, I hope we go back to having a third of the House as a quorum in the future. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —I call the honourable member for Cowan. I ask the honourable member to take heed of the fact that the House is debating the House of Representatives (Quorum) Bill. This Bill has been discussed very widely. I hope that a little more relevance can be shown. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(4.29) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you are aware that I am always relevant. This has been an interesting debate despite the fact that it has ranged far and wide. I will not follow what was said by the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) about the quorum for standing committees, although it is probably an area about which a lot of us would have an opinion, except to say that I do not believe that the terms of reference of standing committees have taken away from the importance of their business, the matters that are discussed at them and the quality of their reports. The purpose of the House of Representatives (Quorum) Bill is to reduce the quorum of this House from one-third of the total number of members to one-fifth-that is, to reduce it from the current 50 members to 30 members. There have been many rationalisations of this change. Some of the reasons that have been put forward to the committee that was considering this matter were demands on members' time and the more effective use of their time whilst in this House. The chamber can be an interesting place to be in for much of the time, but it is not always an interesting place to be all of the time. Indeed, it is not possible to be in here all the time, given the other demands of our electorates and of the Parliament itself. There are also the new standing committee responsibilities which were mentioned in passing by the honourable member for Cook. Without a change to the committee quorums, it would be almost impossible for those standing committees to operate if there were continuous quorum calls in the House, because almost inevitably Government members respond to quorum calls in this place. We would thus be denying our standing committees of Government members. We must look at the matter from that point of view also. The disruption of members' legitimate parliamentary and electorate business was the major reason for this matter coming to the fore, and I believe this happened some time ago when this matter was first discussed around 1970. Many of us have electorates a long way from Canberra. Australia is a large country, as many people here are aware-except, perhaps, for those who live in Sydney or Melbourne-and most of us have quite a long way to travel back to our electorates. Some of us also have to suffer the time change involved even in telephoning our electorate offices. Mr Ronald Edwards —Quite right. Ms JAKOBSEN —The honourable member for Stirling has just commented that that is right. He and I have a similar problem in that our electorates are in Western Australia. When daylight saving is operating there is a three-hour time difference; it is 11.30 a.m. here before we can even speak to our electorate offices, assuming that we wait until our staff actually start work at 8.30 a.m. If one has to contend with quorum calls while one is discussing one's electorate office business on the telephone, it can be a bit of a nuisance. Those are the sorts of frustrations which members of the Government must put up with. That in itself is not a reason for changing the quorum, but it is a partial reason. The increased number of members in this House has meant that that quorum has risen to 50 only recently. We also have public hearings of our standing committees, and I believe that it is very rude for members to be called away for quorum calls during public hearings. Were it possible to have 30 members present in this place instead of 50, we may be able to make arrangements with our colleagues to attend the House on our behalf when a quorum was called, if that quorum was called facetiously. I am sure that when a really important matter was being discussed in the House no member-Opposition or Government-would resent or object to an appropriate quorum call. We do understand that the House is the place in which matters are debated and that when important matters are raised members should be in here participating in the debate. It is an area of learning for all honourable members, particularly those on the back benches, and I, for one, do not object to quorums on that basis. But when the quorum call is used as a tactic of the Opposition to punish backbenchers for some slight that may have been made during a speech by a backbencher or a Minister or, worse, when we are punished for long answers given by Ministers in Question Time, it is not fair. Therefore, 30 members of this place, particularly Government members, should be all that is required to show that we have a sufficient number of people who are interested in the proceedings of the House. The division is the place where people determine who is present in the House and who votes and that is the area where we always have sufficient numbers. We never fall to 30 or 50 for divisions; there are always ample numbers of members on both sides of the House and there is no need for the quorum to be looked at in that sense. We are not a parliament that governs by disinterest. People in this House are very interested in the proceedings of the chamber. Many of the more conscientious members have the broadcast on in their offices, and we listen all the time to the proceedings of the House so that when we come in for a division or a quorum we know exactly what was being discussed at the time. In fact, one hears members coming in here talking about what another member was saying when the quorum or division was called. There is discussion around the House about what goes on in the chamber, irrespective of the small number of people who may, on occasions, be physically present in the chamber. It is also hypocritical to suggest that people are not interested just because they are not in the chamber. We all know of Bills, such as primary industry Bills, which are very important to the people they concern but which would never attract more than a few members into the chamber when they are being debated. To try to judge the importance of a Bill by the number of people in the House is not a very fair way to discuss the standard of debate or, indeed, the importance of that Bill to the people of Australia or the House in general. Obviously, matters of considerable importance do draw people into the House-for instance, the recent immigration debate. That drew people in here because of genuine interest; it was a benchmark debate and a discussion in which most people in Australia were interested, as were most people in this House. They were sufficiently interested to come here and ignore those other calls on their time. I know it is easy to say that we should ignore the other calls on our time, but we are all very busy. We work very late; I seldom go home before midnight and I am sure most members do the same. It is not an indication of one's interest in the proceedings if one is not in the chamber at a particular time. Given that we are listening to the debate in our offices in the House, many members will come into the chamber to hear a specific speaker from the Opposition or the Government if they feel that that person has something to say. That in itself is an indication that they are listening to the proceedings. The House is an extension of the chamber; we are not all absent from the House just because we are absent from the chamber. To draw that conclusion is wrong and misleads the Australian populace. People who come here to the gallery to listen to the debate-as the honourable member for Cook indicated earlier-must not judge the House simply on the number of people in the chamber. When I have explained to my electors the other business that must be carried on whilst we are in Parliament I have found them to be very understanding as to why I was not in the chamber on a particular day when perhaps a visitor from Western Australia came. They always know that they can contact their member here in Parliament House. We do not miss Parliament, we do not miss the debates of Parliament. We are participating in those debates by listening to them and by working around the House. I know that there are Government members who work very hard in committees-standing committees, parliamentary committees, Caucus committees-and who meet their constituents, business people and many others in the course of the day. It is almost impossible to be in this chamber all the time. It can be extremely frustrating for Government members to have a quorum called and see Opposition members going in the opposite direction. I know that that is an Opposition tactic and I do not resent it. In fact I am sure, as honourable members opposite have said, that it would be something we would use when we were in opposition-although not quite as much as this Opposition uses it and certainly not on such a whim as I have seen it used in this place. Nevertheless, I understand that it is a legitimate tactic of opposition and I, too, do not want to see consensus politics necessarily take over everything. Oppositions must have weapons and the quorum is a legitimate weapon. However, a weapon of 30 can be as effective as a weapon of 50. It just means that the Government will be able to get on with the business of governing in a more orderly way and we will be able to make arrangements amongst ourselves to have 30 people here when a quorum is likely to be called. We still have to work that problem out; it will not be easy to find solutions. As the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) indicated earlier in his speech, 20 per cent is still a substantial number of members of this place. That is all the quorum is trying to show-that there are a substantial number of members present and interested in the Bill that is under discussion. In the British Parliament only 6.2 per cent of members are required to be present for a quorum and that is a far lower percentage than we propose here today. I think it unlikely that the Opposition would have raised with Margaret Thatcher when she was out here the fact that the British Parliament has such a low quorum, saying that it was a lowering of the standards of the British Parliament, on which our Parliament is based, and therefore a matter of concern. We know that it is a fallacy, a tactic of the Opposition at the moment, to object to this proposal. As a Government member, I feel I could use my time in better ways than coming running to Opposition calls for quorums, particularly when they are called on the whim of a member who has been offended at something somebody has said or, as the honourable member for Stirling indicated earlier, someone who has overindulged at dinner. I do not make that judgment lightly, because I do not generally make judgments of my colleagues. But I think we have to make sure that the quorum call is a serious call of tactics by the Opposition and that it is not used too indiscriminately to punish the backbench of the Government. On that note, I simply say to the House that I commend the Bill and trust that it will pass into legislation to change the Standing Orders of this House. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(4.42) —I rise to support my colleagues the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) and the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) in suggesting that the quorum be maintained at 50, or approximately one-third of the House. I remind the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) that we do have a number of Liberal Party of Australia members in Western Australia, and we will have more after the next election. These people also have to ring up their electorates and service their constituencies, which they do assiduously and in a very good way. I know that the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) is a sportsman of note. He made a number of sporting comparisons-comparisons between this place and football matches. I remind him that this is a place of certain seriousness where very important debates take place. Why would this present Labor Government have it in mind to reduce the quorum in this House? I guess it is appropriate for this Government to reduce the quorum in this week when it is attempting to reduce rights and freedoms with the referendum this Saturday. The referendum proposals would reduce the role and power of the Senate and they would centralise the power on electoral matters in Canberra. The implications of the referendum proposals have, of course, been debated earlier in this Parliament. The Government has shown the same tendency-an attempt to reduce the democratic role of this chamber. The sitting days of the Parliament have been reduced under this Government and, of course, the role of the House of Representatives is being constricted all the time by the various measures introduced by the present Government. Why, we ask, would the Government want to reduce the number for a quorum? I put it to the Parliament that the real reason is that the factional members wish to have time to meet. They want to have their various meetings-unlike honourable members on this side of the House who have full party meetings and can sort out their problems in one room. Honourable members on this side of the House do not need to have a number of meetings held in a number of places-which takes a bit of organising, I understand. Honourable members opposite have the Left, the Centre Left, and the Right, and then there are the independents-you have to have another little room for them because they are small in number; they normally never get together. So the situation is that there is a difficulty when a quorum is called because all these factional meetings are being held around the Parliament, working out who is to go into the Ministry and who will get rid of the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) next week. Of course, there might be one going on today. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) might be having a small factional meeting with the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell). I think that meeting, which is probably going on right now, would be a very important one. Of course, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie would be upset if a quorum were called because he would have to leave the Prime Minister to come back into the Parliament. So I suggest that the Government has introduced this measure so that the factionalised procedures of the Australian Labor Party can be better undertaken, without interference from the calling of difficult quorums by the Opposition. In 1984 the size of the Parliament was increased for political reasons. The government of the day saw some political advantage in increasing the number of members of parliament because it thought that in the long term it would stand to gain because the Senate would never be controlled by a major party. As the honourable member for Hume indicated, the quorum has not been reduced since 1901. Why, in this year when the Constitution is being challenged, would we want to reduce the size of the quorum? The honourable member for Cook and the honourable member for Hume referred to the fact that Question Time under this Government has become a farce. The answers to questions directed to Ministers are not relevant; they are too long, and many policy statements are issued by Ministers when a ministerial statement would have sufficed. There have been attacks on our Leader continually, and the Prime Minister diverts any sensible question to a personal attack on our Leader or on the shadow Minister who asked the question. Of course, a number of these attacks have been of a personal nature. What other avenue does the Opposition have, except the calling of a quorum from time to time, to draw to the attention of the Government and the Prime Minister the fact that they are abusing the procedures of the House? On the matter of sitting times, the House of Representatives is operating on fewer days; there are no Friday sittings. Of course, the former Leader of the House, Mr Young, was very careful in presenting the argument that members had to go back to their electorates on Fridays and that they would be very keen to leave. Of course, what he did not point out to the public was that the changes meant that there would be one less Question Time in which the Government would be subjected to penetrating questions about its administration and the way in which it is running Australia. But, of course, that was rammed through and democracy suffered yet another blow. The reduction of the quorum is just another attempt by this Government to reduce the democratic process. I support the honourable member for Cook in his reference to the committee system, whereby a quorum of Government members is required for a committee to be effective. I have experience on the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration and the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, on which a quorum of four Government members out of six is required. On a number of occasions we find that Government members are slow, idle or just do not attend those meetings so the meetings become unconstitutional and are not able to start. I ask: Why did the Government raise this issue of having a quorum of Government members for these independent committees? These independent committees have been set up to view objectively the material before them, to discuss the issues, to take evidence and to table reports to Parliament in an independent manner, with recommendations for action. As the honourable member for Cook indicated, when he was in government those committees acted as a catalyst for change, bringing about better parliamentary laws for the benefit of Australia, and they have not always been party political. But on this occasion the Government has seen fit to make sure that its view will be implemented on the committee at all times, because it wants the quorum loaded towards the Government. It is on the public record that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and Mr Young were worried about the committees. They were worried that these committees might bring up sensible suggestions; that they might challenge the Government or bring forward recommendations that would be politically unacceptable. What did they do about it? They introduced a quorum procedure whereby at no time would the Opposition ever have the numbers, even for 10 minutes, to bring forward a sensible recommendation. So, subtly and carefully locked away in the procedures for the committees is this quorum procedure. We see a similar tendency moving forward here in the House of Representatives. It is subtle; it sounds reasonable enough that we reduce the quorum from 50 to 30. Might I refer to another matter. We have now spent over a billion dollars in building this new Parliament House-magnificent as it is-and we have space for people in the galleries to see their politicians at work, so to speak. A number of my constituents came to the old Parliament House and looked around and asked, `What actually goes on in the Parliament?' I have had great difficulty in explaining that members are out at committee meetings and attending to other business-that is, Labor Party members are out at factional meetings, whereas our members are out getting ready to deliver their speeches and making intelligent comments. I put forward the sensible suggestion that there should be a number of members in this chamber when members of the public come to view the Parliament in operation. It will be difficult to explain to the great numbers of people who will come to the new Parliament House to view the magnificent surroundings and the operations of this chamber why there are in fact only two or three members present-the Speaker or Deputy Speaker in the chair, the Minister at the table and one honourable member speaking. Members of the public cannot understand why the words of wisdom which are uttered in this place and which are being broadcast on the airwaves or throughout Parliament House are not accepted by members in this chamber. I suggest to the House that a reduction in the quorum is a further step in the direction of diminishing the role of this House and of reducing the effectiveness, visually and otherwise, of this very important debating chamber where the major issues of the day are discussed. The Government is setting about reducing the procedures just to suit itself. By its actions, the Government has tried to maintain control of all aspects of the activities of this Parliament. I support the honourable members for Hume and Cook and all members of the Opposition who will be voting against the Government's suggestion that the quorum be reduced. The Opposition is exercising its democratic right of ensuring that the present quorum be maintained as it has been since 1901. The procedure is very fair and reasonable, and it has been used by the Opposition in an effective and sensible manner. I reject the suggestions made by Government speakers that we have not used the quorum in a judicious manner. We have used it at times when, for example, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have abused Question Time. Honourable members will recall that, in recent parliamentary sitting days when Government Ministers have been reasonable with their answers, the quorum procedure has not been used. Mr Dobie —And the time taken in answering. Mr McARTHUR —As the member for Cook rightly interjects, there is also the question of the quite extraordinary length of time that one or two Ministers have used to put a point of view, taking up valuable Question Time so that other penetrating questions cannot be asked by members of the Opposition. I support both Opposition speakers in relation to maintaining the present quorum provisions of the House, namely, that one-third of the total number of the House-50 members-be present. Mr LEE(Dobell)(4.52) —While I understand that the House of Representatives (Quorum) Bill is of great importance to members of the House of Representatives, I appreciate that the media and members of the public who are witnessing this debate today may not be totally enthralled and so I will try to keep my comments as brief as possible. I make the point that the Federal Constitution, which was adopted by the founding fathers in the late 1890s, provided for the Parliament to set a quorum. In fact, section 39 of the Constitution states: Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the presence of at least one-third of the whole number of the members of the House of Representatives shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the House for the exercise of its powers. I stress the importance of the words `until the Parliament otherwise provides'. The founding fathers always envisaged that at some future time the Parliament could reduce the quorum from the original requirement of one-third of the members. Of course, one-third of the members in 1901, when this Parliament first sat, was only 25, as there were only 75 members of the House of Representatives at that time. So, it can be seen that even the reduced quorum that we are currently proposing-that is, 30 members-is still more than the original quorum of 25 members which was required in 1901. In fact, the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie), who is still in the chamber, was a member of a government which sought in 1970 and 1971 to reduce the quorum of the House of Representatives from one-third to one-fifth. I imagine that if I went back over the votes taken in this chamber in 1970 and 1971 I would find that the honourable member for Cook voted to reduce the quorum from one-third to one-fifth. I note that the honourable member nods his head in agreement. Mr Dobie —But I have changed my mind since then. Mr LEE —The honourable member interjects to say that he has changed his mind and, of course, every member, including me, has the right to change his mind at some future time. Members of the conservative side of politics are often keen to lecture us on the standards at Westminster, the Parliament of Great Britain-on how we should follow its standards, on how we should have a Speaker's chair modelled on the Speaker's chair of that Parliament-- Mr Dobie —Hear, hear! Mr LEE —The honourable member interjects his support. Let me make a comparison with the quorum requirement in the British House of Parliament. The mother Parliament does not require any quorum at all in debates. All it requires is 40 members to be present for any division. As the House of Commons has a total membership of 650 members, the requirement is about 6 per cent. So, the mother Parliament at Westminster, the Parliament which the conservative side of politics always looks up to, requires only that more than 6 per cent of members be present during divisions. That is its only requirement for quorums. We are proposing that the quorum for this House be reduced from 33 per cent to 20 per cent-a sensible improvement. In his second reading speech, the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) made the very important point that it is the obligation of all members of this House to maintain a quorum. A few minutes ago I noted that while there were 61 members of the public in the galleries-and I commend those people who have taken the trouble to sit through this debate-there were only eight members present in the chamber. I think there has been a slight improvement on that number since I did my count, but at that time there were only eight members in the chamber, with two Clerks at the table, another waiting to sit at the table, two Hansard officers, the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms, and one member of the media. I am pleased to see that the number of media people in the chamber has now doubled. Mr Ronald Edwards —A 100 per cent increase. Mr LEE —Yes, a 100 per cent increase, as the honourable member suggests. I am simply trying to make the point that the number of people who will participate in and listen to debates depends on the quality of those debates. Those of us who were here last Thursday, when there was a very moving debate on immigration, would be aware that not only were both sides of the chamber packed with members and the seats for the media totally crowded but also almost every seat in the public gallery was occupied with people interested in that debate. It was an interesting debate, there was a bit of tension in the air and people were not quite sure which way certain members would vote. So, it was quite natural that there was a lot of interest in that debate. I am trying to make the point to honourable members opposite that perhaps sometimes we have to think that maybe the contributions that we make in this chamber are not of the standard they should be. Too often debates in this chamber involve members simply supporting a government line, with the Opposition doing what Oppositions always do, whether Labor or Liberal-that is, opposing what the Government has put forward. I believe that the reforms that this Government has introduced to the House of Representatives committee system are very important. People may not be aware that while this House is sitting committees are in session. For example, the committee that I chair, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, is meeting right at this moment in one of the committee rooms of this Parliament. Committee members debate issues and argue points. Because they are not in the public spotlight and meetings are held in private, members from both the Government and the Opposition are more likely to give ground and compromise and reach a unanimous decision. The committee system has worked well in the Senate. I am pleased to see that the House of Representatives is now following the path that the Senate has established in seeking to create a parliament that works more in the interests of the country instead of just having debates in this chamber in respect of which everyone knows the outcome and which do not achieve very much. The committee system has great potential for allowing members to make genuine contributions and genuine suggestions for improving the quality of government. Those committees can meet only when the politicians are in Canberra. Usually this House sits from 10 in the morning until 11 at night, and those committees have to meet during that period. I point out to the members of the public who are watching today that that is why they see so many empty seats in the chamber. Many members are at committee meetings, arguing about reports or taking evidence from witnesses, in addition to doing their electorate work and ringing their electorate offices to find out what problems constituents have had today who has problems with pensions, immigration, or whatever. If members are doing their jobs properly, they cannot spend a lot of time in this chamber. As I said before, whenever there is an important debate on immigration or at Question Time the chamber is full, but at other times the House has to function with only a small number of members present. When an Opposition, whether it is from the conservative side of politics or our own, wishes to upset a government or to take revenge because a government has done something it is unhappy about, its tactic is to call a quorum. Quorums are often called, sometimes half a dozen an hour, and they require all members working on committees or in their offices to be dragged out of the committee rooms or their offices and to be forced to walk into the chamber until, at present, one-third of the House is here. The Speaker then rules that a quorum is present and they all go back. Then someone calls another quorum and they all have to walk or run back to the chamber again. It is simply a way in which the Opposition can slow down the business of the Parliament. In 1986, 152 quorums were called. On my figures-and the bells are presently rung for four minutes-that is a total of more than 10 hours being wasted in forcing people to walk to and from this chamber for quorums. I think this House could use that time better if the number required for a quorum were reduced from 50 to 30, a commonsense improvement which I hope all honourable members will support. Because this has been a wide-ranging debate, I make one other suggestion, since we are now in our new premises. I refer to the method which has been chosen to bring members into this chamber when there is a division or a quorum. We have adopted exactly the same tone of ringing bells in this House as was used in the old House. I know that a system of chimes is used in many State parliaments-for example, in New South Wales-and in many overseas parliaments. I sometimes suspect that we are the victims of some weird Pavlovian experiment whereby every time a bell rings we all start running. I believe it is very hard for members to work if there are a number of divisions in the Senate, because we get blasted out of our offices by the ringing of the Senate bells. In this building it is almost impossible to disconnect the Senate bells without also disconnecting the House of Representatives bells. I make the suggestion, and I hope other members consider it, that we look at an alternative sound to the ringing of the bells. My personal view is that we should look at some form of chimes. Perhaps we could debate this at some future opportunity. I am happy to support the proposal before the House to reduce a quorum from 50 to 30. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(5.03) —There is a touch of irony in my rising to give my first substantial speech in this House on the question of quorum calling. It is true that I did rise in this House for an all-too-brief two minutes at two minutes to 11 p.m. as part of an adjournment debate last week. I count it a great privilege to occupy not only this seat but this chamber. I am sure those sentiments are echoed by everyone in the chamber. Mr Dobie —All of us? Mr ANDREW —I must pick up the point made by the honourable member for Cook. When I look around the chamber I could be forgiven for reflecting on just how many there are echoing that sentiment. But I would restate, all jokes aside, that those who occupy this chamber for the first time in the life of this building have an enormous privilege, a privilege of which we are all very conscious. I count it an irony that I should rise to speak in this debate, because sadly I have a reputation in this place as a caller of quorums. In fact, a number of speakers, not the least of whom are the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley), the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) and the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee), have been keen to point out that there has been a dramatic surge in the number of quorums called in this chamber, particularly in 1986. As the chamber has heard time and time again, in 1982 there were 27 quorums called; in 1983 there were 24; in 1984 there were 68; in 1985 there were 41; in 1986 there were 146; and in 1987 there were 83. The suggestion from the Government benches has been that those of us in opposition, particularly I as the Deputy Whip, should in some way this afternoon be contrite for the fact that, in 1986, 146 quorums were called. In fact, the honourable member for Stirling has suggested that was an astonishing waste of taxpayers' money, that we had been frivolous with the taxpayers' money by calling quorums. I point out to the House that members of parliament are paid regardless of the hours they work. So I found it difficult to see how by calling quorums I particularly had extended either the number of hours that a member of parliament put in in a day or the time the House was open. I further point out to the House that every time a quorum is called-and I have drawn the attention of the occupant of the chair to the state of the House when I have been on my feet-all it does is eat into the speaking time of that member. His time is not extended to accommodate the quorum. So any suggestion that it is a waste of taxpayers' money is entirely without substance. More than that, quorums have been used by this Opposition-I regret the fact, but it is true-to discipline the Government, because it chose, particularly in 1984 and 1985, to so abuse Question Time that it was not unusual for the Opposition to find itself asking only three questions. Failing to have any other instrument which we could use, we said to the Government, `If you refuse to give us the opportunity to ask five or six questions in Question Time'-Question Time, I point out to the gallery, runs for almost 45 minutes-`we will call a quorum for every minute over five minutes that a Minister abuses Question Time'. In 1986 that resulted, as I said, in 146 quorums being called. Why? It was not because the Opposition wanted to call quorums but because the Government chose to abuse the facilities of this House, particularly the opportunity given to the Opposition to ask questions. To illustrate to the gallery and to place in Hansard proof of the good faith with which the Opposition acted, let me point to the number of quorums called in 1987: there were 83. The number had been almost halved, because members of the Government-and it took them a while, to be sure-finally got the message. Mr Dobie —Slow learners. Mr ANDREW —I am sorry, they were, yes-146 quorums slow. Nonetheless, having ultimately got the message, the Government decided that perhaps it was not so comfortable to run to the House and the number of quorums was reduced. Mr Dobie —Less comfortable in this House. Mr ANDREW —It is going to be even less comfortable, as the honourable member for Cook says, to make the run in this House. So the Government has chosen instead to reduce the number of members required for a quorum. I am indignant at any suggestion that the Opposition chose simply to waste taxpayers' money. The Opposition used the one facility at its disposal, with the failure of the Government to negotiate, to allow it to make Question Time as productive as it ought to be. I am also indignant at any suggestion that this legislation is brought in purely for the convenience of members of the House of Representatives, for that is to suppose that it is not convenient for us to be in this chamber. We all heard the honourable member for Dobell when he very reasonably said to the gallery, `I am sorry, ladies and gentlemen, the place is a bit empty because all the members are at committee meetings'; and that is true. Quite frankly, I interrupted an arrangement I had with a deputation from the wine industry so that I could be here right now. The deputation still awaits to hear from me. Of course there are other things happening. Let us make no bones about it: it is not inconvenient to be in this chamber. Being in the chamber is our responsibility. That is the privilege. We are elected to be here as advocates for our seats. This is the place we ought to be, and maintaining a quorum is not something we should resile from. We have been given an opportunity to participate in what should be the chamber conducting the most challenging debates in Australia, the paramount debating chamber in the nation. Instead, we are saying, `Sorry, can't be here- got to be off answering constituents' problems, writing letters, listening to committees or meeting various deputations'. People in the galleries have every reason to be indignant when they look into an empty chamber and ask, `Where are they?' As a member of the Opposition I would not and do not suggest that Government members are frivolously wasting their time by not being here, but it distresses me that we should reduce the number of people needed in this chamber to form a quorum simply because we think it makes it more convenient and no longer obliges us to participate in what should be the key debating chamber in the land-and a most comfortable chamber it is. I address a comment or two made by the honourable member for Dobell. He said that there were 61 people in the public gallery, few people in the chamber and that that was largely because the debate was not of major importance. The real tragedy for the House of Representatives in 1988 is that those of us who come in here to put a point of view know that, no matter what we say, the direction the Government is taking will not change. To use the words of the honourable member for Dobell, this is a chamber where everyone knows the outcome. Why does everyone know the outcome? It is because no matter how persuasive I tell myself I will be in this chamber, no matter how much I might advocate a point of view with passion, no matter how much I might plead with the Government, no-one will cross the floor and come over here to change the direction so chosen. What happens here? It is nothing but the theatre of going through what has already been determined in the party room. The most passionate debates in this grand building are not held here; they are held in the party room, where neither the public nor the press can witness what happens. That is a tragedy that could be addressed if the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia were prepared to give to its members as much freedom as the Opposition gives to its members. The public should bear in mind that the fact that, for the Australian Labor Party, the Party is paramount means this chamber as a debating chamber is being destroyed. The passionate debates, the debates that determine where the nation is going-the debates that decide, frankly, what the decisions in this chamber will be-have taken place in secret. The decisions have been made out of the way of the press and of the public. Why is this chamber empty? It is empty because everyone knows that the decision has been made already. No matter what the Government, I or anyone on my side might say, the course will not be changed. Mr Lamb —Try harder. Mr ANDREW —The Deputy Whip for the Government cynically says to try harder. Never-no matter what has been said in the most eloquent speeches on this side of the House-has he been in the least bit persuaded to do what his electorate would demand. In the freedom to cross the floor, we retain what every Australian expects; that is, the chance to debate the issue here and determine where we ought to go publicly. But that does not happen because the numbers are on the other side and, on the other side, to cross the floor is political death. It distresses me that we should, so early in the life of this chamber, come in here to reduce the number of people required to participate in debates. Frankly, we need more attendance and more passionate debates witnessed by the entire Australian community. In addition, we need a little more wisdom engendered into those debates. This will occur only when the public knows that we are accountable for what we say here. I noticed that the Leader of the House, in his second reading speech, said: The quorum requirement cannot of itself affect the numbers of members who remain in the chamber during a debate. That is partially true, although anyone can call the attention of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker to the number of members present. He then went on to say: This is determined by the nature and quality of the debate. That is my point. The nature and quality of the debate are being destroyed because there is no need to be passionate in this place. Even if someone is passionate, no-one on the other side cares a jot. The sad thing about this legislation is that it means that we no longer recognise the principle obligation that each of us has as elected representatives of a constituency-to be here. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(5.15) —We are debating the House of Representatives (Quorum) Bill because we are required, if we are to change the quorum requirements of this House, to introduce legislation. We still operate under the conditions inserted in our Constitution by our founding fathers. Of course, we have seen an enlargement of the numbers of representatives in this Parliament. The founding fathers fixed a fraction to accommodate the calling of quorums which has remained fixed as the Parliament has grown. We should ask ourselves: why do we need a quorum? Other parliaments have certainly asked themselves this very question and have not necessarily shared our conclusion that we should retain some form of quorum. Regardless of the arguments about whether we should maintain a quorum, we should ask ourselves what function a quorum has. We have heard the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) say in eloquent terms, and we have heard honourable members on his side before him say also, that it is here to inject some sort of degree of importance into our parliamentary lives and our parliamentary careers. It is as if the very pinnacle of our performance in representing our electorates somehow lies in gracing the leather in this chamber, standing to our feet and filling our 20 minutes of allotted speaking time. It is nothing like that. I remind the honourable member for Wakefield that what occurs in this Parliament is the tip of the iceberg. It is the end product of all the hard work that goes on in the constituencies and in other parts of this building. The very product of our labours is what is presented here, but the honourable member would have us believe that this chamber is the start, the finish and the be-all and end-all of our parliamentary contribution. In this Parliament there have been other attempts to try to reduce the parliamentary quorum requirements to what we might call a modern and contemporary size. The other parliaments with which we can compare ourselves-Canada, New Zealand, India and the United Kingdom-have different requirements, far less than our own. The mother of parliaments, as the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) pointed out, does not require a quorum. It requires only a minimum of 40 members; that is, 6.2 per cent-one-fifth of what we currently require here-for a division to stand as a decision of that House. The New Zealand Parliament requires 21 per cent. Our requirement is 1 1/2 times that of New Zealand's. If we are to be successful, as I know we will be, to reduce the quorum requirement to one-fifth or 20 per cent, then it will bring us on a par-within one or two percentage points-with comparable modern parliaments. Yet when this attempt was raised in 1972 or thereabouts by the then Liberal-Country Party Government, the Opposition members here who now protest so strongly against reduction of a quorum-the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) was in the Parliament at that time-were required to vote for a reduction in the quorum. They now come in here and argue contrary to that. I did some arithmetic to challenge the statement by the honourable member for Wakefield, who I believe cannot do his arithmetic, that he has not taken up the time of members of Parliament and taken them from their duties. If we were to take just one year at random-1986 for example-we would find that there were 152 quorums called. If they were to be called in this Parliament, taking four minutes each, because of the size of this Parliament House and the time it takes to get from our other duties to this chamber, that works out at around 10 hours taken out of the business of this House, which is equivalent to one full day's sitting. I invite the honourable member for Wakefield to buy himself a calculator and do his arithmetic. There are only so many hours in a day, and we all work long hours. He should not stand up in this place and say that he has not made our job more onerous and has not made it more difficult for us by calling quorums. The honourable member for Wakefield said also that somehow the Government had learnt a lesson. The Opposition believes that it can bash us around the head and rap us over the knuckles by calling quorums if Ministers give lengthy answers in Question Time. The public, members of the galleries whom the honourable member performed before earlier in this debate and those out there who read the Hansard, needs informative answers from Ministers. The Opposition is now guaranteed eight or nine answers: In other words, the parliament gets about 16 to 18 answers to questions a day. Yet the Opposition still goes on with this nonsense of calling unnecessary quorums. I remember the honourable member for Wakefield bringing the ridiculous to the sublime. He called a quorum against himself. One of his last brave outspoken acts for democracy in the former temporary Parliament House was to interrupt himself, to take two minutes of valuable time from his speech! In that other great performance to the gallery, he deprived not only himself of those two minutes of important words but also all those listeners whom he spoke about before. What greater hypocrisy and nonsense do we have than the Opposition's Deputy Whip calling a quorum against himself? It is no wonder that the Government and the Parliament have recognised how disruptive the practice of calling quorums is. We are very busy people. We do not take our parliamentary duties lightly. The honourable people in the gallery and visitors to this Parliament who witness the absence of members of this chamber have to be told where we are. I will tell them once again, as did the honourable member for Wakefield. If we are absent from this chamber we are in our committee rooms and doing our work there, such as debating reports, preparing reports, talking to witnesses and so on. But when I look around the committees of which I am a member, with the exception of one, I find that it is mainly Government members who are present. Members of the Opposition are not doing their part in their committee work. Several shadow Ministers are particularly notable by their absence. Earlier in this debate the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) tried to say that somehow this side was involved in faction meetings 24 hours a day. He said that he had difficulty in explaining to his constituents about the Australian Labor Party and its factions. He would have far more difficulty and a more onerous task in explaining what is going on among Opposition members in both the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party. They would be saying, `I can't really explain why we have wets, dries, tepids, lukewarms and arids, or why I am indistinguishable from sheep dip, or why our members are not in the committee rooms or in here'. They are not here because they are trying to get the numbers for the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) or to get more support for those dwindling numbers behind the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). That is where their time is being consumed. That is why they are not here and why they are represented solely by the Opposition member at the table-the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife)-and the honourable member for Wakefield. I am not surprised that the honourable member for Corangamite has extreme difficulty in explaining why his colleagues are spending their time trying to shore up either the current leader or establishing the numbers for a new leader. The only conclusion I can reach is that quorums are disruptive. They add nothing to the quality of debate. In fact, they take the debate out of this chamber: they remove two minutes every time. I cannot accept that the activities of the honourable member for Wakefield, who proudly got up and said, thumping his chest, `I'm the one who called the quorums in this place, including those on myself', are anything more or anything less than painful harassment of the Government. If we reduce the number of a quorum from 50 to 30, more members will still be required to come into this chamber than were required in the first Parliament and up to 1947 when, as the honourable member for Dobell said, 25 were required. Those who have done an intelligent and an objective analysis of the use of quorums would have to ask: Do quorums provide a safeguard or do we have enough commonsense among each and every man and woman who sits in this Parliament to know that when the important debates are on we will come in to listen and may even be persuaded? However, when the divisions are on and the important decisions are made, we have no need to call a quorum because commonsense-survival-dictates that we will vote for the question before the House. When we had an important debate on immigration in this place recently I did not see many absences from the House. In that debate I felt there was equality. Even though I did not agree with the way the Opposition participated in that debate, occasionally Opposition contributions were worthy of being listened to. We have to ask ourselves why we should not even get rid of the quorum requirement. Certainly, the House of Commons decided that it would no longer have a quorum requirement but that a decision of the House would require at least a quorum of 40-- Mr Scholes —Six per cent. Mr LAMB —Or 6.2 per cent. I thank the honourable member for Corio. At least this Bill will bring us into line with contemporary parliaments. I want to take a couple of minutes now to address myself to something that is not in this Bill-it is a pity that it is not-and that is a quorum for prayers. I have no objection to prayers being read in this Parliament at the beginning of every meeting. I attend them. As a Deputy Whip, it is my duty, along with that of the Whip, to make sure that there is a quorum and to be part of that quorum. I have no objection to the words-they are rather ecumenical or catholic in their presentation-but, on constitutional grounds, I query whether there should be a quorum requirement while prayers are read. Because of the current debate on the referendum proposals, most honourable members will know that section 116 of the Australian Constitution prevents the Commonwealth from bringing about laws or seeking to make Acts to establish a religion or-and these are the important words here-which impose any religious observance. Yet this Parliament is required to have a religious observance-that is, prayers. One might say that it is not likely that a quorum would be called on such an occasion, but it did happen on 19 September 1913. The Speaker adjourned the House and a quorum was called again five minutes later. It happened twice in my second term of Parliament. On 28 November 1974, Speaker Cope noted that there was not a quorum present and required the bells to be rung. That was taken up later by the then member for Burke, Mr Keith Johnson, who asked the Speaker why Standing Orders, which suggest that members cannot enjoy their constitutional right not to engage in religious activities, should persist. Mr Speaker answered, quite rightly, that it was not up to him to decide the Standing Orders; his job was to protect them, and so he did. However, on 26 February 1975 Speaker Cope did the same thing. I do not believe that his action precipitated his removal the next day. The honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) became Speaker at that time. However, it points to the fact that on at least three occasions in this Parliament-two during my own time-the Parliament has enforced a standing order which is against the spirit of the Australian Constitution in requiring members, whatever their religious beliefs and regardless of the intensity of their religious beliefs, to come into this chamber under a quorum requirement and participate in a religious observance. I am sorry that this is not covered in the Bill because it might easily have contained a clause which exempted prayers from the new quorum requirement. As I said earlier, this House will pass the Bill. The Bill will then go to the Senate. The question then arises whether the other House has the right to veto or to amend this Bill-in other words, to have a say in how we should run our Standing Orders and our parliamentary business. I believe that the Senate should not have such a say, although the Constitution gives it that right. I believe that the Senate will not exercise that right. I believe it behoves both the senators in another place and us to respect the right of each individual House to set its own Standing Orders. It is with that confidence that I say that I know the Bill will pass through the Senate in an unamended form. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(5.31) —in reply-The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) is too pessimistic. He says that everything that he and all other honourable members on his side of the House say influences the Government in no way at all. He is completely wrong in that regard and I suggest that this Bill is evidence of the fact that we can be persuaded. This type of Bill was introduced by his Party when in government and it suggested that it would be a very good idea. Of course, at that time we did not fully comprehend all the aspects of the value of that Bill and we failed to take a favourable stance on it. Mr Fife —What year was that? Mr BEAZLEY —That was 1970. Since then we have learned of the wisdom of the Opposition's approach to this matter. We have been prepared to take the advice of honourable members opposite and, accordingly, have introduced this Bill into the House. It is a matter of some small disappointment to us that the Opposition no longer sees how wise was its approach when it was in government and now chooses to oppose the legislation. Some very good points have been made by honourable members on both sides of the House. Contributions were made from both sides of the House by speakers with a great deal of parliamentary experience. They tended to range fairly wide. Their remarks contained a lot of useful advice. I will review this debate and see whether there is something that we can pick up from it. I think that over the next few months we are going to find that many aspects of our procedures need to be looked at anew in light of our operations inside this place. I think that the House of Representatives (Quorum) Bill will assist us with one operation which began in the old House and which, I think, will increase in importance over the years. I refer to the extended role we have given to House of Representatives committees. I know that there are varied views on that. I know that some honourable members take the view that those committees detract from debate in this place. A great deal of sound argument can be mounted for that. However, on the whole I think the majority view on both sides of the House is that these committees will enhance the capacities of the House to review the operations of the Executive. If those committees are to function effectively, increasingly they will have to meet in parliamentary sitting times. Whilst that is not entirely desirable, it is nevertheless a fact of life. We live in far flung parts of this nation. We have enormous electoral responsibilities. In particular, backbenchers have enormous electoral responsibilities. It is not possible for them to perform those representative functions and keep coming to Canberra or wherever else those committees are meeting. We do not have the sorts of staff arrangements that United States congressmen have, but we are beginning to assume the sort of committee profile that the United States Congress has. That means that increasingly those committees, if they are to do the task they are set and to be effective, will have to sit in parliamentary sitting hours. If that is the case and if the quorum provisions remain as they are, the capacity to disrupt the effective processes of a system which enjoys bipartisan support is going to be excessive. Whilst I do not think that this Bill is by any means the be-all and end-all of what needs to change in regard to the procedures of this House, it may well make some small contribution to the effectiveness of the committee process. If we look at equivalent parliaments elsewhere we find that this quorum Bill, in terms of the recognition of a continuing interest in the matters before the House by members of parliament, stands up to a comparison with just about any other parliament. It will require a much greater participation by members than does a quorum in the British House of Commons. That is not hard to do: The British House of Commons has no quorum. The only requirement that the British House of Commons has for attendance to be legitimate is one that 40 members must participate in a division for the division to produce a valid result. That is not bad when one considers that the British House of Commons consists of some 650 members. It has no quorum and 40 members are all that is required for a division. I guess that experience stems from Cromwell's time when he managed over a period steadily to reduce the number of members of parliament with each round-up he made. I think he operated with a parliament of about 45 members at one stage as he successively reduced each faction by military means-means that I, as Minister for Defence in this place, certainly would never contemplate, as honourable members will be pleased to know. The British House of Commons takes a very pragmatic view of participation in divisions and on the subject of quorums. I think that the change proposed by the Bill will be a useful change, but not so much for the Government because the fact of the matter is that, by and large, Ministers do not attend quorums. They may be passing by the chamber and come in to participate. The fact that Ministers do not attend quorums is not a practice to be encouraged but, on the whole, Ministers do not participate. However, when one sits in here and notes those honourable members who attend a quorum one notices that the members effectively being inconvenienced by the calling of the quorum are not those concerned with the functioning of government, against whom the quorum is often directed, albeit for Question Time performances or whatever other reasons; they are in fact members of the government back bench. It is the government back bench which provides the numbers for the effective functioning of the parliamentary committee system. I think that in the main the Opposition, whilst opposing this Bill, really has not changed its mind; it is just being ornery. In fact, when honourable members opposite came forward with this suggestion some time ago and we opposed it they were quite right in doing so and were just being ornery. I trust that the Senate will not take the unprecedented step of believing that it ought to deliberate on the size of quorums in the House of Representatives and that it will take the Bill for the constitutional oddity that essentially it is in seeking its approval and duly pass it when it comes to the Senate for consideration. I thank all honourable members who participated in the debate. There have been some useful contributions. I will take the suggestions of honourable members on board. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr D. B. Cowan) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lavarch, M. H.Campbell, G. Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Mildren, J. B.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Crawford, M. C. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Keefe, N. P.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Duncan, P. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Sawford, R. W.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sciacca, C.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R.Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. McGauran, P. J.Aldred, K. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Beale, J. H. Miles, C. G.Blunt, C. W. Millar, P. C.Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B. (Teller)Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Donald Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Robinson, IanCobb, M. R. Rocher, A. C.Connolly, D. M. 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 Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Taylor, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Lloyd, B. Wooldridge, M. R. L.McArthur, F. S. Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Beazley) read a third time. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 25 August, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(5.58) —Something will have to be done about the microphones in this chamber. I have not been able to hear a word that has been said here for the last five minutes. I did not know whether I had the call or not. I do not know who is responsible for the sound in this place but someone will have to do something about it very quickly, otherwise the parliamentary process will not continue. I assume that I have the call because I have not been told to sit down. I am speaking on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1988-89. Last Thursday evening I listened with considerable interest to the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), because I thought we were going to be told the answers. I listened very carefully because I thought I was going to follow him immediately but I had to adjourn the debate. I thought we were going to be told how the Opposition would run the economy of Australia. I am disappointed and, incidentally, I feel deceived and rather let down. I am still waiting for the answers from the Opposition. I am left wondering what members of the Opposition have in mind for Australia. Mrs Darling —I was wondering. Mr HOLLIS —We are all wondering; everyone is wondering what the Opposition will do for Australia. Would all the tax cuts come at once or, as the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) says, would they be phased in over a three-year period? Last Tuesday evening in the chamber the Treasurer (Mr Keating) delivered a Budget for the times. It was a realistic and responsible economic statement. But I ask myself: Where are the questions? I was in the chamber today for Question Time. There was not one question from the Opposition on the Budget. Put simply-and, of course, I put it simply for the Opposition-the Budget was too much for members of the Opposition. It knocked them out and left them groggy. In desperation, they have resorted to all kinds of antics to hide their embarrassment. As we all know, Question Time is traditionally the time when members of the Opposition try to score a few points off the Government. But not this time. Where are their telling questions? It would seem that they have none. Why not? There have been no probing or embarrassing questions for the simple reason that they cannot fault the economic logic of the Treasurer. So they are compelled to engage in diversionary tactics, and they have engaged in quite a few recently. One thing that amazed me about the speech of the honourable member for Bennelong in replying, if that is the correct word, to the Government's Budget statement was his attack on the maritime unions. It is not the first time that members on the other side of the House have attacked unwarrantedly and unjustifiably this union movement. I represent an area that covers these maritime unions and I must say that I am getting sick and tired of these unwarranted attacks on the maritime unions. As I said, such an attack is unwarranted and ill-informed. It is born out of ignorance and prejudice. In making such an attack, the Leader of the Opposition reveals just how out of touch he is with the realities of life in the Australian maritime industry. The honourable member for Bennelong said that in government-if those opposite are ever in government-the coalition would monitor progress by local shipping companies and relevant unions in reducing manning levels. If members of the Opposition had been informed, they would have seen that this has been happening in the shipping industry and would not stand in this place and make such ill-informed and wrong statements. In his speech the honourable member for Bennelong said that he would quite happily consider replacing Australian seamen with those from overseas. Perhaps he is thinking of making an exception to his highly prejudiced rule and bring Asian seamen into the Australian shipping industry-no longer boat people but now ship people. I wonder whether the honourable member for Bennelong is aware of how poorly paid these overseas seamen are? I wonder whether he is aware of the appalling conditions under which they must live and work? I wonder whether he has been aboard the filthy and dangerous rust buckets that do not deserve to be called ships? Is that what he wants for the Australian shipping industry? In making such remarks, the Leader of the Opposition joins the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), who has not infrequently made attacks on the maritime union, and shows that he is as ignorant of developments in the Australian maritime industry as he is of economics. His information is 10 years out of date and the work practices in the Australian maritime industry which he would denounce have long since been addressed. For the benefit of the honourable member, let me give him a few facts. Some 10 years ago the Australian maritime unions faced up to the fact that it was necessary to reduce crew levels on Australian shipping if the industry were to remain competitive. They saw that this could be done through the amalgamation of their unions. This would open the door to a number of cost saving advantages. It would eliminate many job demarcations and open the way for multi- skilling, thereby making possible smaller crews. Today the amalgamation process is all but complete. Where there were seven unions, there are now only three and the intention of the two officer unions to merge will soon reduce shipboard unions to only two. This, of course, is very much in line with the 1982 report of the Crawford Committee on Revitalisation of Australian Shipping. What should be realised is that the maritime unions saw the need to change their work practices, and set about doing so. Today they are in the vanguard of change in Australian unionism and their example is constantly held up for others to emulate. Something else should also be considered. We can have modern work practices only in modern industries. Crewing levels can, with safety, only be brought down to an economically competitive level on ships that are specifically designed for modern operation. A case in point is the MV Portland, the first of what I hope will be many new, highly efficient Australian ships. For the first time in Australian shipping, the Portland makes possible safe working practices by a multi-skilled crew of 21, which is the Maritime Industry Development Committee's crewing benchmark. This ship and its highly skilled crew represents a major breakthrough in efficiency and safety for Australian shipping. This is the way ahead, not the opening up of our shipping lanes to flag of convenience rust buckets with their poorly paid crews who live in squalor and constant fear of their lives. I issue an invitation to the Leader of the Opposition to come with me and talk with the maritime unions. He will learn much. I also issue a warning: I very much doubt that those on the other side will form a government in the near future but, in the most unlikely event that they do, just let them try to introduce foreign shipping on the Australian coastal run, let them try to bring any such ship into Port Kembla! As the Treasurer reported to the people of Australia on Tuesday evening, the nation is successfully emerging from its most severe economic crisis in a generation. But more importantly, this Budget goes to the heart of the question of social justice. In this respect it is very much a Budget in the traditions of the Australian Labor Party. This Budget is concerned with fairness and support for the genuinely disadvantaged in our community. And so we have a rise in payments under the family income support scheme. This means we now have an even better scheme, for the family allowance supplement, before this Budget, already benefited more than one million children from low income families. Last election the Opposition made a marvellous discovery-it discovered the family! Overnight it became the family party. It proclaimed to all and sundry that henceforth, now that it had made this marvellous discovery, it would seek to uphold family values. Unfortunately for the Opposition, it arrived a little breathless and a little late. For what could be directed more to the family than assisting the genuinely disadvantaged families in our society? And who has consistently and successfully done just this? The answer, of course, is the Hawke Labor Government. Let us consider the details of this Budget. From December, maximum payments under the package will be raised by about 10 per cent, by $2 to $24 a week for children aged 12 or under, and by $3 to $31 a week for children aged between 13 and 15. This will greatly assist many families in the Illawarra, the very families that under the Fraser-Howard Government were, before 1983, being thrown onto the scrap heap. These increases will cost $69m in 1988-89 and $133m in the year after. I believe it is money that will be well spent. 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 aged under 16, will receive an addition to their income of $106 a week free of tax. Let me now turn to the question of child care. Something that particularly pleases me in this Budget is the Government's commitment to 30,000 new child care places over the next four years. Two-thirds of these places will be for care which extends outside school hours, and this will be especially beneficial to working parents. The Government, up to now, has had an excellent record in this area, but this Budget makes our record just that much more impressive. Let me now raise an entirely different matter. For too long our Australian artists, excellent as they are, have received too little encouragement. This hiatus has now been addressed. Under a new scheme initiated by the Hawke Labor Government-to be known as Australian creative fellowships-the Australia Council will be charged with the responsibility of administering fellowships to that small but 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. For too long our promising artists have been forced to go overseas to work-sometimes for considerable periods. They have been a great loss to our nation and its cultural enrichment. The Hawke Labor Government has perceived this problem, and has now done something about it. I am pleased to note that the Budget makes provision for a year of citizenship campaign whereby funding will be available to encourage more than one million permanent residents to take up citizenship. I here make mention of my personal belief that members of parliament should be empowered to officiate at naturalisation ceremonies. Another aspect of this Budget that I find particularly pleasing is the commitment of this Labor Government to the continuation and expansion of the Australian overseas aid program. Under this Budget, Australian aid will grow in real terms. Provision has been made for official development assistance amounting to $1,093m. This is consistent with the Government's announced commitment to maintain aid at 0.36 per cent of our gross national product for the year 1988-89. With this Budget, Australia's aid program will introduce a number of initiatives as well as expanding upon several existing activities which remain of high priority. Overall, the balance within the aid program between humanitarian concerns and Australia's political and economic interests will be maintained. I am particularly pleased to see our Government embarking on initiatives in the areas of health and education which will contribute directly to improved standards of living in developing countries. A package of health activities will concentrate on primary and preventative measures such as immunisation and maternal child health, particularly in South East Asia and the South Pacific. A major initiative in the education sector will be the launching of a pilot scheme to provide scholarships to students from the most economically and socially disadvantaged region of Thailand. Within the overall aid budget, priority will continue to be given to those developing countries in Australia's neighbourhood. The aid relationship with Papua New Guinea will continue towards a more mature phase as budget support declines and funding of programmed development activities increases. Total aid to Papua New Guinea will be over $300m. Australia will provide over $85m to other South Pacific island states under new funding arrangements which will provide the necessary predictability for future funding levels. While the major aid programs to South East Asia will be maintained in real terms, the country program to China will grow by $4m to over $22m. Elsewhere, additional funds will be available for small scale development activities in South Asia and for humanitarian aid to Indo-China. Funding to the Indian Ocean region will increase by over $3m, to $9m. A key feature of an expanded program of assistance to southern Africa-$35m in this current financial year-will be the promotion of food security. Generous support for refugee and relief programs will be maintained, with a special contribution of $20m over the next three financial years to the resettlement of Afghan refugees. The relief needs of the Palestinian refugees will be met through increased support for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. The development import finance facility will increase to $40m, contributing to longer term growth in Australia's commercial relations with a range of developing countries. Recognition will again be given to the important role played by community-based organisations by additional funding for select non-government programs. Recently I had the privilege of leading a parliamentary delegation to Africa and we saw there the result of Australian aid to Africa. I must say that it was money well spent. I am proud to say that, despite the continuing difficult economic circumstances which concern us Australians, this Labor Government's increased allocation to the aid program is a very clear expression of our commitment to the economic and social advancement of the people of the developing countries. If we Australians are to count ourselves as a humane and compassionate people, then we cannot concentrate solely on our own development. We have both a national commitment and a global commitment and the two are very much intertwined. I commend the Budget to the House. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(6.05) —As shown in last Tuesday's Budget statements, the Government's estimated expenditure on health for the year 1988-89 is $10.8 billion. With such enormous amounts of taxpayers' money being used in the provision of health services, it is vitally important to ensure that the moneys expended are used efficiently and effectively. However, it has come to my attention that certain identified irregularities have not been investigated by both the relevant Commonwealth authorities and the Victorian Government authorities. As evidence of this, I refer to the fact that in 1983 the Social Development Committee of the Victorian Parliament referred certain matters to the State Attorney-General as a result of evidence given to the Committee while inquiring into the Medical Practitioners (Private Hospitals) Bill. As a result of that reference, Mr Colin Hollis-Bee, a prosecutor for the Queen in the Victorian Law Department's Commercial Crime Group, instituted a thorough investigation. His investigations resulted in his sending a memorandum to the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions in which he concluded that the findings of his investigations were `appropriate to be examined by the Commonwealth authorities'. Despite this recommendation, very little has been done. In his memorandum, Mr Hollis-Bee says that his object in part is: To ascertain whether, and to what extent, the involvement of private investors in private hospitals and nursing homes may be related to the activities of entrepreneurs named in the McCabe-Lafranchi report . . . Remembering that we are talking of an area of Australia's health system, Mr Hollis-Bee goes on to say: The discourse will, of necessity, take the reader into the areas of tax minimisation and avoidance, Commonwealth subsidies, the administration of trusts and the present standards of public disclosure by members of various bodies. Essentially the concern of the Social Development Committee revolved around evidence given by Dr J. B. Morley regarding the ownership of private hospitals through proprietary companies. Mr Hollis-Bee says: I am unable to say for what purpose the people named in Appendix II chose to invest in private hospitals. He goes on to say: Insofar as such investments may be seen to have been undertaken to obtain some perceived advantage under the Income Tax Act 1936, then the determination of the legality or otherwise of such activities is best left to the appropriate Commonwealth authority-and reference should be made forthwith. Later he says: When dealing with the private hospital industry, it can be demonstrated that numerous benefits of a public nature are accessible to those involved: especially if there are associated charities. As an example, Mr Hollis-Bee lists, among other things, guaranteed payment for service under health insurance schemes, income tax exemptions for registered charities, and sales tax exemptions. Mr Hollis-Bee adds: Beyond these formal benefits lie the advantages to be had in the continuous ebb and flow of funds between related entities. He goes on to say: It is my opinion that, at a State level, little may be done to interdict what might appear to be an objectionable situation. The solution rests with the Commonwealth Government . . . In his memorandum, Mr Hollis-Bee briefly outlines the history of the private hospital industry in Victoria and its disappearance behind the corporate veil. Attached to Mr Hollis-Bee's memorandum is Appendix III, a chart prepared by Mr Hollis-Bee using his own material and material from the McCabe-Lafranchi investigations, that highlights the ownership web weaved by some well-known characters in our community. Featuring prominently in the chart are such notorious tax avoidance companies as Neetoe Pty Ltd and Yalcoon Pty Ltd. These two companies are, of course, well known as commission-paying organs of Mr B. J. Maher. In his investigations, Mr Hollis-Bee even came across individuals and companies that featured in the Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. Under the heading `Areas of Concern', the memorandum lists the following: (a) The use of interlocking corporate structures, private trusts and charities as a round-about for the circulation of funds: (b) The lack of public scrutiny: indeed the permitted concealment of the individuals involved which contributes to the absence of public accountability for the use of public funds-`public funds' including both moneys subscribed by the public, as well as subsidies paid from taxation revenue. Here I should add that funding arrangements have of course now changed and private hospitals no longer receive bed subsidies from the Federal Government. I continue quoting from Mr Hollis-Bee's memorandum: (c) The potential for misuse of the tax-exempt status of charities by the rapacious at the expense of legitimate charitable organisations. The memorandum remarks on the use of trusts, proprietary companies and nominee companies and the difficulty this poses in discovering just who are the true owners of various aspects of such businesses and what precisely is the benefit being derived. It is interesting to note that Mr Hollis-Bee's memorandum is dated 16 March 1984. Whilst funding and other arrangements in the health sector have changed since that time and a number of abuses have since been eliminated, I understand from a number of very reliable sources that the Federal Labor Government has taken no action to investigate the matters raised in Mr Hollis-Bee's memorandum nor to recover taxpayers' money lost to the unscrupulous owners hiding behind the corporate veil who have so successfully manipulated the system. Similarly, the Cain Labor Government has taken no significant action on the recommendations of Mr Hollis-Bee. Yet both governments have had over four years to act on Mr Hollis-Bee's memorandum. I remind the House that the Hawke Labor Government has been in office well over five years and the Cain Labor Government over six years, so they are both well and truly accountable for events before and since the memorandum. Had either Labor government fully investigated the matters raised by Mr Hollis-Bee there would by now have undoubtedly been a number of prosecutions resulting or at least pending. There are not. Perhaps the prominence of names such as Arnold and Elaine Bloch, Jack and Eric Smorgon, plus others like Mark Liebler, have deterred these governments from action. Such behaviour runs true to form for both Labor governments. Premier Cain is now as notorious for the cover-up as the Hawke Labor Government has always been for looking after special mates. To spur some long overdue action on this matter, I seek leave to table the memorandum prepared by Mr Hollis-Bee. Leave granted. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(6.12) —From the outset, may I concur completely with the remarks made this evening by my colleague the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) regarding the Seamen's Union of Australia. The Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), made quite outrageous remarks about the Seamen's Union. It really galls me to think that the leader of a political party could be so ill-informed as the Leader of the Opposition was in respect of his remarks about the Seamen's Union in his reply to the Budget Speech. For instance, in the last three years I do not think any other union has made as positive and constructive changes as the Seamen's Union has, particularly in the areas of multi-skilling and cutting down on the number of seamen required to man a ship. These objective changes have really been beneficial to the economy of Australia, at no small price to the Seamen's Union. The honourable member for Throsby was articulate and eloquent in the way he approached this matter in defence of the Seamen's Union and I place on record my complete agreement with him. It is a fact of life that the Australian Labor Party gets the opportunity to govern Australia only when the conservative forces have virtually stuffed up the country. This country was left in an utter mess when we came to government in March of 1983. Labor really got the opportunity because the conservative forces were just not able to govern the country. Let us look at the situation when we came to government. These are some of the statistics: there was a deficit of $9.6 billion; inflation was running at 11.5 per cent; unemployment was 9.9 per cent; and interest rates were 16 per cent. No wonder the Australian people gave the coalition the heave-ho. It was an appalling situation for any government to have the economy in. Against all odds this Government has turned that appalling negative situation into a plus. One must never forget that in 1986 we had a huge cut in our export commodity prices. The Budget surplus announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is to be an unprecedented $5,468m. What an incredible turnaround in less than 5 1/2 years. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the Treasurer for his relentless efforts in again putting Australia on a sound economic footing. There are plenty of members within the Government who would not have the enthusiasm, zeal and intestinal fortitude to handle the enormous challenges that the Treasurer had to overcome to succeed. I take this opportunity to applaud the Treasurer on the results obtained in the Budget and on the remarkably successful achievement of getting this country's economy into the shape he has got it in. It is indeed pleasing that the manufacturing industry is steadily picking up. The restructuring of the motor vehicle industry is an enormous plus. On a personal level, I must mention the steel industry. This industry was on the point of closing when we came to office in March 1983, and it has had a remarkable turnaround. As the member for Grey, and residing as I do in Whyalla, I might say that it was a tremendously worrying and concerning time after the previous Federal government, the Fraser Government, closed the shipbuilding industry in 1977-78 and something like 2,000 jobs, directly and indirectly, were lost. The thought of losing the steel industry had an enormously depressing effect on the community. The turnaround and the support that the Government, the trade union movement and the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd have together initiated are marvellous pluses for Whyalla, and the Whyalla residents are eternally grateful to the Hawke Labor Government for initiating that turnaround. These economic changes could have been brought about only with the enormous support of the trade union movement. The Australian Council of Trade Unions, under the leadership of Bill Kelty and Simon Crean, has given enormous support to this Government. Officials right through all tiers of the trade union movement hierarchy have been tremendously supportive. From my own town of Whyalla, both Johnny Watson of the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia and Doug Elkins of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union have been very supportive and constructive in bringing forward some of the ideas to make the economy change in the way it has and also in providing local input to the steel industry. It is a wonderful thing to talk about our local people-people whom most of us in this place have never heard of. I want to pay tribute to a fellow called Derek Jones, a Welshman who came to Whyalla in South Australia in the early 1960s. Just recently he came to see me about the outrageous price of alcohol, particularly beer. I took that matter on board; he was quite right. I put to the Government the idea that it was about time we had some reduction in the price of beer and, through Derek's personal efforts, I was able to convey to the Government, particularly the Treasurer, the suggestion that the tax on beer be reduced. This has come about. I thank Derek for his initiative in coming to see me on this matter, because he certainly had some input in the reduction of the price of alcohol. Overwhelmingly, the great plus for the Budget that has just been brought down is its support for people at the bottom end of the socio-economic scale. This has been one of the major pluses of the Government. Even though it has had to make some tough decisions, the ordinary working class people, people in need and disadvantaged people have been looked after. Firstly, the Government introduced measures to repair the safety net for pensioners and beneficiaries by ensuring a more adequate level of provision for those in need. No-one on this side of the House could argue with that, and I am pleased that we all firmly support that initiative. The family package and child support initiatives are two important measures to achieve this objective. Secondly, the Government has begun to provide ladders of opportunity for pensioners and beneficiaries, starting with a more active labour market policy for the young unemployed and initiatives to reduce poverty traps. These reforms have been undertaken in a context of strict fiscal restraint and many measures have been taken to assist greater targeting of assistance. The achievement of the pledge that no child need be living in poverty by 1990 requires improved income support measures to assist families. In particular I refer to increases in the rate of the family allowance supplement and the additional benefit for the children of families below the FAS income tax threshold. That has been a marvellous plus. The measures for families in this Budget are a second stage in the strategy announced in the 1987-88 Budget and go towards achieving the benchmarks of adequacy for total child payments of 15 per cent of the combined married pension rate for children under 13 years of age and 20 per cent for children aged 13 to 15. I think that that is magnificent. FAS rates will be increased to $24 a week for children under 13 and $31 a week for children aged 13, 14 and 15. This is an increase of $2 a week for younger children and $3 a week for older children. FAS and family support allowance payments are to be integrated from December 1988. As well, the basis for entitlement to these payments will be standardised. Both will be tested on the basis of the previous financial year's total taxable income, although separate income tests will continue to apply. Housing costs have also had an important effect on the number of people in poverty. Some 68 per cent of beneficiaries and 63 per cent of pensioners now pay more than 30 per cent of income in private rent, compared with 20 per cent for the community generally. This is unacceptable. Among low income families, those who rent in the private market are the least well off. In recognition of this, the 1987 family package included an extension of rent assistance to eligible FAS recipients. In this Budget, a major package of housing measures has been designed to target rent assistance to families with dependent children. This package will begin in June 1989 and will be implemented within 12 months, at a full yearly cost of nearly $100m. As part of the Government's child poverty strategy, stage one of the child support scheme began in June 1988. Stage one introduced the child support agency to guarantee the regular deductions from the wages of non-custodial parents of maintenance amounts determined by or registered with the Family Court of Australia. Stage two will further assist many families to move out of poverty, by providing more consistency and certainty about child maintenance payments. These will begin in July 1989 when a legislative formula based on capacity to pay will be used to assess the amount of child support payment. All of these measures are extremely important steps designed to help overcome some of the difficulties that many people are facing. I think some of these things need to be expanded on. However, the Government must be congratulated for bringing these measures to fruition. The Government also has a strategy to tackle long term unemployment. I firmly support this. The huge number of young people who come into my office on a regular basis all want to work. We often hear some snide and cynical comments in the community that young people do not want to work. I refute that viewpoint completely. The overwhelming majority of people in the community want to work. All they need is the opportunity. The Federal Government has introduced the new start program to tackle long term unemployment. It will spend $114m over 3 1/2 years on a new and wide-ranging strategy to tackle long term unemployment in the 21- to 54-year-old age group. Thousands of long term unemployed people will be given a new start in the work force under the Budget program which was announced by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) and the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan). The new start program will be aimed at people aged from 21 to 54 who have been receiving the unemployment benefit for more than 12 months. It will offer special help to overcome the specific employment barriers that build up. It is extremely depressing for someone to be unemployed for a long period. Such people feel as though they have let down their family, the community, and everyone with whom they are associated. I think this initiative is tremendous. The new start program will begin in February 1989. A special one-off payment of $100 will be made to those who find work after having received the unemployment benefit for more than 12 months. The payment will help with the transport, clothing and other hidden costs, which are a financial drain, especially after long term unemployment. I might indicate that some of these measures are unique. They are extremely constructive and they are absolutely necessary and vital in our effort to help young people. I have referred to just a few measures that have been introduced by the Government. As I have said, I pay a tribute to the Treasurer for the Budget that was brought down. People can look forward to a more rosy future. Obviously many people will be extremely happy about the huge tax cuts that will come in next year. I am probably the one person in this Government who does argue strongly for huge tax cuts, because when we consider it the Government raises its revenue mainly through taxation. If we give large tax cuts, obviously services such as hospitals, health and education will suffer. I would like to see a lot more money spent on roads in the huge area that I represent. Road funding is a necessity. Some of the roads on which people have to travel are in an appalling state. One would not expect such a state of affairs in the twentieth century. Accordingly, I would like to see more money spent on roads with perhaps fewer tax cuts, so that further money can be channelled into that area. Sitting suspended from 6.27 to 8 p.m. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(8.00) —Madam Speaker, it is delightful to be called by you to speak in this marvellous new House on the hill. The ancient Caesars of Rome used to try to woo the people's affections with bread and circuses. Now here in this new Parliament House in 1988 we have the Treasurer (Mr Keating) trying to woo and seduce the people of Australia with cheaper beer. I suggest that this Budget of 1988 is a great insult to the people of Australia, because here we have the highest taxing Treasurer that peacetime Australia has ever known, and what he has given to the people, to woo and seduce them, is cheaper beer. Frankly, I find that absolutely insulting. On the other hand, if the Treasurer had said to the people, `You are paying through the nose for your petrol and we are going to do something about that. We will reduce the fuel tax. We are going to give Australia something that is worth while', then I could stand here and praise this Caesar, this neo-Nero, who is trying to woo the people of Australia with cheaper beer. I must say that there are some benefits in this year's Budget. I do not believe that oppositions should oppose solely for the purpose of opposing. We should give credit where credit is due. I for one applaud the projected provision of 30,000 new child-care places over the next four years if that comes about. Mr Duncan —Hear, hear! Mr Bilney —Hear, hear! Mr NEHL —I am tempted to put that `if' in capital letters because, if those members on the Government side who just said `Hear, hear' recall the 10,000 jobs which were to be provided for youngsters under Priority One but which never eventuated, perhaps they will agree with the `if' that I put in. But I do hope that the Government is successful in providing 30,000 new child-care places, because I believe that the children in this great country of ours are our most important asset. Every government in this land, of whatever political persuasion, should bend over backwards to provide the best possible facilities for our kids, not just at the child-care level but for those in secondary and tertiary education, because they are the basis of future success for our nation. I again applaud the provision that will allow students to earn $60 a week without losing their study allowance. Mr Bilney —Very far-sighted. Mr NEHL —Yes, I will agree that it is a very far-sighted provision. I think it is far-sighted for two reasons: first, it provides the extra cash that the students undoubtedly need-and many of us here have had the experience of our children going through university and know the need for extra cash-and, secondly, it has the additional benefit of allowing those young Australian men and women the opportunity of getting out into the workplace and learning about the realities of earning money. I think that is a significant part of education that every young Australian should enjoy. I also welcome the decision that public hospital spending will total $3 billion in 1988-89 and that there will be $1.1 billion over the next five years over and above the previous arrangements. Again this is a necessary increase, and I am pleased to see that the Government has recognised the need to catch up on funding for public hospitals. I emphasise the words `catch up', because there has been insufficient provided for the public hospital system over the last five years. I am very pleased to see that the Government is at last coming to grips with the realities of our public hospital system. I am also very pleased to see that there will be a year of citizenship campaign. I am told there are in this country something like one million people who could be and, frankly, should be Australian citizens. I think it appropriate that the Government should launch this campaign for the year of citizenship. I am a little perturbed that there are no costings in the Budget; it is an open-ended cheque. Nonetheless, I think the Government is on the right track to go ahead and encourage one million Australian residents to become Australian citizens. Without attempting to raise the rancour of the migration debate, which has been aired somewhat in the last few weeks, I think it is fair to say that the ultimate object of migration to Australia should properly be Australian citizenship. I cannot agree more with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr John Howard, when he makes that point. In fact the migration policy of the National Party and the Liberal Party, which was produced and released last week, makes this point very clear. I also applaud the fact that the family allowance supplement will be increased by 10 per cent, to $24 a week for children up to 12 years of age and to $31 a week for children from 13 to 15 years of age. I think it could have applied a little earlier than December, but better late than never. I must also praise the Government for increasing rental assistance for low income earners. The cost of rent is bad enough in my electorate of Cowper, where rents are skyrocketing, but they are particularly high in the capital cities of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Rentals are going beyond the reach of people. I welcome that increase in rental assistance for low income earners. Mr Cowan —But they would like some tax concessions. Mr NEHL —As my colleague the honourable member for Lyne rightly points out, they would like some tax concessions. I was gong to come to that point, because one of the problems that we see in this Budget is this marvellous $5 1/2 billion Budget surplus. Everybody must applaud and say, `This is great. Australia has perhaps turned the corner and gone out of the red and we have a $5 1/2 billion Budget surplus'. But what must be remembered is that this has not been achieved in the way it should. It has not been achieved by the Government setting out to take the hard decisions and cutting expenditure. It has been achieved by the Government continuing to rip off Australians, to increase tax revenue. The honourable member for Lyne suggested a moment ago that there should be income tax cuts. The Government has said that tax cuts will come in from 1 July next year. When the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil), the last speaker for the Government, spoke just before dinner, he made reference to `huge' tax cuts. I wonder just how huge the tax cuts will be. All of Australia now knows that, for the average Australian family to be just as well off as it was when the Labor Government came to power in March 1983, there would need to be tax cuts as from 1 July next year of $56 a week. I wonder whether the honourable member for Grey calls $56 a week a huge tax cut, because that is what is needed just to get Australians back to where they were. It is going to be very interesting indeed to see what the Keating-Hawke Government does about those tax cuts next year. I started by saying that I was prepared to be fair and reasonable and to praise the Government for some parts of the Budget, and I believe I have done so. But I would like to turn to some of the things in the Budget which I believe are not in the best interests of this country and of our taxpayers. It is appropriate and relevant to make a passing reference to what this Budget has done-or really has not done-for local government, particularly with the four referenda questions coming up on Saturday, 3 September, the third of which relates to recognition of local government. A cursory glance at the Budget figures shows that roads funding is to be cut by $50m in 1988-89 and a further $25.7m in 1989-90. Mr Cowan —They don't think much of roads. Mr NEHL —They do not think much of roads and they do not think much of local government either because the track record of the Hawke-Keating Government when compared to the Fraser-Anthony Government pales into insignificance. It was the Fraser-Anthony Government which provided a set 2 per cent of tax revenue for local government. It was this present Labor Government which destroyed that provision and took away the set percentage which enabled local government at least to know where it was going in terms of the overall budgetary situation. It was of course under the Fraser-Anthony Government that local government was paid its revenue in one lump sum. Local government could then invest that money and gain some benefit from it for ratepayers by getting interest throughout the year. But this mealy-mouthed, rather cheapskate, mean minded Hawke-Keating Government could not go along with that. It said, `No, we will not give it to you in one lump sum so you can invest it; we will dole it out to you in quarterly payments'. I again refer to the third question in the referendum next Saturday. It was the Fraser-Anthony Government-a Liberal-National Party Government-which introduced the consultative body, an intergovernmental council which provided a voice for local government. The Hawke Government abolished this body. That organisation provided a specific voice for local government in consultation with the Federal Government and the States. That has been totally dismantled to the detriment of local government. Mr Cowan —A great shame. Mr NEHL —It is indeed a great shame. The other point is that, as my good friend the honourable member for Lyne pointed out, when we are looking at roads funding being cut by $50m in this current financial year, we have to pay some attention to the Pacific Highway. I point out to the House that the Pacific Highway-as the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan) knows; I compliment him and give him full credit for his broad-minded vision on the Pacific Highway when he was the appropriate Minister and I would be delighted if he were to go back to that portfolio-is responsible for 25 per cent of all road deaths in New South Wales. That is just on that one highway between Hexham and the Queensland border. There is a great need for that highway, which has the largest volume of traffic in Australia, to be converted into a four-lane dual carriageway divided highway. I do not say for one moment that that can happen overnight. It will not happen overnight. But what should happen and what must happen is that a start be made. Above all, there has to be an acceptance of the concept of that highway because of the volume of traffic it carries and because of the enormous costs of accidents in terms of life and suffering, let alone money. I am more concerned about people than dollars and cents. Mr Cowan —Up to 12,000 vehicles a day. Mr NEHL —It carries up to 12,000 vehicles a day, as my colleague says. The people who have died on that highway are crying out for the money to be spent to solve the problem. I am particularly perturbed that sales tax revenue will increase by 14.4 per cent to a total of $8.6 billion in 1988-89, despite cuts in beer excise and sales tax on cosmetics. There have been no cuts in excise duty on petroleum products as was forecast. In fact, petroleum products excise revenue will total $5 billion in this current financial year-up 4.5 per cent on the previous year. Of course, that increase is totally due to indexation. The primary industries of Australia have continued to be major earners for this country. I know that it is no longer popular in some quarters to talk about riding on the sheep's back but I can tell honourable members that wheat, wool, meat and dairy products are still of vital importance to the economy of this country. The present Government sees primary industry as a milch cow with the revenue from primary industry levies to increase by $105m this year, made up mainly of a $48m increase in wool tax, a $36m increase in the livestock slaughter levies and a $5m increase in milk levies. I am also perturbed that export inspection charges will raise $77m, up $19m on the previous year. In fact, it is obvious that the amount of money spent on primary industry compared to the amount of money being raised is totally out of kilter. To illustrate that point I refer to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), whose funding is to be cut by $2.1m in this current financial year and $6.6m in 1989-90. Mr Cowan —Mr Wran is running it. Mr NEHL —As my colleague says, Mr Wran, that great Labor stalwart, is chairman and he is presiding over the death of the CSIRO because of another $6.6m reduction in 1989-90. Most of that will come about through the reduction of rural research. Yet who in this Parliament can deny the enormous value of the research conducted by the CSIRO. It has been an organisation of tremendous benefit to this country and we find that the funding is being slashed. I would like to praise the Government for its new start program which is to be introduced for long term unemployed between the ages of 21 and 54 who have been unemployed for more than 12 months. It has to be realised that the number of people who have been unemployed for more than 12 months has grown enormously since this Labor Government came to power. The average length of unemployment for the long term unemployed has stretched beyond belief since this Labor Government came to power. Therefore, I welcome this program because it is absolutely and vitally important. I wonder why Aboriginal Affairs outlays will increase by $57m in 1988-89 and a further $96m in 1989-90. I am certainly not reluctant to see money spent on any disadvantaged person in Australia but I would like to see an Australia in which every Australian citizen, regardless of race, colour of skin or ethnic background, is treated the same. Surely this is the basis of equity in this country. All Australians, regardless of any factor, should be treated on the same basis. All disadvantaged Australians should be treated equally. I conclude by saying that my vision for Australia is one where every Australian of any age, of any race and of any colour is treated fairly and equally and has total equality of opportunity. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LAVARCH(Fisher)(8.20) —It is just one year since I first rose in the Parliament to deliver my maiden speech, which was during the debate on last year's Budget. In that speech I discussed the similarities between the government of Andrew Fisher, the Prime Minister after whom my seat is named, and the current Hawke Government. Both governments faced up to issues of fundamental importance to the Australian community. For instance, the Fisher Government tackled major problems concerning the future of the social security system and the role of the Government in the economic process. Also, it very much and very enthusiastically tackled the question of constitutional reform. Andrew Fisher, while Prime Minister, put two major referendum packages to the Australian people, but both were defeated, albeit by relatively narrow margins. Those questions covered such diverse topics as trade and commerce, corporations, industrial disputes, trusts and monopolies. At their second try the packages received a total of 49 per cent of the popular vote and were carried in three States. However, that is not sufficient for referendums to be passed in Australia. Currently, the Hawke Government proposes four changes that will be decided by the Australian people this forthcoming Saturday. All four questions are being opposed by the conservative parties in this Parliament. To date, many wild and fanciful arguments and claims have been made in order to rebut the arguments put forward in favour of changing our Constitution. It may be useful to recount where we are at the moment in this debate. Firstly, all four questions have not come from politicians; they have come from the Constitutional Commission. The Commission comprises not current serving politicians but prominent and eminent Australians who are distinguished in many backgrounds, particularly law and the community aspects of Australian life. Political views-the difference between conservative and Labor points of view-are very much balanced on the Commission. Former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and former Liberal Premier Sir Rupert Hamer serve on the Commission. Its advisory committees also have very broad and varied membership. The Commission's recommendations are being put to the Australian people. They include question No. 1 on four-year terms. It has been argued that the Commission's recommendation has not been adopted and that the Government is putting its own recommendation. While that is true, it must be remembered that the salient point-the mechanism may differ between what the Commission has recommended and what the Government is proposing-is that of extending the life of the Australian Parliament by one year. The benefits that will devolve to the Australian community were clearly identified by the Commission. The Government has accepted the Commission's recommendation in spirit and has put the various proposals. For all intents and purposes the other three proposals have been recommended and drafted by the Constitutional Commission. In my opinion, the proposals fall broadly within two categories. Questions Nos 1 and 3 relate to our system of government-that is, the term of this Parliament, the term of the Senate, and questions of simultaneous elections, question 3 dealing with the status of local government. Questions 2 and 4 relate to the relative position in society of government and the individual-the question of individual rights and the power of government. Questions 1 and 3, if approved, will, in my opinion, very much enhance the system of government in this country. Although we may debate the rights and wrongs of various government programs and the expenditures outlined in the Treasurer's Budget, the fundamental question to address is whether the very system of government which we have is delivering the sort of government which is best suited to improving the quality of life of all Australians. That is the fundamental question on which all government policies and programs can be decided. Questions 2 and 4 concern the rights of individuals as against the power and decisions of government. In part, the proposal will extend existing rights-rights which have been in the Constitution since it was framed in 1901-to the States and Territories. On the other hand, question 2 will ensure that all elections are held on a general framework where each individual's vote is worth, as near as practicable, the same as that of his neighbour-that is, no Australian will be put in a disadvantaged position as opposed to other Australians when electing his government. It is not a question of the respective powers between government and government-Federal and State-it is a question of the rights of individuals and the power of individuals as opposed to government as a whole. It is a mistake and a furphy to try to argue that question from the basis of some attack on the Federal system or some attack on State sovereignty. If the proposal is successful, it will apply to all governments-Commonwealth, State or Territory. It will not distinguish or pull out States for special treatment; it will apply to all governments across the board. Therefore, in my opinion, it is quite fallacious to argue that it is a question of States rights. Unfortunately, given the history of referendums in this country, all proposals are being opposed by the Opposition. Given the history, it is reasonable to expect that all questions will have some difficulty in being successful. I believe that the proposals do have reasonable prospects, but their prospects would have been much enhanced if the Opposition had taken a far more reasonable and long-sighted approach to the matters rather than looked at the short-term political aspects. Let us briefly go through each of the questions and consider how the Opposition reached its position. The first question concerns four-year terms. The Opposition has stated on a number of occasions quite clearly and unequivocally that it supports four-year terms for the House of Representatives, but to date it has rejected any proposal to actually implement them. When in October an interim proposal was brought down by the Commission and brought before this House, it was thrown out of court by the Opposition. Of course, at that time it would have affected the power of the Senate to block certain government legislation, particularly Supply, in the first three years of a government's term. That was rejected as affecting the Senate's power. The Opposition went on to reject the current proposal for four-year terms for both Houses, arguing that they should be eight-year terms for the Senate. Yet in 1983, when these proposals in sort were discussed by the Senate, a handful of prominent Liberal Party senators expressed a great deal of disquiet at the idea of any senator serving eight years. However, a few years down the track the Liberal Party has forgotten about that and says that it should be eight years for the Senate. The Opposition is also opposed to the idea of simultaneous elections, saying that simultaneous elections are a great impediment to the Senate's power. Yet the same party, when in government in 1977-the government led by Malcolm Fraser-put to the Australian people a proposition for simultaneous elections. I can say on behalf of the Australian Labor Party that at that time the proposal was consistently supported by the Opposition. However, it failed. It received 62 per cent of popular support and was supported by three States. Nevertheless, it failed. Unfortunately, the Opposition, although supporting simultaneous elections in 1977, has suddenly found, 10 years down the track, that its 1977 stance must have been totally wrong because simultaneous elections are now the font of all evil and will lead to the destruction of the Senate's power. On question 2 there appears to have been very little opposition-I have certainly heard no opposition-to the idea of entrenching the right to vote and the concept of direct elections. That question does more than simply impose a system of one vote one value. It does two very important things; that is, it guarantees a right to vote and guarantees that elections are from an entire electorate, not some sort of electoral college system similar to that used in the United States of America. Although the Liberal and National parties oppose the concept of one vote one value in this referendum, I do not believe that the Liberal Party at least opposes its applying to Commonwealth elections. Certainly in my State of Queensland the State branch of the Liberal Party of Australia is campaigning quite vigorously in favour of the referendum. It has been a longstanding proponent of one vote one value. Also we have had individuals on the Opposition back bench voicing their views about this question. When the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) spoke on the matter when the referendum legislation was before the House she indicated that she had in the past supported one vote one value and would not be changing now. There are other Opposition members who have expressed similar views. In regard to question No. 3 on the constitutional recognition of local government, various Liberal spokesmen over a number of years have gone to State local government conferences, including in my home State of Queensland, and stated quite categorically that they supported constitutional recognition of local government in the Commonwealth Constitution-not just State constitutions. Having a local government background myself, I remember the Queensland Local Government Association's conference held in Toowoomba some two years ago when the then Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), quite clearly told the delegates that a Liberal-National Party government would go down that path. However, the whole concept is now regarded as some sort of great threat to local government. We also have the Liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane saying that she supports the idea. That is another division in the ranks. I suppose that the most damning aspect is that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) himself wrote to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), following a representation to him by a local council in his electorate, expressing to the Attorney-General at that stage that he fully supported the concept of local government recognition in the Constitution. We also know that the proposal had support in the shadow Cabinet of the Opposition parties but was rejected by the party room. In regard to question No. 4, it was the policy of the Opposition parties at the last Federal election to extend at least two of those three rights and freedoms contained in that to States and Territories. That was made quite clear by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) when the Opposition's present stance was declared. That was when the honourable member made his famous statement that he would be damned if he knew why the Opposition had come to that particular conclusion. Of course, he was then muzzled. We have heard very little of him during the whole debate. Again, apparently, this was a question supported by the shadow Cabinet but then not supported by the party room. Therefore, in summary, on at least three of the four questions we have a clearly divided Opposition on whether there should be a Yes or No vote. On the last two questions there is no doubt that at least the shadow Cabinet, hence a significant proportion of members of the Opposition in this Parliament, supports those proposals and has now been obliged to oppose them. In regard to the second referendum question we have the State branch of the Liberal Party in Queensland, as well as prominent backbenchers, also supporting the proposal. We have now got to the stage where questions Nos 2, 3 and 4 are being discounted as having any particular importance. In the debate on the matter of public importance last week, the honourable member for North Sydney said that the real debate related to referendum question No. 1 and a hidden agenda to muzzle the power of the Senate, and that the other three questions were just a bit of a smokescreen and a bit of a blur. I am not surprised that the Opposition's position on those other three questions has been put very much on the backburner because, as I have demonstrated in regard to its past position, the Opposition is hopelessly divided on those questions. Therefore, the real question turns on proposal No. 1. The Opposition's argument is that imposing four-year terms for senators and having the full Senate come out for election at the same time as the House of Representatives represents a serious erosion of the independence and power of the Senate. How that actually is the case I do not think has ever been explained. We have not had explained how in any way the Senate is less able to reject any piece of legislation or how its ability to block or defer Supply is in any way altered. All we have is the suggestion that once the Senate takes a certain course of action then for some reason it should not be answerable for its action as much as the House of Representatives and the Government in the House of Representatives are answerable for putting up that particular policy or program which the Senate feels fit to reject. If the Government itself has to be judged on its decision to bring up the contentious program or Bill why should not the Senate also be answerable for its decision to reject a particular proposal? I think that that is an eminently reasonable position. Really, I think that the Opposition's position can be no more than a short-sighted and rather opportunistic exercise in trying to advance its party political cause. The Opposition may well be successful because history shows that if any of the major political parties oppose a referendum package, the chances of success are quite bleak. I believe that the difference in these particular proposals is that the motivation for the argument has come not from the Government as such or the politicians but from a commission and from the Australian community as a whole. Although the Opposition may be successful in blurring people's attention and in trying to bring up conspiracies and hidden agendas and everything terrible and evil about the proposals, I do not believe that it will be successful because the Australian people have become a little more sophisticated over the years and can see through such superficial arguments. Of course, it is a great honour once again to be able to rise to speak in the Appropriation debate, as I did for my maiden speech. I certainly have enjoyed my first year as a parliamentarian. It has been a great experience personally and it has broadened my horizons. I hope that all honourable members from all sides sometimes can put aside their party political considerations and look at things from the point of view of the benefit of the nation. Our Constitution, the division of power in this country and the way in which we are governed are fundamental questions that really should be looked at simply beyond the life of this Parliament and in terms of who may be advantaged or disadvantaged in the longer term. I would say that in a lot of ways the more patriotic view should be accepted. If we are right and fair-minded about it, we would have to come down very much in favour of these particular proposals. They ought to have been put to the Australian people in a bipartisan manner. That will not be the case and we will know on Saturday whether the Opposition has been successful in muddying the waters enough to see these particular proposals defeated. I trust that they will not be. I also trust in the good sense of the Australian people. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(8.38) —We are debating Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1988-89 and this, of course, is the main debate following the presentation of the Budget by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last Tuesday night. I particularly want to talk about the higher education package introduced by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins). In the limited time I have available I will not be able to touch on all the matters contained in that package but I would like to touch on the critical features and elements of it so that we can see just how this Government is responding to the issues that present themselves in higher education. There seem to be four major objectives in the higher education package put forward by the Minister. The first one is that there should be a substantial growth in higher education. Secondly, there should be improved equity of access to higher education. Thirdly, there should be the resources for the growth that is expected. Fourthly, we should make the institutions more accountable for the public money they spend. I will argue that this package on higher education is seriously flawed in the following respects. Firstly, there is a conflict between the objectives for growth in the package and the means proposed for financing the package. Secondly, I shall argue that the objective of equity of access is damaged by the process of funding. Thirdly, I shall argue that the accountability provisions in the package strike at the heart of academic freedom, which is a more important objective than some of the Government's accountability proposals. Let us consider the fundamental flaw in the plan for expansion. I believe that there is a major contradiction in the Government's higher education package. It says that there should be a substantial expansion in the number of places to be made available in universities and colleges of advanced education. The Government acknowledged in its Green Paper, and subsequently its White Paper, on higher education that there is a backlog of some 20,000 places in that students who are qualified to enter higher education are denied access because of the non-availability of places. I think most commentators agree with that assessment. Currently, there is a charge of $263 a year for students entering universities and colleges of advanced education called the higher education administration charge. That charge was argued by people to be a barrier to entry. It was not a major barrier to entry, but obviously it was a barrier to entry to certain people. Effectively, that $263 annual charge is being replaced by an $1,800 annual charge. That $1,800 will be a debit which is incurred by students as they carry out their studies. It is repayable either up-front with a 15 per cent discount, or through the tax system when the student leaves the university, whether he or she has graduated or not, by paying a 1, 2 or 3 per cent surcharge on taxation until the debt is discharged. The important point about the $1,800 debit each year is that it is applied without any regard to the financial circumstances of the student. Nowhere in the whole of the Minister's presentation-and there is a very elaborate package of materials put forward by the Minister; the one I have here is entitled `A new commitment to higher education in Australia'-is there any analysis whatsoever of the disincentive effect of applying an $1,800 a year charge on students in higher education. In other words, there is an objective of expanding higher education, of making it more readily available and of improving equity in access to higher education. Yet the annual charge on higher education for the student has been increased, effectively, from $263 a year to $1,800 a year, minus the 15 per cent discount. Incredibly, the Minister's statement says: The Government is very strongly of the view that higher education should not continue to be the preserve of the relatively privileged in the community. I do not believe that higher education is the preserve of the relatively privileged. I think that in Australia, which is quite an egalitarian society, it has been possible over the years for people of relatively modest incomes to enter higher education. That particular sentence from the Minister's statement is a very cynical one. It suggests that a situation obtains, which I believe does not obtain, at the very time that the entry barriers to higher education are raised by the Minister's own programs. By what stretch of the imagination could a massive increase in costs to students be said to improve the access of the underprivileged? Without an adequate answer to this question the whole package is flawed and its expansion forecasts are deeply suspect. Even with respect to the proposed increase in the numbers of students there is a difficulty. The Government has promised to increase the number of new students by 40,000 over the next three years. However, after looking at these figures it must be realised that this really only keeps up with the normal annual growth which occurs each year. There is also an increased retention rate in high schools. The Minister has said that there should be a passage of this larger number of students into the universities and colleges. For example, in Victoria the year 12 retention rate has increased from 49 per cent in 1986 to 60 per cent in 1988. That obviously puts added pressure on our higher education system. As I said earlier, we have a backlog of some 20,000 places. So forecasting a 40,000 increase over the next three years when we have a backlog of 20,000 and a substantial natural increase in demand is really not what it seems in terms of a substantial boost to higher education. The overall point that I would like to make is that there is a fundamental contradiction between the Government's proposals to expand education and its action at the same time in increasing substantially the barrier to students who come from the poorer families and the most disadvantaged circumstances. The instrument that is to be used to draw additional revenue from students is the graduate tax. It is dressed up under another name. I suppose `graduate tax' is not a correct statement because people who do not graduate but nonetheless do some part of the course will still be liable. As we expected, there will not be differential charges for different faculties but there will be an $1,800 a year charge regardless of the faculty. The $1,800 a year charge will also be levied regardless of the financial circumstances of the student and the student's family. The well-off will be able to pay the fee up-front with a 15 per cent discount and the remainder, in addition to paying higher taxes under the progressive tax system as their income rises, will suffer the tax surcharge of 1, 2 or 3 per cent, depending on their income level. The one per cent surcharge and the 2 per cent surcharge will be applied at a point below average weekly earnings. We are not talking about very high salaries before these surcharges are applied. Technical and further education students and nurses will escape the charge for the time being. We believe that this graduate tax is objectionable, as I stated earlier, because it provides a significant disincentive for students from low income families and otherwise disadvantaged backgrounds to enter higher education. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said the other day to a business gathering, higher education is not free. In the sense that he meant it, I agree that somebody has to pay-the taxpayer has to pay-but in another sense higher education is not free. Any student entering a higher education institution on a full time basis forgoes substantial income. He or she also has to meet living costs, and even after the provision of Austudy benefits those living costs can be quite a burden. There are proposals to have an assets tests on Austudy payments and, more suspiciously, an assets test on the assistance to isolated children. These are matters which the Opposition will be looking at very closely to ensure that the already existing disadvantage to country students is not extended. At the moment country students are not well treated by Austudy. In certain circumstances they do receive help from the isolated children program. Both of these programs are to be tightened. Whilst the Opposition is fully in support of any program to reduce the rorts in Austudy, we will have to look very closely indeed at any effects those proposals might have in further disadvantaging country students. Let us look at the situation of a very low income family, particularly one that has had no history of higher education. The disincentive because of living costs and loss of income is already great. I feel very strongly about this because, without the existence of bursaries at school and a Commonwealth scholarship to go to the university, I am certain, because of my own background and circumstances, that I would not have had the opportunity to enter into higher education. From my own experience I know that the pressures on a very low income family, particularly without any prior experience of higher education, to get each child into work and producing an income are very great. The measures being introduced by this Labor Government to raise those barriers cause very great disquiet. Once a person leaves university, the graduate tax burden adds to the already existing disincentive effects of progressive taxation and will, in most cases, strike graduates when they face the burdens of home purchase and family support. Indeed, the disposable income of students who stay at home after they graduate or return home to live when they want to save money for something-I have found that my own children tend to come home to save some money when they want to take a trip or do something-is much greater than it is subsequently when they raise a family or buy a house. Yet, the effect of this tax is to levy the additional burden at the very point at which a graduate raises a family or buys a home. Another problem is that the tax provides no incentive to the individual institutions providing the tuition. They do not get any of the money; it goes into the Treasury. There is no direct link between the proceeds of the tax and higher education funding in total. Although nominally earmarked to go into a trust fund, the proceeds form only a small part of total higher education funding which, of course, is subject to government decision. There is no guarantee that those who escape the tax are deserving cases. For example, those who leave Australia or those who manage to arrange their affairs to avoid the tax will not pay. Of course, the scheme is unfair as between technical and further education and higher education students, both of whom may increase their earning capacity through education, but only those in higher education pay the graduate tax. In the short time that I have available, I wish to refer to the important issue of accountability. We agree that the institutions in higher education ought to be more accountable to the taxpayer than they have been. In the Green Paper the Minister quite legitimately exposed a number of the shortcomings in the management of institutions of higher education. But the solution proposed by the Minister to this lack of accountability is to bring them under the direct control in considerable detail of the Federal Department of Employment, Education and Training. Under a system of educational profiles which must be negotiated behind closed doors by each institution with the Federal Department, there will be a detailed control of the structure and management of each university and college of advanced education in Australia. Under these proposals, all the institutions will be brought more firmly within the centralised wage fixing system, which makes it impossible to reward individuals in each institution relative to their individual effort. They are all brought into a centralised system and will all be rewarded regardless of their individual effort and any internal systems of tenure that might be desirable by the institutions. They will also be forced to enter into unwanted amalgamations according to formulae of size which bear no relationship to economic or educational objectives. Regional colleges stand to lose their close association with their local communities and be subject to colonial control from far distant masters. Very seriously, there is to be a closer control over the direction and nature of research in higher education by the Federal Government in accordance with its narrow and departmental idea of national interest. These proposals have been criticised by people such as Professor David Penington, an eminent medical research scientist who is now Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne. They have been opposed almost without exception by people within the scientific community and they have been regarded, quite correctly, with fear by those in the humanities who believe that the brutal economic view of the Government and its Federal Department will render as second rate the research efforts of the humanities and, indeed, strike at the very heart of the idea of a university. In the last election the Opposition put forward proposals for hands-off funding of higher education institutions and a system of competition for students between institutions which would have a cleansing effect on the whole system of higher education. I do not have time to elaborate on the proposals we put forward or the direction we plan to go. Let me summarise what I have said in the very short time I have had to speak on the higher education package. The first and major flaw is the contradiction between the proposals for growth, the graduate tax and funding which will inhibit entry to the very institutions that we want to expand. The second flaw is the threat to institutional autonomy and academic freedom presented in great detail by the Minister's plans to centralise control over the administration and research activities of the universities and colleges within a Federal department and to subject them to immediate government control on a year by year basis using negotiations behind closed doors to achieve that objective. We regard this package as flawed in both those respects. We have alternative proposals which we will expand on very shortly. But in both cases, for both reasons, we utterly reject the Minister's proposals on higher education in this Budget. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(8.58) —It was with interest that I listened to the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). It was refreshing to hear him stick to substantive policy issues, unlike last week when he raised all matter of trivia in this chamber. Whilst I cannot totally agree with all that he has said tonight about higher education, I took note of his belief that there would be a need to monitor the effect of the measures that were announced in the Budget to ensure that disadvantaged students get their fair share of the places in higher education, which is one aim of the package that has been put forward. The 1988-89 Budget contains phase two of the Government's campaign against the spectre of child poverty. In the early 1970s the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty estimated that nearly 8 per cent of Australian children were living in poverty. By 1986 the incidence of children living in poverty had increased to nearly 21 per cent, or an estimated 820,000 children. While this rise in child poverty was in keeping with an international trend, as an Australian Council of Social Service pre-Budget document entitled `Keeping the Promise: A Strategy for Reducing Child Poverty' says: The sobering fact is that in 1986 Australia had the highest rate of child poverty among comparable OECD countries with the single exception of the United States. A recognition of the severity of this social problem which affects our most valuable resource-our children-led the Government to the landmark commitment to work towards the elimination of child poverty by 1990. The significance of such a commitment is often overlooked. Following the election the Government introduced a major social reform, the family assistance package, as phase one of the campaign to fulfil its historic commitment. The cornerstone of the family package was the family allowance supplement (FAS). At the time the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), Bill Kelty, stated that, left to its own devices, the trade union movement would have taken 50 or 60 years to achieve equivalent increases for low income earners to those paid as family allowance supplement. Under FAS and equivalent increases to the child component of pensions and benefits, low income earners receive a non-taxable payment of $22 a week for each child under 13 and $28 a week for children aged between 13 and 15. In addition to FAS, in the family package the Government increased the rate of non-taxable rent assistance to unemployment beneficiaries with families from $10 to $15 and extended eligibility for rent assistance to low income working families. The family assistance package has made a solid, quantifiable impact on the fight against child poverty. An assessment of the program conducted by the Social Welfare Research Centre (SWRC) at the University of New South Wales in November 1987 concluded that the family package had reduced the number of children living below the poverty line by about 100,000. The family package improved the disposable income of all poor families and accordingly the SWRC estimated in its study that last year's measures reduced the poverty gap from $350m to $190m-a reduction of some 45 per cent. While recognising the family package as a significant first step, the SWRC called for further action. This is something the Government has always recognised. In particular, the SWRC study emphasised two areas of policy which need to be addressed-employment and housing. In this Budget the Government has responded to the challenge. Housing costs, particularly for people in the private rental market, have long been recognised as a major cause of poverty. In the Budget the Government has taken further important steps, as an integral part of its child poverty commitment, to increase assistance to low income families renting privately. From June 1989 maximum rent assistance to families who are pension beneficiaries or on low incomes, with one or more children, will be increased by 33 per cent or $5 a week. In June 1990 a further $5 a week will be paid to all recipients with an additional $5 for those with three or more children. Taken together, these measures represent increases of 150 to 200 per cent in rent assistance for low income and pensioner beneficiary families since the election of this Government in 1983. This will undoubtedly have a major impact on housing related poverty. The second area identified for further action in the SWRC study is employment. Unemployment is probably the principal cause of poverty. On the one hand, the Government, in partnership with the trade union movement, has every reason to be proud of its achievements in relation to job creation and reducing unemployment. The simple fact is that between April 1983 and March 1988 more than one million new jobs have been created. This represents an increase of 3.1 per cent each year since the election of this Government. This is an achievement unparalleled in the Western world and is more than twice the average of all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. The one million or more jobs have been filled by people belonging to or destined for the dole queue under the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). Let us compare the annual job growth of more than 3 per cent under the Labor Government with the less than one per cent annual growth for the five years from March 1978 to March 1983. Of the total new jobs created since April 1983, more than 60 per cent have gone to women and, in particular, we have seen a considerable increase in the labour force participation rate of female sole parents from 39 per cent to 44 per cent. Since the election of the Government, unemployment has declined from about 10 per cent to 7.4 per cent. On the other hand, despite the success in achieving and overall decline in unemployment and record job growth, the Government recognises that long term unemployment remains unacceptably high. A total of 127,000 Australians aged between 21 and 54 have been out of work for more than 12 months. In relation to the campaign against child poverty, it is estimated that about 90,000 children are affected by long term unemployment. Reducing long term unemployment is therefore fundamental in meeting the commitment to eradicate child poverty. In the Budget the Government has introduced a comprehensive integrated strategy to tackle long term unemployment. The new start program will provide a range of assistance and incentives designed to act as a springboard out of the social security system and back into the work force. The strategy will cost $114m over the next 3 1/2 years, and its main elements are a more active job placement strategy aimed at creating 15,000 additional job opportunities for this group and a doubling of places in labour market programs to 50,000 in a full year for the target group. This will include a range of preparatory and vocational training opportunities, subsidised work experience, and job search assistance. It will also include intensive interviewing, counselling and referral to help participants obtain appropriate training and education opportunities. Another feature of the package is new incentives in the social security system for the long term unemployed to obtain and remain in employment, including a $100 employment entry payment. The aim of this package of measures is a substantial reduction in long term unemployment over the next few years. It is recognised that sole parents are particularly disadvantaged in their efforts to find work. As a direct consequence of this disadvantage, it is estimated that more than half the Australian children living in poverty are in single parent families. In 1981-82 the incidence of poverty was higher for the children of sole parents than for any other household type. Of all sole parent households, 46 per cent were below the poverty line. Seventy per cent of sole parent households with three children were below the poverty line. Ninety-one per cent of sole parent households with four or more children were living in poverty. In the Budget the Government announced a major new program-the jobs, education and training program (JET)-which is aimed at assisting sole parents into the work force and lifting themselves and their children out of poverty. Beginning in March 1989 the JET program will be phased in over the next three years. It is estimated that by 1990-91 about 12,000 sole parents will receive wage subsidy assistance, work related training and job search assistance targeted to their special needs as a result of the program. Special provision of child care will also be made. The Government has also announced in this Budget significant increments to payments under the FAS scheme. From December maximum payments under FAS will be increased by approximately 10 per cent-by $2 to $24 a week for children aged 12 or under and by $3 to $31 a week for children aged between 13 and 15. These increases will cost $69m in 1988-89. Taken together, the measures in this Budget represent a further significant instalment in the campaign aimed at eliminating child poverty. More action will still be needed before the campaign is won. The tax cuts which were promised in the Budget and which will come into effect next year must be delivered to the bottom end of the scale as a matter of priority. The difference between marginal and effective tax rates requires close scrutiny. To conclude that because the reductions in company tax will come into effect at the same time as the 39c in the dollar rate, the marginal tax rates need to drop to that figure is a supposition that needs to be looked at closely. There are a number of other ways that genuine tax relief can be given. We can look at the overall effect of those marginal tax rates and we can closely look at the effective tax rates. Another thing that should be looked at is the thresholds. These can also be adjusted in a way that still seeks to give the maximum relief to those on lower to middle incomes, which is a very important feature in attacking and helping to relieve some of those aspects of child poverty of which I spoke earlier. Undoubtedly over the coming months the impact of the measures contained in the Budget will be assessed in relation to the historic commitment of the Government to eradicate child poverty. This assessment will surely highlight areas of further need, and further action will be necessary. But I am confident that, when this assessment is made, the judgment on the measures in this Budget will indicate that they represent a significant step towards social justice. Today we heard the announcement that the Victorian election would take place on 1 October. The Victorian State Government has led all the State governments in its commitment to the development of a social justice strategy. This was indicated at the last election in 1985. This strategic approach to the issue of social justice, as I said, has been the lead to other States and the Federal Government. The Cain Government is committed to providing all Victorians with a fair chance of providing a reasonable life for themselves and their families. Of course, social justice is essentially concerned with principles of fairness and the distribution of economic and social resources-fair access to goods and services, opportunities for participation and the protection of people's rights. The Victorian Government adopted the view that the well-being of Victoria will be a reality only when the well-being of all its citizens is assured. Since 1985 the commitment of the Cain Government has overseen the implementation of social justice criteria in all areas of government activity. The Victorian Government's actions in the area of social justice are built on the foundation of a sound economic strategy. Unemployment is lower and job growth higher in Victoria than in any other State. Victoria has led the nation in economic performance. Based on that past performance, I think the Victorian Government can be assured of being returned at the election to be held on 1 October. Briefly, I refer honourable members to an important Budget related paper, Budget Related Paper No. 10, Towards a Fairer Australia: Social Justice Budget Statement 1988-89. This is an important aspect of the accountability of the Government's social justice strategy. It is an important early development in that accountability. In later stages we will have to see the introduction of some form of effectiveness measures that will enable us to be sure that the resources are being targeted to those most in need. I refer honourable members also to a couple of brochures that were sent to us by the Treasury and the Department of Finance about their program budgeting process. It is the review that has been taken of government accounting that has put us in a position to adopt better measures to review the effectiveness of programs. Before when we used to come to the Budget process and just look at the Appropriation Bills, a lot of the detail about how much in the way of resources was being put towards specific programs was lost. It is to the credit of this Government-and it is not often recognised in this place-that there has been a major reform of accounting practices in the way in which the Budget Papers are presented. It is significant to us as legislators to be able to look at those papers to see that the programs have specific aims and that in trying to realise those specific aims the resources are being put to best use and are producing the most efficient outcome. In conclusion, it is with great pleasure that I support this year's Budget for many of its measures in the area of social justice. Mr JULL(Fadden)(9.14) —The honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) has used his speech in the Budget debate tonight to fire some salvos in the cause of the Victorian election campaign. I have been in the chamber and have been interested in what he has said in terms of what he alleges are the social justice aspects of the 1988-89 Hawke-Keating socialist Budget. I would just hope that the people of Victoria, as they go to this election on 1 October, think very carefully of the implications of the Budget for this year, because there are aspects of it that I think should be frightening for the average Australian. The real point about this Budget is: what has it done for middle Australia? Quite frankly, it has done very little or absolutely nothing for middle Australia. Mr Hunt —It has taken the bacon back home. Mr JULL —As the honourable member for Gwydir says, it has taken the bacon back home to Treasury, and once again it is middle Australia-those average Australians who work very hard to support their families and who are prepared to pay their fair share of taxes-that has been hit with the overriding burden from this particular Government. The time has really come when Australians must think very carefully and very long as to how they will cast their vote. I think that is particularly true in the case of the Victorian election. I just wonder whether the people of Victoria will consider very carefully what has been imposed on them in the last few years of the Hawke-Keating regime. If they do, I think they will be frightened at just what has happened to them, because in this Budget, as with the four previous Budgets, very little at all has been done to support the concept of the average Australian family. This Budget is no particular exception to that. There has been no tax relief for the battlers of Australia. There has been an imposition of more and more hidden taxes. There has been an unbelievable increase in the rate of sales tax in Australia. Do the people of Victoria know that under the Hawke Government they are now paying, for example, 20 per cent sales tax on their orange juice? Do they know that they are paying 20 per cent sales tax on their toilet paper? Do they know that they are paying 20 per cent sales tax on flavoured milk for their children? This is the real thing that has happened to Australia. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) came into this House last Tuesday night and really said, `There is no relief for middle Australia yet'. Despite the fact that we had this huge surplus, he was not prepared to help the people who really are the backbone of Australia. He was not prepared to give some relief to those people who are probably single income families who are trying to raise their kids in the Australia that we know, love and respect and who have now found that the going is all too tough. I think that is really the major condemnation of this Budget-that middle Australia, the backbone of this nation, once again has missed out and will continue to miss out until such time as the cynical Government decides to call an election, and when it calls an election the tax cuts will be there. Already the leaks are in the Press that the Government is likely to give $30 per week in tax cuts to the average Australian at about this time next year as it goes to an election. But the real fact of the matter is this: the average Australian in fact needs $56 per week in tax cuts to get himself on to a level footing in terms of the amount of tax he was paying in 1983. That is the shame of this Budget. The other shame of this Budget is what emerged this weekend; that is, what the Government is going to do to the pensioners of Australia. This Government has decided to impose a pension income test on the money received from market linked investment products. I think it is a shame that people who are prepared to save, to deprive themselves of some of the little luxuries in life and invest so that they can have a secure retirement are now being ripped off by the Hawke-Keating money machine. It is a fact that from 1 December this year those retirees holding market linked insurance bonds, the friendly society bonds, approved deposit fund investments and deferred annuities in unit trusts will have the opportunity of seeing their sums coming in cut substantially. In fact, it would seem that something like 50,000 Australian pensioners will see massive reductions in their pensions because of the cold, hard-hearted attitude of this Government. It is really not good enough. Amidst all the hype of this particular Budget, it is sad that the battlers of Australia will not be helped and that they will continue to fund the moneys that have been accrued by this particular Government, especially in the form of the current surplus. The Government says, `We will look after the underprivileged'-nobody denies that that should be done-and `We will look after our rich mates', but the real people who create the wealth in this country are virtually told to go to hell by this Government. It is a shame. In that respect alone this Government should be condemned for what it has done to the real people of Australia. There are other aspects of this Budget that I want to speak about tonight. During my years in this Parliament I have had a particular interest in the tourist industry and in the development of that industry. As I sat here last Tuesday night, one particular line uttered by the Treasurer stuck in my craw more than any other. I refer to the Treasurer's statement that, on the export front, new manufacturing activities and tourism had blossomed. I said to myself, `Well, at least we are now getting some recognition by the Government of what this is all about'. However, the real facts are that the contribution of the Commonwealth Government to the development of our fastest growing industry has declined by almost 10 per cent. It seems absolutely unbelievable to me that, at a time when our foreign debts are literally monstrous, at a time when we are trying to get as much export earnings as we possibly can, we have a Treasurer coming in and saying, `Look, that is all very well, but we are not going to support you to the extent that we did last year; we, in fact, are going to chop our contribution to your promotion, to your welfare, by 9.8 per cent'. I am afraid that after having been in this House for some time I do get a little bit cynical. We have seen all sorts of export promotion schemes put forward by governments of all political persuasions-and that is great. We see very heavy emphasis from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) on the development of manufacturing industry. We see all sorts of help for primary industry, and nobody would knock that. However, in fact the fastest growing industry that we have in this country is now literally shunned by this Government. The Government says, `Stand on your own'. Despite the fact that those in the tourism industry are prepared to contribute to the tune of $7m a year out of their own pockets, the help from the present Government, according to the estimates of this most recent Budget, has declined dramatically. It is interesting that the tourism industry-I repeat, it is the fastest growing industry in Australia, the only industry that has the capacity to provide real jobs for more Australians and the only industry that in the past five years has lifted employment from 95,000 souls to 425,000 souls in Australia-is disregarded by the Government and, in fact, must take a 10 per cent cut in its overseas promotions. That to me seems crazy-- Mr Hunt —Short-sighted. Mr JULL —It is short-sighted. In fact, it is quite pathetic that the Government is prepared to take it all but does not have the nous or the foresight to be able to get out there and to realise that when one is on a good thing one sticks to it, and that when one is starting to win one promotes twice as hard as one did in the past. One of the sad facts about this Budget is the decision to cut the tourism overseas promotional scheme by 9.8 per cent-a cut that is being made when suddenly the industry is starting to get some sort of go on. I really start to wonder whether or not there is a realisation in Treasury of the effect that this industry can have on this country. For 10 years now I have been quoting the figures-and the figures have proved to be right-that every time we can increase the number of international tourists into this country by 25,000 we create another 1,400 jobs. It is all very well for the Government to come out year after year with new employment creation schemes, I sometimes wonder whether, if the millions and millions of dollars that are poured into those schemes were put into the promotion of tourism, we might help to overcome completely the unemployment problem. It is the tourism industry that has the capacity to provide employment for unskilled workers and semi-skilled workers particularly-and they are the two areas that we are in real trouble with at the moment. It is in those areas that we have to start providing real jobs. I now turn to a matter that is very much related to tourism but which was not mentioned at all in the Budget Papers of the Treasurer. I refer to airports and aviation. The Government made a conscious decision to hand over the control of Australian airports to the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC). Why were not the estimates for the FAC included this year in the Budget Papers? Is it because it has been in existence for only a couple of months, or is it a fact that the first couple of months of the operation of the Federal Airports Corporation have been such a disaster that no-one wants to know about them? I am not the first person in this House to express doubt about the capacity of the FAC to operate that terribly important part of the Australian community at the moment. In fact, my senatorial colleague, Senator David MacGibbon from Queensland, has already called for the disbandment of the Federal Airports Corporation because of its blithering incompetence in terms of the Brisbane international airport and, in particular, the future of the Brisbane international terminal. I shall raise this matter again in the House a little later. The only thing that we can glean this year from the Budget Papers in terms of the Federal Airports Corporation is the fact that the Commonwealth commitment to the Badgerys Creek program is $15.8m and that something like $2.6m has been allocated to the resurfacing of Alice Springs Airport. That is all we are told. Yet the provision of airports and international airport facilities is one of the most vital parts of the growth of tourism in Australia. But we are told nothing about it. I guess in many respects, that is fairly typical of the attitude of this Government. One of the sad things that has happened in recent years is that the May economic statement that is presented year after year sets up a scenario, and in many respects the Budget Papers are not worth very much in terms of what they tell the public and what they tell the members of this House. Let us consider the situation that exists in Brisbane at the moment. We have a new international airport in all its glory and we have a major airstrip that can serve any international flight that comes to Australia. But we also have the greatest noise problem that has ever existed, due simply to the fact that the main cross-runway in Brisbane was shelved as a cost-cutting measure. The people of Brisbane are now paying for that folly. Yet, the Federal Airports Corporation has come out and said, `Well, what good boys we are; we are going to spend about $3.5m on the tin shed that presently exists at Brisbane; we are going to extend it; this is the facility that will be used to look after passengers for the next couple of years'. I suppose it is all very well for another one or two docks to be created at the Brisbane international terminal to handle the peak periods. I wonder whether the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan), who is at the table, and some of his colleagues such as the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Peter Morris) and Senator Evans, in the other place, have ever visited Brisbane on a Friday morning at about 9.30 when the five gates of the Brisbane international terminal are full of Boeing 747 aircraft, and Japan Airlines aircraft, a Philippine Airlines DC10 and a Singapore Airlines 747 are all lined up on the taxiway waiting to get a spot to berth. It is an unbelievable situation. It seems unbelievable to me when the Government's own airline, Qantas Airways Ltd, is saying, `Hey, the FAC solution to the Brisbane international terminal is all wrong. We don't want that. We need a whole new set-up there so that we can service that port properly'. It should be borne in mind that 48 per cent of international tourists now coming to Australia come through Queensland. However, in its short-sighted manner, the Federal Airports Corporation is saying that it will spend $3.5m on extending the tin shed. Two propositions have now been put to this House and to the Government on how to overcome this problem. As to the first proposition, at the moment one whole finger of the new international airport terminal is locked up and is not being used. It would seem eminently sensible to me that if that finger of the Brisbane terminal were used for international arrivals, in the short term we could overcome the problem. The second proposition, which is probably the most exciting, is the prospect of the Government, if it still believes in the word `privatisation', putting over the future development of the Brisbane international terminal to private enterprise. Eighteen months ago a consortium said to the Government, `We will build the new international terminal for you provided you give us a new hotel, and it will cost the Australian taxpayer nothing'. But the Federal Airports Corporation said, `We are not interested in that. We are going to go ahead and spend $3.5m. It does not matter about the noise problem on the southern or northern sides of Brisbane or in the electorate of the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling). Let us extend the tin shed. What good boys we are.' The real proposition that I think the Government should be looking at is to instruct the Federal Airports Corporation to say, `Let us call the tenders now for the development of the new international terminal for Brisbane Airport', because there are a number of corporations out there which would be prepared to bid for that terminal, which would be prepared to undertake the present design plans that exist for it, and which would probably have it operating within 18 months at great profit to the Government of Australia. Because of the ideological problems that are faced by the socialists and the Government in this place, they say, `No, we are not going to be in that'. My suggestion would be that we should look at doing just that. The $40m-odd that we would save on the construction of new Brisbane international terminal we could utilise for the building of the cross-runway in Brisbane, which would solve all the noise problems that exist on the southern and northern outskirts of the city. That would seem to me to be eminent good sense, but I am afraid that many members of this Government, in particular the Ministers concerned with aviation, will just not buy that proposition at all. There is the possibility of Brisbane having that international terminal at no cost to the taxpayer, and there is the possibility of us now proceeding to eliminate that noise problem. I wonder why the Government will not respond and why we cannot get any action. I go back to the point on which I started. I think the saddest part about the 1988-89 Budget is that the real Australians, the middle income Australians, the battling Australians, the Australian families, have received absolutely zilch from this Government; that it is the average Australian family which is picking up the tab for the expenditure patterns of this Government; that it is the single income families which are struggling to bring up their children and to make sure that their children can receive a proper education; and that it is the middle income Australians who see the welfare money go out-fair enough-but who see the rich friends of the Government benefiting greatly while they get nothing. It is a cynical exercise. I go back to what was said by the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins). I trust that the people of Victoria will have the good sense to see through the cynicism of the Hawke-Keating regime and to realise that there is no future in voting for the Australian Labor Party if they are members of middle Australia, that if they vote Labor there is no future in continuing to battle to bring up their children in the Australia that we have traditionally known. The only thing they can be sure of is that, if they cast their votes for the Labor Party, it will be tax upon tax upon tax for the middle Australians. They are the people who have suffered from this Budget, and that is the tragedy that is the Budget of 1988-89. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(9.34) —I am sometimes amazed when I come in here and listen to honourable members on the other side bleating away about what is wrong. When we look back at what took place during that dreaded period when the Fraser Government was in power-the honourable member who has just resumed his seat, the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull), was a member of that Government-we see that we had enormous taxes: we had a double tax on companies, a 60 per cent top rate of tax, and people were paying about 40 per cent on $19,000 or a little more. Yet the honourable member gets up here and says that this Government has done nothing for middle Australia. What nonsense! If only he had bothered to read the Budget Papers or sit down and read some of the information that the various Ministers have distributed not just to members of the Government but to all members, he would have seen that some 30,000 new child-care places were announced in this Budget. Imagine the number of middle income and lower income families that that will help. There is an enormous amount of money, about $41m, being spent on a national program for better health. Another $175m is being spent on a public hospital enhancement program. This is a program that will help every Australian, not just the poor and low income Australians. There is money being spent in every possible area, be it education, home and community care, or people with disabilities. There is money being spent in the fight against crime, to improve the quality of life, and on the protection of our lives and property. The honourable member gets up and says nothing has been done. Quite clearly, he has not read the Budget Papers or bothered to consider the points put forward by the various Ministers, otherwise he would not say that. His party is the party that sat back when in government and saw the companies of this nation go to the wall. About 72 per cent of small businesses were going to the wall under the Liberal-National Party Government. They are the middle income people of this country as well, but they were going to the wall because the economy was so bad. If a government is going to help the people it does not just reduce taxes. There are many other attributes that must be put in place and there are many other measures that must be adopted. I think the honourable member is just bleating way, wanting something to say. It is not unusual that he should criticise: I suppose we hear it every time. I just wish he would stand up and give credit where credit is due. This is the Government that saw a need to address the situation of a pensioner who, when a spouse died, was given a generous payment of 12 weeks' additional pension which pushed him over the threshold-last year the threshold was $6,142-and who suddenly was faced with paying tax. This Government addressed the situation, and now we have a special exemption on that 12-week payment, which is given in a lump sum so that it will help with all the funeral arrangements and the extra costs that people face at the time of bereavement. That Opposition never bothered to do anything about it. It never considered the problems of such people. This is the Government that has not only cared but put that care into action. I read an article in one of the central Queensland newspapers the other day in which some rural people said that we had not done enough. It always amazes me how we get these two sets of rules. One says, `Cut down government expenditure but not where we are concerned. Reduce the overheads on the taxpayer but do not affect us. Cut down in all of those areas of administration, but do not chop the money you give to us'. This is the Government which has been able to balance the Budget-not just a zero situation but a massive positive outcome. At the same time it has tried to meet the needs of everybody, whether they live in the cities or the country areas, whether they are old or young. Some information that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) gave to members I think emphasises the sort of broad brush that we used in trying to meet the needs of people across the nation. We are introducing a new scheme called countrylink, and we will spend $920,000 in the first year. The scheme will provide people living in rural and provincial areas with improved access to information about Commonwealth programs and services. Honourable members know that it is important that people know what their rights and responsibilities are and what sort of assistance is available to them. This is the Government that is determined to ensure that people, regardless of where they live, can get access to information and not have to pay through their necks for it. There is a 008 telephone system now in place at the cost of a local call. People will be able to ring and find out what the programs are, what assistance is available to them. This is true also of the rural education access program. An amount of $700,000 has been allocated to improve access to education, training and associated activities. It is all part of building on and improving the quality of life for people who live in non-metropolitan Australia. It seems no-one has bothered to look at this fine detail. They look only at the general statements made on the night that the Budget is delivered and they think, `There is nothing there for us'. If they look between the lines they will see exactly what is happening. There will be an enormous impact from the rural education access program, because it will ensure that there is access at the local level to that education and training. That is what it is about. It means that people will not have to go to the metropolitan areas or the capital cities to get this assistance but will be able to get it at the local level. The same is true for the rural women's access grants. We are doubling the amount to $200,000 to improve rural women's access to employment, community services and, in particular, education and training. Did National Party members ever hear of a rural access program or grants for women? Did they ever hear of the Country Women's Association (CWA) or similar organisations getting this type of money to improve the lot of women in country areas? No, it was never suggested. Mr Cowan —I hope the CWA gets it. Mr WRIGHT —It will. In my area there are many women's groups most pleased with the grants that they have been given because they have had the task of trying to improve rural women's access to all these areas and trying to raise the education skills base in rural areas. It is not being done by government; it is not some bureaucratic thing. We are saying to the community groups, `Here's the money; you do it'. There is an amount of $200,000, a doubling of the previous allocation. It is indicative of the care, concern and willingness of this Government to address the problems right across this nation. We had the innovative rural and education training program. An amount of $1.5m will be made available in 1988-89. The purpose of this program is to encourage regional educational institutions in industry to develop innovative methods for the delivery of accessible and relevant rural education and training programs. Honourable members should note the emphasis: education and training. They should also note the emphasis that it is right across the nation. We are also spending $5m over the next three years on innovative marketing programs to improve the impact of our export performance not only in those traditional areas but also in the areas of horticulture and fisheries. We have an enormous fishery reserve around this nation but we also import fish. This Government is targeting the opportunities the potential, of our nation to ensure that we can achieve our best. That means spending money. In one particular area, this Government is spending $5m over the next three years. The list goes on. One can look at any area one wants to-for example, the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication scheme in which enormous amounts of money have been invested to keep the scheme going or in research funding that has been made available. We have increased the funding in the research area which is vitally important. I have heard National Party members say, `We have to maintain our research funding'. But has one honourable member opposite got up and asked what is happening? Of course not. I do not think honourable members opposite have bothered to read what is really taking place. Last year's amount of $48.7m is being increased to $55.4m this financial year. Mr Cowan —Is that for rural research? Mr WRIGHT —That is for rural industry research funding. It is a very important area. This Government believes that it is a necessity and a priority. We are putting taxpayers' money where our mouth is-where it has been promised. This money will be spent right across Australia. We have allocated enormous amounts of funds for research, especially for infant industries. We are trying to build up in our manufacturing and industrial base, and at the same time we are building up our rural base so that the farmer can get out there and match our competitors on the world markets. It does not matter which area one looks at; funds are being made available. I was out in a country area last weekend and I talked to people about water resources management. They said, `You're doing nothing'. I said, `Look, you don't understand. This year we are allocating $62.65m for the Federal water resources assistance scheme. This compares with only $52m last year. An extra $10m is being put into circulation in this coming financial year for water resources assistance programs. It is all important money. It will help all the rural producers'. It concerns me when I hear people who should know better stand up and say that nothing is being done. The township of Mount Morgan in my own area has applied for funding under the COWSIP program-the country towns water supply improvement program. It is the only way that many small country towns have got their water programs under way. Why? It is because this Government saw fit to help people-not only those on the land and engaged in rural pursuits but also those who live in the small towns in the country areas. I give special credit to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) and the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) for the national soil conservation program because they have realised, as many farmers have said over many years, that we have to look after what we have. We have a soil degradation problem that will be of enormous consequence if it is not tackled. On the weekend I also met with Dr Clarence Hardy from a new nuclear energy organisation. He talked about some of the things that are being recommended. It is not just a matter of reports and inquiries. This Government is spending $10.634m on the national soil conservation program this year. This will mean enormous projects being undertaken. It means that we will be able to start doing more about the land degradation problem across this nation. It will mean that we can start dealing with those tens of thousands of hectares under threat. It does not matter which area one looks at-whether it be reafforestation, water resources or soil degradation. This is the Government acting in country areas. I think it is time that some credit was given because it is certainly due. In the last few moments of my speech I want to raise an issue which affects many of my constituents. I refer to the concerns being expressed right across this nation, particularly in my area, at the amount of land being purchased by foreign investors. I say this in the knowledge that so often foreign investment is to our advantage. In the cotton industry in Australia the Americans have come in and have bought up many cotton farms. They have new markets and they have brought into Australia new skills and new technology. But there is a real concern out there. I have some figures which show that in 1985-86 there were 13 purchases over $3m in Queensland alone. That involved-I want to get the figures exact; I do not want to make a mistake-685,000 hectares of land being purchased at a cost of $17m. In 1986-87, the year after, the purchases dropped to 215,000 hectares but were worth $36m. That means that the investors have moved from grazing land into very valuable farming land. It is no wonder that people throughout Queensland are saying, `Look what's happening in the vertical takeover'. At that time the Japanese-I want to stress that this is not a racist comment as nowadays one has to be very sure; I am talking about foreign involvement in industry-bought the grazing land for the cattle. They have now bought the meatworks in Oakey. They have control over the shipping and transport facilities. They also have great influence in the market areas. It is a matter of concern. On an Australia-wide basis in 1985-86 3.1 million hectares was purchased. The following year half a million hectares was purchased for $143m-a total of some 56 purchases. I have a concern about this because I believe that we could have a problem. I understand the advantages of equity investment where foreign investors come into this country, work with Australians and buy into these properties bringing new skills and new technology. They are then able to develop those new markets and we benefit. If it is equity investment, it is really only the dividends that are paid on those profits which go overseas. I question what takes place when that money is borrowed offshore and the effect it might have on our international debt situation. There is a need for us to be extremely careful. That is the message I am getting from farmers as well. We need to be extremely careful as to how much control foreigners have over our economy in a round about way-not through the banking system but by controlling the means of production, the means of processing and the means of transportation and marketing. I will be following this matter up with the Government primary industries committee chaired by the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) and members of the rural task force. The time has come to sit down with the Foreign Investment Review Board, Treasury officials and the primary industry people to see the extent of this foreign investment, then measure the advantages and disadvantages and put Australia first. We need that investment and we encourage it but there has to be a balance. There has to be a priority set which is best for Australia. We want those skills. However, we do not want to lose control over our land and our means of production. I raise that point in the closing of my comments because I think it is an issue. Whilst country people talk about other matters, this is one which I think cuts across party political lines. It is one that affects most people and one that is of concern to every Australian who is concerned about the future of Australia. When I was in Emerald at a grain growers meeting recently a farmer pointed out that these foreigners come in and buy all our land. They are able to pay far more for that property because of the floating of our dollar to start with. They therefore force up the cost of that property. They will make it very hard in the future for all young farmers to get into grazing or farming industries. It will be very hard for them to get on the land because of the cost barriers that have now been set up with the escalation in the price of these grazing properties and farming properties. It concerns me that we have this vertical control of grazing; processing, as in the meatworks; marketing; and transportation. It seems that there is a need for investigation. I hope that we can get further information on it. If I went to Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan or Korea I would have great difficulty in buying land there. A friend of mine from Rockhampton went to Thailand and had to hand over the money to a friend to buy land. He has no rights of ownership. He uses the land and has the right of residence, but he cannot actually buy it. We discussed this matter with the Japanese and they have some sort of three-year plan to sort it through. We must have an Australia first approach to this, not from the point of view of nationalism but from the point of view of future economic stability and the safeguarding of our country. It is a matter that ought to be of concern to every member of this chamber. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(9.51) —I agree with some of the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright). I feel that we have to be aware of foreign investment in Australia and the purchase of our real estate. As the honourable member said, the Foreign Investment Review Board should carry out regular surveys to see the advantages and otherwise to Australia of foreign investment. I remind him that he is a member of the Government benches and that he has a lot of say as to the purchase of real estate generally in Australia. If it is to be so, some ground rules should be firmly set when we share undertakings with overseas interests, particularly in terms of rural production. This year we have had two Budgets-the May mini-Budget and the one which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) brought down last Tuesday evening. I do not know whether the Australian economy is as dependent now as it was previously on the determination and direction of both Budgets. Each and every one of us appreciates that Australia is guided, to a very great degree, by the influence of the global financial village, as the Australian termed it in an editorial the other day, more than it is, from a domestic point of view, by Budgets produced by the various Treasurers. With the floating of the dollar and the fact that many overseas banks are coming into Australia, we are much more affected now by world interest rates, world inflation rates and world productivity in terms of our competitors. We must realise that Australia, as a larger continent-certainly, it is a very small country in terms of population; yet it has tremendous resources-will be influenced greatly by what occurs overseas. In other words, a recession in America or throughout the Western world can affect us greatly. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), who is in the chamber, remarked to me, when we were talking about the Budget a while ago, that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has virtually not cut taxation but has relied very much on the outcome of the Budget in keeping up commodity prices in Australia. In other words, as the honourable member for Gwydir said, he has taken the bacon home. We see dangers in that because apparently he has placed the bacon in the pork barrel. He has failed to give concessions to taxpayers and, in fact, has increased government spending generally. Mr Hunt —It is dreadful if the bacon goes bad. Mr COWAN —This is right. If world commodity prices fall, as the honourable member for Gwydir says the bacon will go bad. That is the crux of the whole thing as we see it in this Budget. Let us look at the world scene because it is very important to Australia. We in Australia have our backs to the wall and I do not know whether we realise that. In Australia, each person's productivity is not great enough if we are to stand up to our responsibilities to market our products throughout the world. At present we are selling Australia's natural resources, raw resources, to various countries which subsequently manufacture those resources and sell the manufactured goods back to us. Is it not time that we realised what is occurring in this globe of which we are a part? Surely to goodness, with the modern technology that is available, we can expand, process and manufacture a great deal more of those natural resources than we are doing at the moment. I speak of coal, iron ore, uranium and other natural resources. We must realise that, if our economy is to be sound, we have to be efficient and compete on world markets. Looking at our industrial relations record, any child of 10 years will appreciate that, under present conditions, the time will arrive when we will not be able to measure up. That is the important thing. This Government has been very lucky. Since it came to power in 1983 there have been reasonably good seasons throughout the continent and reasonably good export markets for practically every rural commodity that we produce. Sugar was down for a time-- Mr Nehl —The breaking of four years of drought. Mr COWAN —That is right. As soon as the Hawke Government came in, the drought broke. As we live on the sheep's back, as the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) said earlier this evening, we depend on the farmer. It is essential that the farmer, and the mining industry, do well if we are to get the balance of payments that we are looking for. The farmers can meet their responsibility. Earlier this evening the honourable member for Capricornia spoke about the additional assistance they have been given for research into rural technology. If the honourable member looks at the figures of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) over the last five or six years, he will find that there has been a very great decline. Mr Sharp —Five cuts in a row. Mr COWAN —As the honourable member for Gilmore says, there have been five cuts in a row. We see that the CSIRO is placing less money into the important aspects of improving our efficiency and technology on the farm. We must realise that this is very important. We talk about the standard of living of Australians generally and about poverty. I sometimes wonder where the poverty line really is. I guess the poverty line in Australia is there. I think that the other day the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) mentioned a figure of 700,000 people whom he considered were living below the poverty line. We have to ensure that our standard of living runs parallel with the way in which we can hold the economy. Today our average worker does not have the incentive to go out and work overtime and produce more because of the high level of taxation in this country. This is not a beer world. Certainly, we all like our beer, but the fact of the matter is that if the Treasurer and the Government were conscientious and sincere in assisting the Australian working man, they would reduce the excise on fuel and not on beer and cosmetics. That is the important thing. There is nothing in this Budget that will add to this country's productivity. If our standard of living is to increase, we have to produce and be efficient. If we study it properly we will see that the industrial revolution of this world is continuing. It has been going for 200 years or more. Recently some of us went to China at the invitation of the Chinese Government. We could see that China was making its way into manufacturing in the bigger industries-the heavy industries such as boat building. We will see a move from Japan, Korea, Germany, France, Britain and America from there into the higher technology fields. We will see the Third World taking over the bigger industries. The Brazils, the Argentinas and the Chinas will be moving into these fields. This will be caused by the level of incomes or the cost of production. These are the countries with which this Australia of ours has to compete. That is why I emphasise that the important factor about the Budget we are discussing tonight is not the little issues that I hear members of the Government talking about, although they are important certainly to groups of people or individuals, but the need to get Australia moving again. Can the Government get Australia moving again when it does not reduce taxation? If the Government reduced taxation, it would have to give the average worker another $56 a week to make the situation comparable with that in 1983. I ask the Government to think of that. The Government needs to give that extra money today to make us competitive. Mr Hunt —He has taken their bacon back home. Mr COWAN —As the honourable member for Gwydir has said, the Treasurer has taken the bacon back home. Talking about primary industry, I suppose that, as a representative of a country electorate, the situation concerns me greatly. The National Party of Australia has never failed primary industries. We are still there. Our basic knowledge about what the rural industry of Australia needs is very much in our minds and our hearts. It is very much so indeed because we have inherited over a period a great knowledge of what rural industry needs throughout Australia. If we break the back of the farmer, we break the economy of this nation. I could talk about water and planting trees, as other members have done. I may, if I have the time, say something about them. But the fact of the matter is that we always have to be prepared if there is a need, no matter who is on the Government benches, to go along with the farming industry and what it needs-whether it is organised marketing or whether it is assistance with low interest rate loans or anything else. If there is a need, we must assist. For example, I refer to the income equalisation deposits (IEDs). We had a promise. We understood that the Government would give assistance in the Budget for these. Did the Government give assistance? Of course it has not given this. This is only one particular issue. Let us look at some of the rural industry issues that have been dealt with in the Budget. The Budget contains a series of measures which actually discriminate against people living in rural and regional Australia. The Government has cut road funding by $50m in the Forward Estimates for 1988-89. Farmers were led to believe that the income equalisation deposits would be reintroduced. They were led to believe that the fuel excise would be cut by 5c a litre. I have spoken about that. The Government's failure to deliver will be a bitter disappointment. In fact, fuel excise collections will increase by another 4.5 per cent. Meanwhile, levies and charges such as the wool tax, the livestock slaughter levy, the milk levies and export inspection charges will rise by $124m. This is the very factor that I am speaking about here. The Commonwealth fishing boat licence levy will rise by 33 per cent to $395. It was this Government that brought in that levy in the first place. Now it is jacking the levy up again. We talk about evasion of tax. I will say something about that subject in a moment because the Treasurer, the highest taxing Treasurer we have ever known in Australia, has not missed a thing. Honourable members opposite can be very proud of him. That is why the Left is saying to us quietly and confidentially, `Paul Keating should be Prime Minister'. That is what the Left is saying. Why is it that the Left of the Australian Labor Party is supporting the Treasurer for Prime Minister? I ask honourable members opposite why they have deserted their Prime Minister, quietly behind the scenes? I will tell honourable members opposite why they are doing it. They are doing it because he is taxing the life out of people. He is trying to move money from the pockets of some people into the pockets of others. If the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are to solve poverty in this country with their policies there is only one way to do it. They must do the Robin Hood trick; take money from one and give it to the other. That is what is happening. That is why the average Australian today is demoralised. Talk about our young people not being able to find work! Young people are coming out of education today demoralised by the technical world we are in. They lack the confidence to participate in the life of an entrepreneurial country in which people can go out and do things and not have the life taxed out of them. I ask honourable members to think about this. That is the reason why we have many young people today who fail to go out and use their entrepreneurial skills to find a job and to invest in it, and who, when they marry, fail to keep their families together. These are the important elements. Instead of that, what do we find the Government doing? Honourable members opposite stand up and talk about all the extra assistance the Government is giving to one parent families and all that type of thing. It is talking about providing an extra 30,000 child care places over the next four years. I agree with that action. But the circumstances that lead to the problem I do not agree with. The Government had better look at the total cure for the problem. That is the cure I am talking about. Let us return to the subject of another blow to country people. Country students particularly will be knocked because, in addition to the tertiary tax, they will be affected by an assets test that will be introduced for Austudy. Austudy is a good scheme; so, I ask: Why has the Government introduced that assets test? I refer also to assistance for isolated children. Mr Sharp —What a shocker. Mr COWAN —That is right. It will be cut by nearly 17 per cent, reducing to 24 per cent the number of isolated children eligible under the scheme. Of course, as I said, there will be a $16m cut in CSIRO funding at a time when this organisation is struggling just to keep its staff and equipment. That cut is sheer lunacy. We must agree with that contention. As I said earlier I think that the Treasurer and the Government have tackled the Budget in the wrong way, simply because they have not reduced taxation to give incentive and simply because they have not reduced government spending. In fact, they have increased government spending. Let us look at taxation. It is assessed that, over the next year, there will be about a 6.5 per cent increase in wages. However, the average Australian-the average working man-will pay an extra 13.8 per cent in tax over and above the extra 10 per cent he was charged last year. Where is the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU)? What is the ACTU doing? The Government is being dictated to and being told what to do. On every little thing the Government proposes to do, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has to go to the ACTU and ask, `Do you agree with this?' How did Mr Kelty and Mr Crean ever agree to this type of extra tax? I would like honourable members opposite to answer the question. The ACTU has sold the workers out. Honourable members have not realised it yet. The ACTU has sold the workers out completely. I ask honourable members opposite to look at direct taxation, which is one form of taxation. Let us look at the consumption tax. Consumption tax has gone up enormously this year. We are not going to quarrel a lot about the fringe benefits tax, but I ask honourable members opposite not to kill the entrepreneur, the fellow who wants to have a go. The capital gains tax is another tax. We will do away with that. That is the truth of the whole matter. What about the Government's tax on superannuation? What about the serviceman? Mr Tim Fischer —The DRFB scheme. Mr COWAN —That is right, the Defence Force retirement benefits scheme? What about the serviceman who has to pay tax on his superannuation? That serviceman was prepared to defend this country of ours. He has a family to support. In fact, the serviceman's family is normally larger than that of the average Australian. The fact is that, when that serviceman retires at age 40, 45 or 50, when he wants to buy himself a home, a bit of land or some kind of business, he finds that he has so much tax to pay. Mr Cleeland —Tell us how many wage earners are in superannuation schemes? Mr COWAN —I ask the honourable member to tell us about the tax bracket creep that will rise through the year. The Treasurer brought in a Budget surplus of $5.5 billion. History will prove that that should have been more like $8.5 billion or $9.5 billion as a result of the way he has taxed and the way in which he has not given tax concessions. Mr Cleeland —Tell us about the workers. Mr COWAN —If the honourable member is concerned about the workers, he should give them jobs. He should get industry moving again. He should give the workers some incentive to do something and some possibility of efficiency, my word, instead of knocking them and saying that they will not do their overtime and other work. What about the tourist industry? This is an industry that Australia has at its doorstep and that we can expand upon. It has the potential to be the greatest industry in Australia, but the fact of the matter is that costs will be too high because of our penalty rates. When the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) was Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories he wanted to do something about that but he could not for various reasons. I would love to talk about roads because they are probably the greatest problem that we have today in Australia. There is extra money in the Budget for water resources but if we are to increase efficiency on the farm and combat the seasons we, in company with the States, have to give irrigation to our farmers who are on the land. It is also a great shame that the Commonwealth pulled out of our softwoods agreement, because the bicentennial year is an ideal year in which to encourage people to plant trees. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(10.11) —The Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1988-89, which is before the House, encapsulates the fundamental decisions brought down in an historical Budget. In terms of my electorate, they reflect the Government's feeling about the importance of the economic future of the Northern Territory. This is nowhere more evident than in the $45m going into defence capital works projects in the Northern Territory which will have direct multiplier effects on employment and other industries. But not only does this Budget reflect the discipline and outstanding economic management of successive Hawke governments, but in many senses it is the most outstanding Budget brought down by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Among other things, it announces a budgeted surplus of about $5.5 billion and a reduction of public sector borrowing requirements to zero and it gives an indication of tax cuts next year. But importantly it is historical because of the Budget statement on social justice which forms part of the Budget Papers. It reflects the fundamental importance of social justice to the Hawke Government, and that is because a cornerstone of the Government's philosophy is the achievement of a fair and just society based on equity in the distribution of economic resources, equality of civil, legal and industrial rights, fair and equal access to essential services such as housing, health and education and the opportunity for participation by all in personal development, community life and decision making. Such a society is predicated on fundamental notions of fairness and equity, obligations and rights. The Budget reflects this commitment in a range of areas, including the new start scheme, which is an integrated program to assist the long term unemployed back into the work force; jobs, education and training-JET-the new integrated program of employment, education and training initiatives to assist sole parents in the work force; an increase in the family allowance supplement; 40,000 additional higher education places by 1991; a real increase of over 20 per cent for programs in Aboriginal advancement; a package of housing assistance measures to increase assistance to low income families; the introduction of stage 2 of the child support scheme from July 1989; an increase of 30,000 in child-care places over the next four years; additional assistance for the aged; a new $375m cost shared hospital enhancement program under Medicare to enable public hospitals to acquire necessary equipment; and the national better health program, a new $41m cost shared program to focus on raising health levels in the community. The social justice stance of this Government was also reflected in the resolution passed last Tuesday in this House recognising Aboriginal prior ownership, the injustice suffered by Aboriginal people, the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and heritage and the entitlement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to self-management and self-determination. Unfortunately, the Opposition refused to support that motion despite undertakings that it would. Father Frank Brennan wrote to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) on 23 May and gave a chronology of the Opposition's undertakings. He said in part: Mr Sinclair was not opposed to the idea of a bipartisan resolution when he met with me. You gave the idea in-principle support at the meeting of you, Mr Miles and myself on 21 April 1988. You suggested that the resolution be the first item of business passed in the new Parliament House, given the bureaucratic dismissal of the idea in Mr Morris's letter of 11 April. . . . . Mr Miles publicised, for the first time, your support on 26 April 1988. Father Brennan concluded by saying: I think it is a tragedy that the Hansard for 1988 will record a bipartisan motion of the House of Representatives affirming the contribution and place of the Irish, such motion having been introduced by the Prime Minister and spoken to by yourself . . . while there will be no record of the contribution and place of Aboriginals because your Shadow Cabinet ``do not believe that it would be positively received in the community and hence would fail to promote reconciliation as we had hoped.'' Thank you for your own support of the resolution idea. Perhaps the Liberal and National Parties will be able to participate in the passage of a suitable resolution for the first centenary of nationhood, 1 January 2001. This sad reflection on the Opposition's in- ability and unwillingness to address social justice issues was reinforced by the refusal of the Opposition to support last Thursday a motion on immigration. We have now had the appalling spectacle of the Leader of the Opposition promoting an immigration policy that can only be described as politically expedient and racially divisive. What is this shop soiled one Australia policy trying to promote? It is nothing more than a return to a white Australia policy. What the Opposition would have us adopt is a policy which would see migrant selection based on race. The cornerstone of our immigration policy must remain one of non-discrimination. An immigration policy based on racial discrimination will not lead to one Australia. It will not lead to social cohesion. It will lead to division. What it will lead to is a divided society, an intolerant society and, internationally, a society held in contempt. It will lead to a society that is contemptuous of cultural diversity. Already our Asian neighbours are asking questions about the so-called one Australia policy that is being touted by the Opposition. It is time to call a halt to the damage that is being done to our international reputation. The Opposition's former leader, Malcolm Fraser, has bitterly attacked the Leader of the Opposition on his recent comments. Fraser's warnings have fallen on deaf ears. State Liberal leaders are deserting the Opposition in droves. In the last few weeks it has been like watching rats deserting a sinking ship. Nowhere was this more evident than in this House last Thursday. Jeff Kennett and Nick Greiner know it stinks and so does the community. The Opposition is guilty of economic sabotage in promoting this policy of racial division. At a time when international trading blocs and protectionism threaten our markets the Opposition must be out of its mind to insult our most important trading partners and threaten the viability of the Budget outcomes. Perhaps the Opposition still thinks of Asia as the Far East. Asia is our future. No-one could be more aware of that than I am, living in the Northern Territory. Darwin is closer to Asian cities than it is to Melbourne or Sydney. It is also a city that has a high mix of migrants and people of different cultural backgrounds. In the 1981 census it was shown that 95 different ethnic groups were represented in the Darwin community. The Darwin community includes fourth generation Chinese whose forebears worked the goldfields and who were being exploited in the Northern Territory in the 1880s and the 1890s. In the 1880s the Chinese population was around six times that of the non-Chinese population, although, given Australia's history, that did not include the very large Aboriginal population of the Northern Territory. The first Chinese mayor in Australia was from Darwin-Harry Chan. The present mayor of Darwin is an Australian Chinese-Alec Fong Lim. How does the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) think that these fourth and fifth generation Australians feel about the so-called one Australia policy. When they walk down the street are they to be singled out as members of the racial group that the Leader of the Opposition has designated as causing a lack of social cohesion? Have Greeks, Germans, Timorese, Filipinos, Italians or Fijians caused this racial division and the lack of social cohesion to which the Opposition alludes? The Timorese and Vietnamese sections of the Northern Territory population highlight the importance of Australia continuing to take on international responsibilities, offering a homeland to refugees. I have talked to members of the ethnic community and asked how they feel about the current debate. One leading member of that community in Darwin said that he thought the Leader of the Opposition was-and I use his words-acting as a provocateur. He did not think the Leader of the Opposition was really a racist-he was an opportunist led, no doubt, by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and Senator Stone. The Leader of the Opposition came to the Northern Territory a couple of weeks ago for the Country-Liberal Party conference. I can only presume that he was invited to be the keynote speaker before he came out with his `one Australia' trash, because in the Northern Territory his comments on immigration have gone down like a lead balloon. A leading member of the Darwin migrant community, Mr Guido Cifali, stated: . . . Mr Howard and Senator Stone were engaged in a cynical exercise designed to take attention away from leadership problems in their own parties. They have jumped on a bandwagon that pleases a section of the Australian community which believes in institutionalising an Anglo cultural dominance. What they fail to recognise is that the Australian identity is a mixture of cultures and the multicultural immigration model provides the most flexible framework for the interplay of these cultures. I will conclude by quoting from an article by Zena Armstrong in the Canberra Times on 24 August. She stated: In the 16 years I have been here I have rarely been subjected to the sort of abuse I met in England. But that is changing. And it began four years ago, when Professor Geoffrey Blainey first broached the question of Asian immigration. That week I took my two-year-old son to the supermarket, my two-year-old son whose Irish-Chinese-English parentage is as mixed as anything that will eventually arise from the melting pot of immigration. As I pushed him through the streets of suburban Griffith, a small knot of teenagers yelled out to me, `Hey, is your baby a slope?' Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.22) —The 1988 Federal Budget is tantamount to an admission of defeat for the Australian Labor Party. It represents the abandonment of the misguided ideals which it has held since its creation during the latter part of the last century. However, those ideals have not been replaced by a new vision, or by adherence to principles of government appropriate for the future. The failure of social democratic ideals and policies throughout the Western world has become so apparent that they are almost irrelevant to contemporary debate about public policy. I hasten to add that this change has had less effect on the Liberal Party of Australia, which has always acknowledged the efficacy of the free market and the foundations of individual liberty in liberal democratic capitalism, than on the Labor Party. Yet, while the Labor Party has put aside many of its past ideals, it has not replaced them with any new principles which might guide it, or give the Australian people any indication of what direction it might take in government. The Labor Party has become dominated by a cynical pragmatism of too many years in government-years, I hasten to add, which are slowly drawing to an end. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has produced a Budget motivated by a desperate desire to hang on to power for a few more years. It is a Budget dominated more by political considerations than the very important economic problems which must be faced after five long years of Labor government. This Government, desperate for power, obsessed with a desire to take advantage of the fruits of office, has become a creature of vested interests and vain pursuit of acclaim in daily media headlines. No figure represents this malaise in the Labor Party more than the Treasurer and his increasingly pathetic desire to become kingpin. His wishful thinking about this being a history-making Budget, and he a history-making man, is incompatible with a rabid insistence that none of the problems are his fault, yet every minor detail indicating an improved state of affairs is the result of very careful planning. These assertions show a lack of understanding of economics and human action. Ultimately and inevitably, Australia's economic well-being is determined by the extent to which government does not interfere in the enterprise of the private sector. A government which abstains from such interference can claim credit for no more than allowing individuals and firms the freedom to act. The real credit for economic success should go to the people in Australia who work and produce to further their own welfare. It is succumbing to the great delusion of this Treasurer to think that he is personally responsible for any surviving prosperity in Australia because he has refrained from the most foolish of intervention in the Australian economy. Abstaining from political temptations to continue high government spending might seem to take great courage. The Treasurer is not noted for great courage, but is a competent media manager capable of creating images. He has built up a huge constituency of vested interests dependent on the spending and regulatory powers of the Federal Government. This political Budget has not stood up to the interests of the Australian taxpayer, but it has pandered to them. Lacking real courage, the Treasurer has used the time old trick of inflation to increase taxation revenue dramatically rather than to take advantage of the challenge of cutting government expenditure. I welcome the belated recognition of the need to balance Commonwealth Budgets. I welcome the belated recognition of the often disastrous unintended consequences of regulation of Australian industry. I endorse the continuing deregulation of the financial system along the lines recommended by the report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System which, I remind the House, was the child of the Liberal-National Party Government. The Labor Party now acknowledges the link between wages higher than market levels and unemployment. I welcome that also. It is a concession which, if taken to its logical conclusions, must be an indictment of both the centralised wage fixing system and the Australian trade union movement. Whenever the Government claims to have created one million jobs by limiting wages growth, it is condemning the past of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who, as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, demanded wage increases based on industrial muscle which had the effect of destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs in the recent past. The Labor party has now abandoned the misguided policy of so-called free education. In all these areas, the Labor Party has failed in the past. It is only the brink of collapse after five disastrous years of the Hawke-Keating Government which led to belated attempts to recognise economic reality. The danger for the future is that there has been no public recognition of past Labor mistakes. The Medicare or Medifiddle mess continues to be a growing drain on the Budget, with outlays increasing by over 30 per cent in 1988-89. Foreign debt has more than trebled under just five years of Labor rule with net foreign debt now an enormous $88 billion. The Australian Labour market is rigid with centralised wage fixing by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission imposing a huge burden on both employees and employers. Inflation has been high, eating away at the living standards of Australians. Until recently, interest rates were at ruinously high levels causing very low levels of investment during what was otherwise a period of economic expansion. Those same interest rates seem set to rise again in the immediate future. The Labor Party cannot pass on responsibility for these problems to anyone else. It has been in office for five years. Its first two budget deficits were the largest in Australia's history. The Labor Party began a large expansion of new government programs and spending motivated by cynical political interests. This Budget does little more than show the fruits of a salvage operation necessitated by the failure of traditional Labor Party policies. What does this salvage operation consist of? The salvage has been based on the philosophy of envy, which sees the Labor Party increasing taxation to record levels along with draconian enforcement of poorly drafted taxation law. Tax levels and tax law have grown in size and complexity. The burden on pay as you earn taxpayers has increased dramatically. It will weigh 13.8 per cent more heavily on Australians in the coming year. That is two or three times the projected inflation rate if the dicey assumptions in the Budget are believable-and they are not. The Hawke Labor Government has dredged the depths of the taxation well to produce a Budget surplus at the expense of hard working Australians, whilst government spending remains virtually untouched. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr BURR(Lyons)(10.30) —I would like to congratulate Sir Llew Edwards and all those people on his management committee for the way in which they have presented World Expo 88. I believe that the way in which World Expo 88 has been presented and has presented Australia to the rest of the world has done Australia proud and is a source of great pride to all the people of this country. During the recent parliamentary recess I had the opportunity to visit World Expo 88, and I and many others who visited that great display were very impressed by the atmosphere that was generated and the whole presentation of the Expo site. I have seen other world class exhibitions in other parts of the world-the Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen and Disneyland in Los Angeles-and I believe that World Expo 88 in Brisbane compares favourably with them. I congratulate all the pavilion holders for the way in which the national pavilions were presented. They certainly did the site great credit. Also great pride can be taken in the way that the crowd behaved and in the great cleanliness of the site. The whole presentation does Australia proud. Not just Sir Llew Edwards and those who work closely with him in the management of the site, but also the whole of Brisbane and its people have participated in creating an atmosphere which contributes very greatly to the presentation of Expo. The crowds have surpassed all the expectations of those who were planning the World Expo presentation and I understand that to date more than 10 million people have passed through the gates. That gives some indication of the support given to World Expo 88 by the Australian people and also the interest that has been generated among overseas visitors who have come to Australia to witness this exhibition. I wish to pass my congratulations on to Sir Llew Edwards and to all the 8,000 people who work at the Expo site. I would also like to congratulate the residents of Brisbane, because I believe that they have all contributed to the outstanding success of World Expo 88, and all Queenslanders, because I believe that the way in which World Expo has been presented has been a source of great pride to Australia. All Australians should be very proud of our Queensland colleagues for the way in which they have presented this great attraction on behalf of Australia. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(10.34) —First, I wish to express my pleasure at and support for the words spoken by the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) regarding the presentation of World Expo 88. Certainly Queenslanders, particularly the people of Brisbane, are very proud of the outcome of Expo and are participating strongly in that event. Tonight I wish to express my similar pride in the Hawke Labor Government for the manner in which it has met some of the concerns of certain people. I do not refer to those who are at the highest level of income, those who have had a start and who enjoy the money and achievement which flows from their jobs, even though in many cases these people may have deserved that success. I am more particularly concerned with those on lower incomes who, through no fault of their own, have never been given that little start, that kick off of a little bootie of money to help them into positions or into homes which result in their ending up in the top echelon of the different professions. One area to which I wish to refer particularly is the new start program for the jobless, which is aimed at the long term unemployed. This program will tackle long term unemployment in the 21 to 54 years age group with a wide ranging strategy costing $114m. The new start program was announced jointly by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan). It is worthwhile mentioning the way in which these three Departments have come together to present a practical program which will fill the needs of people who, if it were not for the situation that has existed in the Western world recently regarding the unavailability of jobs for people who deserve them, could themselves be among those top echelons. The Ministers have said that thousands of long term unemployed will be given a new start in the work force and the program will aim at those people aged 21 to 54 years who have been receiving unemployment benefits for 12 months or more. People who have been out of work for this length of time definitely need special help to overcome the specific employment barriers that build up. The Government will be attacking this problem. It is providing an extra $114m over the next 3 1/2 years for a comprehensive program of assistance and support to help people to break out of that vicious circle of poverty and dependence which can build up. The Government is very aware of the fact that skills training and further education lead in the long run to more jobs, in conjunction with an overall boost and recovery in the economy. We are very pleased that since 1983 our policies have led to that situation where those real jobs involving skilled training are coming on line. We are looking at 400,000 new places in tertiary education for those young people who in the past would have been unable to have the benefit of education and skills training which would lead to their taking up the jobs for which we are planning. Key elements of the new start program, which will begin in February 1989, are a special one-off employment re-entry payment of $100 for those who find work after having been unemployed for more than 12 months, and a program of 40,000 intensive interviews every year to provide guidance and support-and guidance and support are the key words in this program. It is not a matter of making people front up when they cannot find jobs, rapping them over the knuckles and saying, `Polish yourself up, turn up before an employer and you'll get a job.'; it is a matter of giving guidance and support. This, along with the strategy to create an extra 15,000 job opportunities a year and the money that we are pumping into this area of employment, education and training, should result in a better deal for the long term unemployed. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.38) —I want to draw the attention of the House to the farce in which we all have to participate next Saturday, 3 September. On that day we shall find ourselves caught up in a $35m exercise which the Government has foisted on the people of this nation. The first question which the people in this $35m referendum will have to address is whether they want parliamentary terms restricted to four years. The proposal is to lock both the Senate and this House into four-year terms. I remind the House that Opposition members happen to be committed to longer periods in office. We believe that three-year terms are too short. We recognise that the average parliamentary term has in fact been 2.1 years, but we cannot tolerate the question as it is currently being put to the people of Australia which locks the Senate into the House of Representatives. As I said in this House last Thursday, and I did not have time to elaborate, the Liberal Party has been prepared to negotiate with the Government on the question of extending the term of the House of Representatives. But we will not tolerate a situation in which the Prime Minister can so manipulate the Senate, as is proposed in the question to be put to Australia on 3 September. I speak with some passion on this matter because I represent a State which has only 13 seats in the House of Representatives. The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) who is from Western Australia also represents a State with only 13 seats in the House of Representatives. Mr Rocher —Soon to be 14. Mr ANDREW —I thank the honourable member. Queensland has 23 seats. But if we look at this question from the perspectives of South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland, Tasmania and the Northern Territory-and even the Australian Capital Territory-we are looking at it from a similar point of view to that of a State with only 13 seats being swamped by the combined force in this chamber of New South Wales and Victoria which, with a combination of 51 and 39 seats respectively, together hold 90 seats in this chamber. Both the existence and the independence of the Senate are acutely felt by those of us who come from Western Australia and South Australia. So we plead with the people of Australia to cast a No vote to question 1 because we cannot afford to have the Senate locked into the House of Representatives. The independence of the Senate and its constitutional role as a States House are of fundamental importance to this nation and of particular importance to those who come from the smaller States. The second matter I would like to address, but briefly, is question 2 on the referendum, which is the proposal for one vote one value. Mr Chynoweth —This will be good! Mr ANDREW —Listen to honourable members opposite. I know that to suggest a No vote is almost to deny motherhood and to suggest that honesty is somehow not the way to go. The truth is that those of us who represent electorates in this chamber do so on a one vote one value principle. What happens in Western Australia and what happens in Queensland is very much the business of the Western Australians and the Queenslanders. Let me remind honourable members of my statement that this chamber is elected on a one vote one value principle, to which I adhere, but let us not deceive ourselves into supposing that that is of itself equality. This form of one vote one value is mathematical equality and not geographical equality. I know of no better formula. But before the Australian Labor Party runs around patting itself on the back for what it sees as an ideal equitable electoral system, let us not forget that those of us who represent wide rural electorates-and I do not allude solely to Wakefield; what about Kalgoorlie as compared with Port Adelaide?-represent electorates in which it is harder for our constituents to get to their members and to have a voice than it is in any of the urban electorates. I do not have a solution to the problem. I simply wish people would not run around proposing that a monopoly of honesty exists on the other side of the House. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(10.43) —I suppose that if we on this side of the House introduced legislation tomorrow establishing the doughnut principle of Queensland, on the basis of what the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) has just said he would support the legislation. That is the very point we are making. He stands up here tonight and on the one hand complains about Queensland but on the other hand says that one vote one value is not a principle that should be applied to the States of this country. What an absolute nonsense. He then talked about the Senate as a States rights House. Does anyone seriously involved in professional politics really believe that? If one believes that, one is just so far away from the reality of this country that one really does not deserve to sit in a seat in this House. It is an absolute joke even to contemplate such a suggestion. This Senate is a political House; it is run by political parties; it has been so run since 1901-and the day that the Senate votes in accordance with State principles as opposed to those of political parties will never come; it is a myth. To hear politicians make such nonsensical statements in this place makes me wonder at the integrity and capability, constitutionally, of members on the other side. If we talk about the referenda tonight, what is the position of some on the extreme right in this country on these questions? I now have a marvellous new data base in my office. I pushed a few buttons tonight and lo and behold I read a press statement from the Australian Associated Press report that Mr Andrew Hay-well known to members on the other side of the House, as a New Right supporter, a founder almost of the New Right-had been attacked by Senator Alston. Of course Senator Alston is a States rights person! He is not a Liberal party member or he is not a political person! He is a States righter according to the honourable member for Wakefield. Senator Alston attacked Mr Hay and asked him to resign from the Australian Chamber of Commerce saying that he had been seduced by the Government in supporting the referendum proposals for four-year parliamentary terms. What a joke to hear members on the other side when Andrew Hay is out there campaigning with-guess who-Simon Crean, of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, supporting the referenda proposals and not just one but all of them. Members of the Opposition are so isolated from mainstream politics in this country that they are becoming more and more irrelevant. They are really not part of the New Right; they are not part of the old right; they are not part of any political mainstream. They come into this House daily with negative statements and with not one positive suggestion. For example, the honourable member for Wakefield in his speech said that he does not know the answer; he does not like one vote one value, he does not like that at all. He finds a problem with equality but on the other hand in that negative speech he did not suggest to the House and did not make a proposal to the House as to how to solve the problem. He did not like four-year terms, he did not like eight-year terms I assume, but again he did not have the answer. That is the sort of criticism and negative approach we get from the Opposition on anything to do with constitutional or indeed any reform of this country. I find it very strange tonight that I should stand here and find myself supporting Andrew Hay which is the first time in my life and may well be the last time in my life that I will ever do that. It is good to see that Mr Hay understands what the referendum proposals are about. For those honourable gentlemen who are not too sure and lack that legal training which would assist them in making that decision may I refer them to a briefing paper prepared by the Law in Government Group and the Foreign Affairs Group, dated 24 August, prepared for members who are going to the International Parliamentary Union meeting in Europe next month. It is a paper about human rights. In that they will find a discussion on human rights in Australia and defects in the Australian Constitution which point out the need and the reason why the referenda are being put up. Maybe some honourable members opposite who lack that ability to understand these legal constitutional questions might care to get a copy. It might assist them next Saturday and they might learn how to vote the right way. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.48) —Sir Harry Gibbs the former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia made some comments recently. I might preface what I have to say by pointing out that an opinion from Sir Harry is probably far more reliable and one to be taken note of when opposed to the recent opinions from the office of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), particularly in relation to the legality of an advertising program in support of the referenda, intended to be embarked upon at taxpayers' expense by the present Government and also particularly in the light of the Attorney-General's opinion on the legality of the household expenditure. I quote Sir Harry when he said: . . . one cannot safely assume that any general provision (in the Constitution) will have no more than a symbolic affect. One can understand how some may feel that a constitutional provision recognising the existence of local government may in time prove to be the nether millstone on which the power of the states will be ground exceedingly small; the upper stone, the Commonwealth power, being held firmly in place. That may be said in the context of question No. 3 concerning a recognition of local government in the Constitution. If one substitutes or adds the other three questions those remarks also have relevance. Probably less than most question No. 1 relating to four-year terms has the same application. We are not talking so much about a general provision although we do not quite know what the effects of eventual changes to the Constitution will be and whether that will involve arguments before the High Court. Having got question No. 1 up, we could very well expect to see the eventual wording of the Constitution interpreted by the High Court in subsequent actions. In relation to the other three questions-the so-called one vote one value question, that is, question No. 2; the so-called recognition of local government, that is question No. 3; and the three-part question, that is, question No. 4-one could say that we are talking to some greater or lesser extent, about symbolic effects. That is particularly true in relation to the matter of so-called recognition of local government, but also in the grab bag of questions in question 4, and certainly in connection with the one vote one value issue, which is framed under question 2 in what I might term beguiling words, but for all their beguilement, misleading words. So, in Sir Harry's words, we run the risk of a nether millstone around the power of the States-not just in connection with question No. 1 but with all three questions. The power of the States will then, by a logical extension, run the risk, to use Sir Harry's words, of `being ground exceedingly small'. We are talking about Commonwealth Government power being firmly in place. We cannot just simply refer, of course, to the Commonwealth as an entity in itself. We are talking about the power of the Commonwealth government of the day. For example, as to the trial by jury proposition in question 4, when has trial by jury been under serious threat in this country? More to the point is that the measure would restrict the numbers perhaps, and certainly the conditions under which an accused person may insist upon trial by jury. The question pertaining to freedom of religion has been dealt with, and particularly by the churches. Also, in question 4 the Government talks about acquisition of property on just terms. We all know what `just' means under this Government. It might as well have said `just and fair terms'; because it means `just awful for you and wonderful for us'. We are talking about a Government measure designed to transfer property from the people to the Commonwealth, and by the Commonwealth in this context we are talking about a Commonwealth government of the day. Mr FREE(Lindsay)(10.53) —On Thursday last the Government tabled the revised proposals for the implementation of the Government response to Ringing in the Changes, the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure inquiry into Telecom Australia's zonal and charging policies for capital and provincial cities. I had the honour to chair that inquiry, serving under the general committee chairmanship of the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay). This inquiry was established in February 1984 and the report was presented to the House late that year. The Government's initial response was tabled in November of the following year. Since that time, detailed planning for the implementation of the changes advised to Parliament revealed two serious problems-first, unintended charge increases for some calls as a result of the proposed larger zones; and, secondly, a higher than expected level of costs together with disruption and inconvenience flowing from the proposed realignment of numbering, directory and charging areas. The revised proposals tabled last Thursday meet the thrust of the inquiry and they avoid those two difficulties. The major thrust of the inquiry was to address the enormous residential and industrial development which has taken place around our capital cities, principally around Sydney and Melbourne, since the introduction of the community telephone plan in 1960. In brief, the inquiry called on Telecom to update arrangements which, while they might have worked well in the 1960s, are certainly not appropriate in the 1980s. The five key features of the charging proposals in the revised response achieve this objective. The first feature is increased untimed local call access for urban fringe areas. For example, customers in the Penrith zone in New South Wales will now be able to reach 452,000 services for the cost of an untimed local call-a 90 per cent increase on present local call access. Similarly, customers in Campbelltown will receive a 138.5 per cent increase and customers in Windsor will receive a 106.9 per cent increase. In Victoria, customers in Romsey and Mornington will receive an increase of 134.3 per cent and 63.8 per cent respectively. Secondly, a `C' rate ceiling will apply to calls within the extended local calls service area (ELSA), leading to reductions of up to 67 per cent. For example, calls between Sunbury and Dandenong in Victoria, which are currently 64c for three minutes, will fall to 21c for three minutes. Thirdly, an `A' rate ceiling will apply to calls between the urban fringe and outer metropolitan zones, producing reductions of up to 65 per cent. As an example, calls between Campbelltown and Dural or between Werribee and Emerald, which are currently charged at the rate of 64c for three minutes, will fall to 35c for three minutes. Fourthly, a `C' rate ceiling will apply for calls between the outer fringe and nearer outer metropolitan zones located along transport corridors, producing reductions of 40 per cent. For example, calls between Lawson in New South Wales and the Blacktown/Liverpool area, which currently cost 35c, will fall to 21c for three minutes. Similar reductions will apply to calls from Warburton to Whittlesea and Croydon, and from Rosebud and Red Hill to Dandenong in Victoria. The fifth measure is a general reduction in the `F' rate-that is, the rate which applies between 50 and 85 kilometres-from 67c to 64c for three minutes for all customers. There are only winners in this new plan. The expanded local call area measure will mean that 882,000 customers will be better off. The `C' rate ceiling within ELSA will improve conditions for 758,000 customers. The `A' rate ceiling between the urban fringes and the outer metropolitan zones will benefit 1,032,000 customers. The `C' rate ceiling between the outer fringes and the nearer outer metropolitan zones will benefit 1,019,000 customers. The reduced `F' rate will benefit all of Telecom's seven million customers. There will be no losers. Telecom will be passing on a total of $13m in reduced charges each year to its customers. It is very true that on 1 November, when this scheme is introduced, Christmas will come early to Telecom customers, particularly those in the outer metropolitan areas. I extend congratulations to those members of the Committee who participated in the inquiry and also to those Telecom officials who assisted along the way, principally Keith West, Blair Feenarghty, Bill Dair and Graeme Ward, without whose assistance the Committee could not have completed its inquiry and produced this very satisfactory result. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(10.58) —One of the great pleasures of having Senator Button in the Parliament and in the Government is that occasionally there is, from him, a great rush of honesty and freshness which strips bare much of the cant and hypocrisy which usually surround utterances from this Government. I was particularly pleased, although I must confess somewhat surprised, to read in my local newspaper recently a report of a visit by Senator Button to a group of schools in my electorate. It is only a local newspaper but it is owned by Rupert Murdoch, like everything else, so I suppose it has the stamp of approval of this Government upon it. Senator Button spoke, amongst other things, about referendum question No. 1 on four-year parliaments. He stripped bare-and I said before he often strips bare the cant and hypocrisy of this Government-the particular issue of the power of the Senate. The Government is maintaining up and down the length of Australia that, if referendum question No. 1 is passed, it will not affect the Senate at all in any deleterious way. Here we have Senator Button's view of this matter. According to students who were present at this significant function, Senator Button admitted that it would reduce the Senate's powers. Mr Cobb —Say that again. Mr N.A. BROWN —He admitted that it would reduce the Senate's powers, but he saw it as not important. So we have two very significant statements from Senator Button with respect to this first referendum question. Firstly, an admission that, as we have said all along during this debate, one of the reasons why people should vote against question No. 1 is that it will reduce the power of the Senate and that is not in the interests of the people of this country. So we have an admission and a confirmation from Senator Button that what we have been saying is indeed true. Secondly, and it is a very disappointing feature, we find that Senator Button says `Well, of course, it is unimportant'. Honourable members know as well as I do that this is consistent with the whole thrust of the Labor Party's approach to parliamentary government-that is, get rid of the Senate but, if you cannot get rid of it, weaken it as much as possible. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 29 August 1988: Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Order-1988-L6/88-Livestock for slaughter or breeding purposes to the Socialist Republic of Romania. Civil Aviation Act-Orders-Parts 105, 106, 107, dated 26 August 1988. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 675) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) What was the total budgeted expenditure in 1987-88 by the Minister's Department and instrumentalities and organisations responsible to the Minister for (a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) opinion research. (2) What has been the actual expenditure to date in 1987-88 on each area referred to in part (1). (3) Is it estimated that expenditure on these areas in 1987-88 will be under or over budget; if so, by what sum will it be under or over budget and what is the reason for the discrepancy. (4) What has been the expenditure by the Minister's Department and instrumentalities and organisations responsible to the Minister on (a) job advertising and (b) other advertising. (5) What major advertising projects, campaigns or information campaigns have been undertaken, are being undertaken or are being planned, and in each case, (a) what was the cost of each project, (b) who undertook the project, (c) how were they selected, (d) were public tenders called and (e) which firms were invited to tender. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) $989,000; (b) $685,000; (c) $241,000. (2)- (a) The Information Co-ordination Branch (ICB) of Department of Administrative Services has provided actual expenditure figures for the period 1 July-31 December 1987-namely $83,814. This does not include funding provided to overseas posts to promote the Business Migration Program (BMP) outside Australia (ICB is responsible for purchasing advertising only in Australia), a major portion of which would be used for advertising, with the rest used for public relations and servicing activities, such as BMP seminars. The Department's own running record for the full year 1987-88, indicates the following provisional figure: $1,168,058. This figure includes BMP overseas promotion funds which is predominantly, but not exclusively, used for advertising of this program. It does not include Commonwealth Gazette notifications. (b) $619,919. (c) $237,698. This figure is for all studies with questions which elicit opinions rather than facts-see response to P.Q. 707 for details of these studies. (3) Expenditure has been generally in line with planning allocations. The difference between estimated and actual expenditure for advertising is that it includes the total of BMP promotional funds sent to overseas posts. This includes costs other than advertising-for example seminars and overseas printing. (4) The Information Co-ordination Branch (ICB) has provided actual expenditure figures to December 1987 only (a) $24,451. (b) $59,363 (but this does not include BMP advertising overseas). The Department's own running record for the full year 1987-88-while still provisional at the time of writing, indicates the following full-year costs. (a) $36,861.24 for job advertising-with a further $15,424.45 spent on Commonwealth Gazette notices which also includes job advertising. (b) $1,131,197.00. (5) (a, b, c, d, e) The only major campaign undertaken in 1987-88 was the Business Migration Program promotion. The total budgeted cost for this promotion was $1.2m which included expenditure on advertising both in Australia and overseas, as well as specialised video production. The Department's Australian and overseas offices managed this promotion with assistance from the Information Co-ordination Branch advertising service of the Department of Administrative Services. Overseas our office in the UK used the company Saatchi and Saatchi to assist in promotion of BMP, and towards the end of 87-88 our office in Kuala Lumpur entered into a contract with Bostock-Mohammed Communication Strategies to promote BMP in the SE Asian region. (see P.Q. 707) (Question No. 707) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) Which firms or organisations have undertaken public relations campaigns on behalf of the Minister's Department. (2) How was each firm or organisation selected. (3) Were public tenders called; if not, (a) why not and (b) what other procedure has been adopted for inviting firms to quote. (4) Which firms or organisations undertook research projects, and in each instance, (a) what was the cost of each project and (b) how long did it take to complete. (5) Will the Minister provide copies of the results of each survey and details of the questions asked. (6) How were firms selected for this research work. (7) Was there a public tender; if not, why not. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (2) and (3) The Department did not retain any organisation to conduct public relations campaigns in Australia during 1987-88. However professional public relations services were used by our office in the Australian High Commission, London to assist in the promotion of the Business Migration Program (BMP) in the UK. The company Saatchi and Saatchi, was chosen because of its existing involvement with the High Commission. The company is assisting with an in-house case study analysis of BMP applicants and is conducting primary research to identify prospective clients and improve message targeting. These studies were incorporated in the overall promotion budget of $225,000 assigned to promote BMP in the UK. Our office in Kuala Lumpur recently signed a contract with Bostock-Mohammed Communication Strategies to develop BMP promotion and information strategies in SE Asia. This company was chosen after tender. The initial 6 month long campaign will have a budget of about $A100 000-it will run during the 88/89 financial year. A similar arrangement to the one I have described for SE Asia is presently under consideration for the North American region. Two companies have put forward proposals to promote BMP in this region. (4) For 1987-88: Consultant Research Project Cost Period $ (i) Unisearch Ltd Client Attitude Study 49 677 27.10.87- Current (ii) Centre for Multicultural Studies, Wollongong University Working Age Parents Study 49 986 19.10.87- Current (iii) Centre for Multicultural Studies, Wollongong University Effectiveness Measurement Study 29 067 25.2.88- Current (iv) Axia Marketing &Social Research Independent Migration Study (Sub-Category 304) 40 343 27.1.88- Current (v) Frank Small &Associates Visitor Visa Processing Study 39 700 27.10.87- Current (vi) AGB: McNair (C'wealth/State funded; C'wealth contri- bution=$32 125) Citizenship Study 64 250 26.6.87- Current (5) All projects current. (6) and (7) Public tenders assessed against the formal Brief requirements. (Question No. 723) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) What was the total expenditure in 1986-87 by the Minister's Department and instrumentalities and organisations responsible to the Minister, for (a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) opinion research. (2) What were the major items in the advertising budget. (3) What were the major public relations initiatives. (4) What subjects were covered by the opinion research. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Portfolio responsibilities in 1986-87 did not then include responsibility for Local Government activities, however since the office of Local government is now part of the Department, OLG figures for 1986-87 are given in this reply. (a) Advertising Immigration and Ethnic Affairs...$181,936.63 (OLG) Albury/Wodonga Development Corp...$84,237.00 Total...$266,173.63 (b) Public Relations Immigration and Ethnic Affairs...$151,157.00 (OLG) Albury/Wodonga Development Corp...304,488.00 Total...$455,645.00 (c) Opinion Research Immigration and Ethnic Affairs...$59,662.00 (2) The major item in the $181,936.63 expended by the then Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on advertising was Business Migration Program promotion. This includes expenditure in Australia on overseas promotion activity for BMP but does not include expenditure by overseas posts. $207,050 was provided to posts for administration and promotion of this program during 1986-87. For the $84,237 expended by the Albury/Wodonga Development Corporation, the major items were advertising targeted on prospective new private sector investors, advertising of land developed by the Corporation and administrative advertising. (3) Expenditure for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs was for media liaison services and a public information program designed to foster informed community debate about immigration issues. Expenditure undertaken by the Albury/Wodonga Development Corporation encompassed media liaison activities and presentations to prospective new investors. (4) This expenditure was on an attitudinal survey of public awareness of issues relevant to immigration policy. (Question No. 729) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) Was (a) Mr P. Adams, (b) Mr J. Singleton, (c) or Mr R. Cameron or ANOP or (d) any company, organisation, joint venture, partnership or other structure in which these persons have a beneficial interest, employed, engaged or otherwise remunerated or compensated by the Minister's Department or any instrumentality or organisation responsible to the Minister in (i) 1986-87 and (ii) 1987-88. (2) What was the nature of the work undertaken. (3) How was it decided to allocate this work. (4) What was the total cost. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions: As far as is known, without checking all company records and share registers (which could not be reasonably justified on the grounds of expense and use of administrative resources, to answer such a question) the answers are: (1) (i) No. (ii) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. (Question No. 813) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 17 March 1988: (1) How many persons have migrated (a) to and (b) from Australia each year since 1900. (2) What is the net (a) gain or (b) loss of population due to migration for each year since 1900 and what percentage of the total population did that constitute. (3) What are the details of the geographical regions that the migrants to Australia have come from for each year since 1980. (4) How many migrants to Australia have come within the following categories for each year since 1980: (a) family reunion, (b) refugees, (c) business and trade skills and (d) other. (5) What percentage of immigrants originated from Asia for each year since 1900. (6) Will he explain the changes that have taken place in the mix of migrants in the years the present government has been in office. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The answer to this question is provided in the attached Table No. 1-`Permanent and Long Term Arrivals', October 1945 to June 1959, and Table No. 2-`Total Settler Arrivals', July 1959 to June 1987. (b) The attached Table No. 3-`Total Permanent Departures', July 1959 to June 1987 provides data in answer to this question. (2) Answers to both parts of this question are provided in the attached Table No. 4-`Net Permanent Gain', July 1959 to June 1987, and Table No. 5-`Net Migration Gain', 1901 to 1986-87. (3) The answer to this question is provided in the attached Table No. 6-`Region of Last Residence of Settler Arrivals', July 1980 to June 1987. The regional breakdown shown in this table is that used by this Department which identifies the Middle East as a separate region. (4) Answers to all parts of this question are provided in the attached Table No. 7-`Migration Categories of Settler Arrivals', July 1980 to June 1987. (5) The answer to this question is provided in the attached Table No. 8-`Percentage of Permanent and Long Term Arrivals from Asia', January 1947 to June 1959, and Table No. 9-`Percentage of Settler Arrivals from Asia', July 1959 to June 1987. From the financial year 1977-78 onwards, figures according to the definition of Asia used by this Department are also shown. This definition does not include the Middle East. Departmental figures are not available prior to July 1977. (6) Generally changes in policy categories since 1982-83 have been designed to maintain the social and humanitarian concerns of the program and at the same time place greater emphasis on economic factors. These changes are reflected in a steady increase in the proportion of skilled migrants since 1983-84. Table 1 PERMANENT AND LONG TERM ARRIVALS October 1945 to June 1959 (a) Financial year No. Oct. 1945-June 1947 ... 34,284 1947-48 ... 46,569 1948-49 ... 114,818 1949-50 ... 184,889 1950-51 ... 153,290 1951-52 ... 130,462 1952-53 ... 95,890 1953-54 ... 86,468 1954-55 ... 124,180 1955-56 ... 132,628 1956-57 ... 120,601 1957-58 ... 107,978 1958-59 ... 116,697 (a) Settler Arrivals were not recorded separately prior to January 1959-They were included with Long Term Arrivals (i.e. Visitors arriving temporarily with the intention to stay in Australia for twelve months or more, and Australian Residents returning after a stay abroad of twelve months or more) from October 1945 to December 1958. These data are not available before October 1945. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Table 2 TOTAL SETTLER ARRIVALS July 1959 to June 1987 (a) Financial Year No. 1959-60 ... 105,887 1960-61 ... 108,291 1961-62 ... 85,808 1962-63 ... 101,888 1963-64 ... 122,318 1964-65 ... 140,152 1965-66 ... 144,055 1966-67 ... 138,676 1967-68 ... 137,525 1968-69 ... 175,657 1969-70 ... 185,099 1970-71 ... 170,011 1971-72 ... 132,719 1972-73 ... 107,401 1973-74 ... 112,712 1974-75 ... 89,147 1975-76 ... 52,748 1976-77 ... 70,916 1977-78 ... 73,171 1978-79 ... 67,192 1979-80 ... 80,748 1980-81 ... 110,689 1981-82 ... 118,031 1982-83 ... 93,011 1983-84 ... 68,813 1984-85 ... 77,508 1985-86 ... 92,590 1986-87 ... 113,541 (a) See footnote (a), Table 1. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Table 3 TOTAL PERMANENT DEPARTURES July 1959 to June 1987 (a) Financial Year No. 1959-60 ... 12,760 1960-61 ... 11,430 1961-62 ... 16,400 1962-63 ... 15,588 1963-64 ... 15,887 1964-65 ... 17,100 1965-66 ... 22,961 1966-67 ... 29,258 1967-68 ... 31,436 1968-69 ... 31,678 1969-70 ... 36,082 1970-71 ... 39,316 1971-72 ... 44,719 1972-73 ... 44,906 1973-74 ... 39,413 1974-75 ... 31,545 1975-76 ... 27,427 1976-77 ... 24,588 1977-78 ... 23,096 1978-79 ... 25,429 1979-80 ... 22,017 1980-81 ... 19,496 1981-82 ... 20,885 1982-83 ... 24,830 1983-84 ... 24,304 1984-85 ... 20,378 1985-86 ... 18,100 1986-87 ... 19,928 (a) Permanent Departures were not recorded separately prior to July 1959. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Table 4 NET PERMANENT GAIN July 1959 to June 1987 (a) Financial Year No. 1959-60 ... 93,127 1960-61 ... 96,861 1961-62 ... 69,408 1962-63 ... 86,300 1963-64 ... 106,431 1964-65 ... 123,052 1965-66 ... 121,094 1966-67 ... 109,418 1967-68 ... 106,089 1968-69 ... 143,979 1969-70 ... 149,017 1970-71 ... 130,695 1971-72 ... 88,000 1972-73 ... 62,495 1973-74 ... 73,299 1974-75 ... 57,602 1975-76 ... 25,321 1976-77 ... 46,328 1977-78 ... 50,075 1978-79 ... 41,763 1979-80 ... 58,731 1980-81 ... 91,193 1981-82 ... 97,146 1982-83 ... 68,181 1983-84 ... 44,509 1984-85 ... 57,130 1985-86 ... 74,490 1986-87 ... 93,613 (a) Not available prior to July 1959. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Table 5 NET MIGRATION GAIN (a) NO. AND % OF TOTAL POPULATION AT END OF PERIOD 1901 to 1986-87 Period Net gain Population at end of period Net gain as % of population ('000) ('000) ('000) Calendar Year 1901-1910... 118.2 4,425.1 2.7 1911-1920... 222.0 5,411.3 4.1 1921-1930... 304.3 6,500.8 4.7 1931-1940... 30.4 7,077.6 0.4 1941-1950... 360.9 8,307.5 4.3 1951-1960... 818.8 10,391.9 7.9 Financial Year 1959-1960... 93.1 10,280.7 0.9 1960-1961... 96.9 10,548.3 0.7 1961-1962... 69.4 10,705.1 0.7 1962-1963... 86.3 10,916.2 0.8 1963-1964... 106.4 11,135.5 1.0 1964-1965... 123.1 11,359.5 1.1 1965-1966... 121.1 11,599.5 1.0 1966-1967... 109.4 11,793.6 0.9 1967-1968... 106.1 11,997.8 0.9 1968-1969... 144.0 12,246.7 1.2 1969-1970... 149.0 12,485.6 1.2 1970-1971... 130.7 13,067.3 1.0 1971-1972... 88.0 13,303.7 0.7 1972-1973... 62.5 13,504.5 0.5 1973-1974... 73.3 13,722.6 0.5 1974-1975... 57.6 13,893.0 0.4 1975-1976... 25.3 14,033.1 0.2 1976-1977... 46.3 14,192.2 0.3 1977-1978... 50.1 14,359.3 0.4 1978-1979... 41.8 14,515.7 0.3 1979-1980... 58.7 14,695.4 0.4 1980-1981... 91.2 14,923.3 0.6 1981-1982... 97.1 15,184.2 0.6 1982-1983... 68.2 15,393.5 0.4 1983-1984... 44.5 15,579.4 0.3 1984-1985... 57.1 15,788.3 0.4 1985-1986... 74.5 16,018.4 0.5 1986-1987... 93.6 16,248.8 (p)...0.6 (p) Preliminary. (a) Based on the excess of Total Arrivals over Total Departures from 1901 to 1960. Based on Net Permanent Gain (i.e. the excess of Permanent Arrivals over Permanent Departures) from July 1959 onwards. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Table 6 REGION OF LAST RESIDENCE OF SETTLER ARRIVALS July 1980 to June 1987 Region of last residence Financial year 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 No. No. No. No. No. No. No. UK and Ireland ... 31,590 38,863 27,249 13,624 11,721 15,350 22,002 Northern Europe ... 11,435 15,698 13,739 6,072 4,518 4,745 5,962 Southern Europe ... 8,989 9,283 5,992 4,774 5,895 7,049 8,155 Middle East ... 2,685 2,627 2,188 3,561 4,607 5,801 6,837 USA and Canada ... 3,236 3,835 3,784 3,060 3,166 3,556 3,751 Central and South America ... 1,349 1,386 1,641 2,076 3,689 4,061 4,242 Africa ... 4,681 5,142 4,713 3,222 2,887 5,230 7,575 Asia ... 24,914 26,528 24,486 25,325 29,532 29,322 36,214 Oceania ... 22,311 15,338 9,385 8,094 12,072 17,296 18,571 Total ... 111,190 118,700 93,177 69,808 78,087 92,410 113,309 Source: Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Table 7 MIGRATION CATEGORIES OF SETTLER ARRIVALS 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 Family Migration 1A spouses, minors, fiance(e)s... 12 247 14 316 12 836 13 299 14 284 15 612 16 936 1B parents etc... 6 651 6 758 7 468 8 293 8 412 8 599 11 614 1C brothers, sisters, non-dependent children, and nephews and nieces... 19 026 23 898 6 648 12 365 18 420 25 563 31 735 Skilled &Business Occupational Shares System... 11 257 18 255 24 037 6 332 3 361 4 569 9 037 Employer Nomination Scheme... 4 413 7 209 6 715 3 531 3 658 6 250 8 353 Business Migration Program... 347 896 1 079 1 472 1 561 1 649 3 535 Independent... 11 162 8 863 6 494 283 213 138 1 639 Refugees &Special Humanitarian Programs... 21 847 21 917 17 054 14 769 14 850 11 840 11 102 Special Eligibility Visaed... 458 631 567 397 445 590 1 398 Non-visaed... Trans Tasman Travel Arrangement... 21 064 12 923 7 660 6 562 10 584 15 044 15 731 Other... 2 718 3 034 2 619 2 505 2 299 2 556 2 229 Total... 111 190 118 700 93 177 69 808 78 087 92 410 113 309 Footnotes: 1. Policy categories have changed during the period. Comparison between years is indicative only. In 1980/81 to 1981/82, brothers, sisters, non-dependent children and more distant relatives were included under General Eligibility. In 1982/83, brothers and sisters and non-dependent children were included in a separate sub-category (1C) under Family Migration. In 1985/86 they were regarded as extended family but subjected to a revised points test including economic factors. In 1986/87 the concept of extended family was broadened to include nephews and nieces and was called Concessional Migration. 2. Allocation of settlers to categories is based on assumptions to align as closely as possible past policies with current policy. 3. For comparative purposes, concessional migration is included under family migration. Sources: Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs unpublished Settler Arrival Tables, numbers 1, 3 and 14. Table 8 PERCENTAGE OF PERMANENT AND LONG TERM ARRIVALS FROM ASIA (a) January 1947 to June 1959 (b) Financial year % January 1947-June 1949 ... 9.3 1949-50 ... 3.9 1950-51 ... 5.9 1951-52 ... 6.5 1952-53 ... 5.2 1953-54 ... 5.1 1954-55 ... 4.1 1955-56 ... 5.4 1956-57 ... 6.4 1957-58 ... 8.2 1958-59 ... 7.4 (a) Based on a breakdown by Region of Last Residence-Please note that the definition of Asia used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics includes the Middle East. (b) Not available prior to January 1947-See also footnote (a), Table 1. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Table 9 PERCENTAGE OF SETTLER ARRIVALS FROM ASIA (a) July 1959 to June 1987 (b) Financial year ABS definition (c) DILGEA definition (d) (e) % % 1959-60 ... 3.1 - 1960-61 ... 3.5 - 1961-62 ... 4.6 - 1962-63 ... 4.4 - 1963-64 ... 3.5 - 1964-65 ... 3.1 - 1965-66 ... 4.3 - 1966-67 ... 4.7 - 1967-68 ... 6.2 - 1968-69 ... 8.0 - 1969-70 ... 9.5 - 1970-71 ... 10.7 - 1971-72 ... 11.9 - 1972-73 ... 12.5 - 1973-74 ... 15.2 - 1974-75 ... 16.9 - 1975-76 ... 24.7 - 1976-77 ... 37.1 - 1977-78 ... 28.4 22.0 1978-79 ... 33.5 29.4 1979-80 ... 31.9 28.5 1980-81 ... 24.8 22.4 1981-82 ... 24.6 22.3 1982-83 ... 28.3 26.3 1983-84 ... 40.9 36.3 1984-85 ... 43.4 37.8 1985-86 ... 37.6 31.7 1986-87 ... 37.5 32.0 (a) Based on a breakdown by Region of Last Residence. (b) See footnote (a), Table 1. (c) The ABS definition of Asia includes the Middle East. (d) The DILGEA definition of Asia does not include the Middle East. (e) Not available prior to July 1977. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs.