Wednesday, 31 August 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Beazley: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(10.01) —The Opposition will support the Governor-General Amendment Bill 1988, which provides for an increase in the salary of the Governor-General. The Bill operates upon a principle which was laid down by the Whitlam Government in 1974 that the Governor-General's salary should be dealt with in a non-party way, that the salary should recognised the importance and place of this high office, and that the appointment of the Governor-General should not depend on personal wealth or the availability of other income. I take this opportunity, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia, to say that we adhere to those three principles. We do not intend in any way to criticise the provision of an adequate level of remuneration for the next Governor-General of Australia. We intend to maintain to the full spirit what was properly enunciated by the Whitlam Government in 1974, regrettably departed from on an earlier occasion by one of my predecessors in the office of Leader of the Opposition. But I do not intend to depart from what I regarded as an entirely proper statement made in 1974 by the former member for Werriwa, the then Prime Minister of Australia. The Governor-General should be properly remunerated. It is part of the Australian tradition that holding a high office such as Governor-General should not follow wealth or social privilege or social status. I am very happy in those terms to say that on behalf of the Liberal and National parties. Because this Bill relates to the office of Governor-General, I take this opportunity of saying a few things about that office. It will be apparent from statements that I have made in recent weeks that I attach very great significance to the office. Not only is the occupant of that office the representative in Australia of the Queen and therefore the pinnacle of our constitutional structure, but the occupant of that office has responsibilities to discharge the duties of that office in a totally non-partisan, politically neutral and unifying fashion. I imagine it would be the wish of members on both sides of the Parliament that, whoever might occupy the position of Governor-General, those three principles should be rigorously adhered to. I certainly look forward to a rigorous adherence to those principles by all future occupants of the position of Governor-General. I also want to say a few words about the current occupant of the position of Governor-General. I know that in the months ahead there will be other opportunities of a formal and informal kind for people in different walks of life in Australia to record their appreciation of the work that Sir Ninian Stephen and Lady Stephen have done as occupants of the office of Governor-General and the Governor-General's wife. I will not let this opportunity go by without expressing, on behalf of the Liberal and National parties, our profound respect for the dignified yet informal and friendly manner in which the present Governor-General has discharged his duties over the past 5 1/2 years. I say that with some emphasis because part of the debate which is now behind us about the appointment of the next Governor-General has carried with it one unfair implication; that is, that in some way the current occupant of the office has been too formal and that the office needs to be subject to a process of greater democratisation. That is an unfair implication. I cannot think of a man who has more cleverly blended dignity with Australian egalitarianism than Sir Ninian Stephen has done over the last 5 1/2 years. Anybody who has been a guest of his could not but have been struck by his enormous dignity, his unfailing civility and his innate capacity to put people at ease. He has been a truly impartial occupant. I believe that I speak with great accuracy in saying that relations between the present Government and the Governor-General have been good, friendly and cordial, as they should be and as they were between the present Governor-General and the former Government-the Fraser Government-which recommended his appointment to Her Majesty the Queen. In supporting this measure and making the point that we adhere scrupulously to those three principles laid down by the Whitlam Government in 1974, I take the opportunity-there will be other occasions of doing it-of not only stressing the great importance of the office of Governor-General but also saying that we believe the present occupant has been a remarkable blend of egalitarianism and dignity. Any suggestions in recent weeks that in some way that standard has not been achieved in the recent years is manifestly unfair to the Governor-General, untrue and ought, for the purposes of the public record on behalf of the Liberal and National parties, to be explicitly repudiated. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(10.07) —I am pleased to have the opportunity to support the Governor-General Amendment Bill. I appreciate most of the sentiments that have been expressed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). There is no question that there have been a number of people of very significant quality who have occupied the position of Governor-General of Australia. Some were people who perhaps had qualities that I would have preferred them not to have. Certainly there was at least one who exercised powers which I believe were inappropriate and perhaps misused, but that is not the chief purpose of my comments in connection with this Bill at present. Of course, the Bill is necessary because section 3 of the Constitution states: There shall be payable to the Queen out of the Consolidated Revenue fund of the Commonwealth, for the salary of the Governor-General, an annual sum which, until the Parliament otherwise provides, shall be ten thousand pounds. The salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during his continuance in office. We may have to do something in the future about the sexist language in the Constitution and this continuing assumption that the Governor-General must be male. There is only one opportunity for the Parliament to vary the salary of the Governor-General. That is most appropriately done towards the end of the term of one Governor-General and before the following Governor-General takes his or her place. It is interesting that the provision was made at the time of Federation for the salary of the Governor-General to be #10,000 because, at the same time, section 48 of the Constitution says that, until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and each member of the House of Representatives `shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year'. I do not know how this erosion of parities has taken place. I suppose a number of incumbents of that office would have preferred that the parities be maintained, because if we were to establish the same relationship between those two salaries now the Governor-General would be earning $1 1/4m a year. So there has been an erosion. Apparently it has been a bipartisan erosion. Perhaps we believe that the level of salary that was fixed for the Governor-General at the time of Federation was not appropriate. It could also be that the salary of members and senators at the time of Federation was much less appropriate. We are coming to the end of the term of a Governor-General who, quite clearly, has acquitted himself with great dignity, competence, commitment and dedication to the responsibilities of that office. I do not think that anyone would suggest that Sir Ninian Stephen and Lady Stephen have been less than Australia would expect from people occupying such a position. As the Leader of the Opposition said quite correctly, there will be occasions later when comments of that kind can be made-perhaps on a more appropriate occasion. However, I would like to have the opportunity to make reference to the incoming Governor-General, a person for whom I have great personal respect and affection. I am sure that I share that respect and affection with the vast majority of the Australian people. It is coincidental, I suppose, that Bill Hayden should have stood for election to the Federal Parliament on the same day as a young man called Bob Brown stood for election to the Federal Parliament. In the Federal election of 1961, Bill Hayden, standing for Oxley, was successful: Bob Brown, standing for Paterson, was not successful. Mr Donald Cameron —Who's Bob Brown? Mr ROBERT BROWN —I would have expected that the honourable member for Moreton would know Dr Bob Brown who is a member of the Tasmanian upper House! He is a great conservationist. It is a great name. Mr Howard —I went to school with a Bob Brown. He was a good fellow. Mr ROBERT BROWN —John, you know that they are all the same. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member is very informal this morning. I suggest that he get on with it. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Thank you for your guidance, Madam Speaker. I suppose it is coincidental that the departure of the former member for Oxley should have provided, at this stage, an opportunity for me to work with my colleagues in a Labor Ministry. I appreciate the opportunity which my colleagues have extended to me. Bill Hayden was elected to this Parliament, at the age of 28, in 1961. Six years later he was elected by his colleagues to the shadow Cabinet. A number of very pleasant observations have been made by people over the years concerning the qualities that Bill Hayden brought to his political responsibilities and to any of the very special responsibilities that he was given as a member of the Parliament, as a member of the Labor Opposition executive and as a Minister in Labor governments. When the Whitlam Government came into office in 1972, Bill Hayden was appointed Minister for Social Security. I am sure that all people will recall that in that capacity he had the very special responsibility of the carriage of Medibank, one of the most significant social innovations which had been undertaken by any government in the history of the Commonwealth. Mr Lamb —He did it extremely well. Mr ROBERT BROWN —As my colleague suggests, he did it extremely well. People were aware of the very great difficulties that Bill Hayden operated under in attempting to bring into being a system that would ensure that all people in Australia-the rich and, particularly, the poor-would never again find it necessary to deny themselves or their children necessary medical or health attention simply because they were unable to afford it. Against great difficulties, against great obstacles and against entrenched, privileged opposition Bill Hayden persisted with Medibank, and introduced it. People applauded it, as they should. It was unfortunate that subsequently the scheme was dismantled by others. After some very difficult economic times in Australia, Bill Hayden was appointed Treasurer from mid-1975. He had the responsibility then for the construction and the implementation and introduction of what was to be the last Budget of the Whitlam Government. Everyone recognises that that Budget contained the seeds of economic restoration and economic reconstruction for Australia. It was a very responsible and very sensible Budget. It would have been the means by which that Government at that time would have been able to overcome some of the very serious economic difficulties that had developed, had it been given the opportunity to see its term out. Bill Hayden took over from Gough Whit- lam as leader of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party in December 1977 following the election that year. Of course, after the double dissolution in 1975, the Labor Party went into opposition decimated. I do not know for sure but it was probably a record, certainly in more recent years, in terms of the small number of members of the Labor Party who were returned to Parliament. That was repeated in 1977. Following that, the leadership of Bill Hayden brought a greater degree of cohesion, integration, coordination and policy development into the Labor Party Opposition. Quite clearly, as a result of his leadership, Labor was able to start on the way back. When the honourable member for Wills (Mr Hawke) became Leader in February 1983, he indicated that he had inherited an opposition which was operating very effectively, an opposition which was cohesive and, as well, one which had proceeded very significantly in the development of policies which could then have been presented to the Australian people. These were policies which at the same time proved themselves to be adequate to the Australian people because the Australian people subsequently quite clearly endorsed them. In the course of the period of this Government, Bill Hayden was Minister for Foreign Affairs until he resigned to accept the appointment as Governor-General designate. During that period, I do not think anyone would deny-I am sure that honourable members opposite would not deny-that Bill Hayden was responsible for lifting the level of respect in which Australia was held, for maintaining the respect for Australia in international fora, and for making sure that Australia's voice was heard. This is a role which had been contributed to significantly by previous Ministers for Foreign Affairs. I refer particularly to the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), because we recognise his contribution in that area, as he knows we recognise it. Bill Hayden certainly adopted a positive, sensitive and responsive position, perhaps emulating some of his predecessors in international affairs. We appreciated and respected the role which he played. This was a very significant and major role for Australia in the international scene and has enhanced this country's international standing. In Bill Hayden's maiden speech on 1 March 1962-he had just turned 29 years of age a couple of months before-he said: For me it is an honour to stand in this historic chamber as the elected representative of the people who reside in the Oxley electorate. This is truly a great privilege, but the greatest of all honours is to be here as a member of the Australian Labour Party. The Australian Labour Party is the only political party in Australia to-day which can claim to be truly national in character and outlook. It is the only political party which pursues policies designed for the greatest good for the majority of the people. I say that with some sensitivity towards the position of Governor-General, but it is on the record. Mr Howard —I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may want to sit me down, but I say with the very best of goodwill that when the announcement concerning the new Governor-General was made by the palace we made it clear, out of deference to Her Majesty and the office of Governor-General, that we were not going to re- express concerns. There is an implied covenant in that on the honourable member's part. He should not lay it on too thickly or he will strain the patience of a lot of people on our side who feel very deeply. It is only out of respect for Her Majesty and the office that we are prepared to remain silent. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will take note of the Bill before the House. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Certainly, Madam Speaker. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that there have perhaps been occasions when his concern for appropriate political decorum has not been as strong as it is at present. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will return to the Bill. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Bill Hayden left the Brisbane State High School at the age of 16. He did not matriculate until 1960, the year before he came into Parliament. He was then aged 25 and he completed his matriculation by correspondence. He then completed his economics degree in 1968. I think a number of people who have commented on the appointment of Bill Hayden as Governor-General have clearly indicated the nature of the humble beginnings which he had. Having left school, he went into the Public Service. He found that very uninspiring. He became a police officer and was a police officer at the time he was elected to the Parliament. He is a man with a great sense of humour, a raconteur, and he has a great repertoire of stories and anecdotes. He is good company, despite the fact that on many occasions he tends to be a bit of a loner. He enjoys company and he certainly contributes greatly to social company. When he was appointed Treasurer in June 1985 an article in the Canberra Times said: The appointment of Bill Hayden as Treasurer is a personal triumph for one of the Labor Party's most enthusiastic and diligent Ministers. He was interviewed by the Australian Financial Review. I will read part of that interview because I think it indicates that to a large extent Bill Hayden's achievements vindicate the position which he adopted throughout his life. That position is very much related to his own background and his own circumstances. He said: My mother was born in Queensland, my father was allegedly born in Ireland. We've since discovered that he was born in America and was an illegal immigrant. He jumped a ship. He was a merchant seaman and apparently-the story is very cloudy-he absconded from a catholic seminary to go to sea. He worked as a piano tuner, with a small business in the Rockhampton area. He was busted in the depression, and I have a vivid recollection of him heading off early in the morning with his kit, chasing a bit of work door-to-door, and bringing the piano frames home on the old drop centre trams-the trammie would be abusing him, and he'd be abusing the trammie. Everyone was struggling to exist in those days. Often as not he wouldn't get paid, so it was a pretty tough existence. He joined the Army, not because he thought he was going to be a hero but because he thought it would be an opportunity to earn a regular income for a change. * * * I was always a very poor reader. I was a typical product of the deprived socio-economic background that I understand now but didn't then. There weren't many books in our home-we couldn't afford them. It was poor, that was all. Bloody poor. I'm very conscious of the fact that I don't have middle-class values. I'm much closer to working-class values. Bill Hayden is a great son of the Labor movement and he is a great son of the Australian people. In a sense his personal achievements, as I have suggested, have been a vindication of his determination to fight injustice and to pursue equity, to provide opportunities and to remove obstacles to human achievement. He committed and dedicated his life to the achievement and the pursuit of those objectives. Every kid in every working class home in Australia can be encouraged by Bill Hayden, Governor- General designate of Australia. He and his outstanding and gracious wife, Dallas, will bring credit to themselves, to the people of the Oxley electorate in Queensland, to Australia, and to the position of Governor-General. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(10.26) —I am more than pleased to support the Governor-General Amendment Bill because, unlike many in our community, I believe that the office of Governor-General should be held in great respect and held as a position which all Australians should aspire to achieving as the fulfilment of their careers. I am distressed by comments that I occasionally see in the press and I hear when I move about the community that the remuneration for the Governor-General is too generous. Personally, I think it is inadequate. I think that the current Governor-General has been underpaid for his term in office. I am pleased to see this Bill come to the House. On behalf of the Opposition, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said earlier, we are pleased to support it. As I said when I began my remarks, I believe the position of Governor-General is critical to our country. It is the head of our system of government. The Governor- General is the Queen's representative in Australia. We are a constitutional monarchy with a democratically elected Parliament. Without a Governor-General who is held in respect by the entire community and supported by the Parliament our system of government is in jeopardy. For that reason I believe the office should always be held above party politics and be immune to party political attacks. It is for that reason that I support the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition that, whilst we may have had some reservations about the procedures adopted to find a replacement for the current exemplary Governor-General and perhaps even the person selected, once that decision has been made by the palace we will support it without question 100 per cent, out of respect for the office. It is important that this Parliament give respect to the incumbent. I wish Bill Hayden and his wife well in this position. Unlike the previous speaker, the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), I do not know the Haydens well. I have not been in this Parliament very long, but I do understand the important office that they are going to next year. I understand the need for a person to be committed to serving his country in order to be prepared to take that office on and to be-- Mr Tim Fischer —He is following in some big footsteps. Mr BLUNT —As my honourable and gallant colleague the honourable member for Farrer has said, he is following in the big footsteps of people who have done an exceptional job for our country in recent years and further in the past. It is important that anyone who is appointed to that position have a commitment to our present system of government, recognise that the position is above party politics, and at all costs resist the temptations and pressures that may be exerted upon him from time to time to participate in partisan debate. I think previous occupants of that position have by and large adhered without exception to that principle. I believe it is also important that the occupant give due deference to Her Majesty, whom he is representing in Australia. Her Majesty is the head of the Church of England. For that reason the Governor-General of Australia is from time to time called upon to participate in numerous functions which have a religious and Christian overtone. I believe it is important that the occupant should understand the obligations that go with the position in terms of that aspect of his activities. One of the most impressive characteristics of the present Governor-General is his capacity to relate to the Australian community. I have never failed to be impressed by His Excellency's addresses to the community on television on appropriate occasions. They have always called upon the Australian community to unite and work for the good of our country. They have never in any way done anything that would be detrimental to the development and future of our community and I believe that is a sentiment that should be borne in mind by anyone who has the position in the future. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I am more than happy to support this Bill because I believe that by passing this measure we are tangibly enhancing the status of the Governor-General in our community. It is a status which should be enhanced on every occasion and treated with the respect appropriate for such a high office. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(10.32) —in reply-I thank honourable members who have participated in the debate on the Governor-General Amendment Bill. I agree very much with the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) on the current occupant and the general approach adopted by the Opposition to the question of the principle involved here. I appreciate too the remarks made by the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), who summed up the character of the occupant-to-be very well indeed. Both were appropriate sets of comments to be made on the matter before the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Beazley) read a third time. Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Punch: That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) Mr SMITH(Bass)(10.37) —I thank the members of the Australian Labor Party for coming down from the rafters to listen to the debate. Look at them all leave. They do not like to hear the truth. We are debating the Australia Council Amendment Bill 1988, which was brought in by the departing Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch). The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australia Council Act. In effect, it picks up the recommendations of the report of the former House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, known affectionately as the McLeay report, after our Deputy Speaker, Mr Leo McLeay; and it is titled Patronage, Power and the Muse. Broadly, the McLeay report focused on the Australia Council and recommended a streamlining of the administrative structure and that the Council should take account of government policies at the Commonwealth, State and local government levels. The Australia Council broadly supported these recommendations, and thus the Bill gives effect to them. The Bill relates primarily to the functions of the Australia Council. The fundamental question before the House today is whether these amendments adequately address the problems that exist with the Australia Council method of funding the arts. From this side of the House, we answer that question in the negative. Therefore, we will oppose this Bill. We will also move an amendment, about which I will speak at the committee stage and which has been circulated to honourable members. We do not agree that the Bill streamlines the Australia Council. Our fundamental objection is the continued bureaucratisation of the arts funding-and that has become the hallmark of the Australia Council. Far from solving the problem, the McLeay report, although it recognised it-and that, I think, can be said in its favour-really wanted us to stay with the old Whitlam experiment, probably for nostalgic reasons. But it missed the opportunity to take a quantum leap forward to a far better method. As for the far better method, it will remain for my colleague the shadow Minister to outline at some future time. Suffice it to say that for the purposes of this debate and this Bill, we will oppose the Bill on that primary ground. As I said, the net result of these amendments is to create another board, to be known as the Community Cultural Development Board, which will bring the number of boards under the Council to five. The Bill also gives to the Minister the power to appoint others, probably his friends, to this and other boards. Indeed, going back over the Australia Council's record, one sees that the former Minister, the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), was criticised at some length in the past for appointing his friends to the Board. Of course, this Bill perpetrates that ability of a Minister to appoint people who are close to him and not necessarily people who are related to the arts relevant to those boards. If I can divert slightly, Mr Deputy Speaker: I think the arts ministry is quickly becoming something of a rubbish bin for failed Ministers, and that is to be regretted. As some wag said the other day, it is probably becoming the holding room for retirement, with the prospect of the new Minister moving in. I think that is unfair, because the arts deserve much better. In my own role as science and energy shadow spokesman, I would say that I think science deserves a far better role and treatment from the Government. However, that is a debate for later in the day. To the fundamental question in this country, `Do arts matter?', I think one must answer in the affirmative, because they most certainly do. In a paper circulated not so long ago by Senator Puplick, who is the Opposition spokesman on arts matters-a paper that I am sure the Minister is aware of and has seen-that very fundamental question is discussed. The basic question is whether we in Australia ought to be funding the arts in its various forms. I think that there is a strong bipartisan view that the answer is yes. But the argument is as to how we ought to be funding the arts and the best method by which to do it. We on this side of the House do not believe that the Australia Council, even as amended by the Minister, is a satisfactory long term solution. Indeed, a former Opposition spokesman for the arts, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), said that the use of a statutory authority in this way was merely a political subterfuge to protect Ministers from having to make hard decisions which they are either unable to or unwilling to later articulate. In relation to the importance of the arts, I shall quote from that paper by Senator Puplick, as I think it encapsulates the arguments with which all of us in this place would agree. He says this: However there is no doubt that the arts tell us something about ourselves. They allow us to make statements about ourselves both individually and as a people. They make a statement about what we want to communicate to our fellow Australians and to the rest of the world about our Australianness. The need to communicate, and especially to communicate our passions and our emotions without violence is one of the most basic of human instincts. This is becoming increasingly important in a modern world where the lack of communication and the resort to violence (both personally and as state policy) as a means of expression are becoming tragically and all too increasingly common. Art can allow us as individuals to express ourselves beyond ourselves and to do so on our own terms. It can give joy and inspiration to others. As such, it is worthy of public support by a variety of means. In Australia we should seek artistic expression which is both unique to us as Australians and yet is also international in its dimension and its comprehensibility. I think that all of us in this House would agree with that statement, because it is a fundamental that we would all accept. If one wants to look a little more closely at the arts industry and its effect on Australia in pure economic terms, one needs to go back, of course, to that Industries Assistance Commission document where this matter was detailed. However, at present, on estimates available, arts and arts-related industry constitute about $3.1 billion. It has more than 50,000 full-time workers, who earn over $1,000m in salaries and pay and who also are contributing towards the Treasury about $200m in personal income tax. There are some 30,000 practising professional artists in Australia, of varying types. Thus, the impact of the arts industry on our economy is significant, and we must recognise that. It is important to all of us. It is true that the arts are a unifying force in Australian society. Their practise and their enjoyment cross all barriers and recognise no divisions of origin, background, race or class. Thus, a developed national identity and commitments to shared values are achievable. The development of the creativity of our talented people must be our priority. Political decisions will be and must be made about arts funding-obviously about the amount available and the general direction of its expenditure. That is basically what this debate is about. This debate will be curtailed somewhat, but others in this debate will make mention of the direction of some of the funding involved. In the past, the Waste Watch Committee did a great deal of service for this country in highlighting some of the more excessive and extraordinary utilisations of taxpayers' funds. Unfortunately, we certainly saw that within the arts area. One would hope that does not happen again. Indeed, I will have a few comments to make a little later about that possibility. But there are many examples of the misdirection of taxpayers' funds in support of the arts. This Minister will not now have an opportunity to take advantage of the powers that are contained in this amendment, particularly those powers contained in proposed new section 6b under which the Minister will be able to give directions to the chairperson of the Australia Council. Perhaps the new Minister, the present Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding), who I understand has a keen interest in the arts-I suppose that ought to be welcomed-will be able to keep a close watch over the allocation of funds within his jurisdiction. As I was saying, in a democracy the political decisions must be made by the politicians and not the bureaucrats, and that is the essence of our objections and our reasons for opposing this Bill. We should be held responsible and accountable for the decisions we make or fail to make, and people in the arts ought not be entitled to some special exemption from the basic rule of democratic government, nor should public money provided for the arts be quarantined from the same degree of political decision making and accountability which is properly demanded in other areas of public expenditure or industry subsidy. Approximately 60 per cent of public support for the arts comes through State governments. None of them operates politically on the arm's length principle. They all have Ministers of the arts in some form or another directly under ministerial control. It is only at the federal level that the arm's length funding becomes a sacred cow-and, indeed, it has become that over the years. Under this arrangement a close analysis reveals that the real beneficiaries of the funding have to be seen to be not the artists but the arts bureaucrats. I believe there could be great benefits to artists if the number of arts bureaucrats involved in the administration of the funding arrangements were reduced, at least to a greater extent than this amendment proposes. It was interesting to go back over the record. Perhaps I may refresh the memory of honourable members and particularly of the Minister at the table. In the House of Representatives on 17 October 1985 the honourable member for Robertson, the then Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, had this to say in his first major ministerial statement: Many of my critics are enthusiastic and uncompromising supporters of the `arm's length principle', as they proclaim it, when it suits them, yet have no hesitation in demanding my direct intervention when it does not. He went on to say: Governments are elected to govern; to make decisions. This principle of Ministerial responsibility is generally demanded of governments in Australia. In relation to the arts, the present legislative arrangements make it near impossible to achieve. He also said: The other major patrons in Australia are the State governments and private companies. Neither of these groups practise `arm's length funding'. . . . The present system, it can be argued, protects partial patronage and hides prejudice beneath a cloak of artistic integrity. Yet what is the Minister doing today? I think he puts the arguments that I am putting-that arm's length funding perhaps ought to be something of the past. He is persisting with this present structure, albeit with some changes, which in some senses I suppose one would welcome. But, really, he is persisting with the general thrust of enhancing the role of the Chairman of the Australia Council, Professor Donald Horne. I think it is worth honourable members being aware of the powers of direction that are going to be vested in the Minister. Proposed new section 6b (1) states: Where the Minister is satisfied that it is desirable in the public interest to do so, the Minister may, by notice in writing to the Chairperson, give directions to the Council with respect to the performance of its functions or the exercise of its power. It would appear at first blush that that is a normal embracing power to accrue to the Minister. But, of course, in reality that is not going to be the case. This Minister and the next Minister are going to be put in the position where they have between them and the arts community a continuing Australia Council with large bureaucratic and administrative powers. I think it does not go nearly far enough. It certainly does not answer the criticism of the position that the former Minister found himself in in 1985 when he had running battles with many within the arts community. I suppose it is appropriate to make some comment about Donald Horne, whose term expires in December 1989. Donald Horne was appointed late in 1984, after Morris West and Gough Whitlam said no. I do not believe it would be in anyone's interest to have Neville Wran running science and Gough Whitlam running the arts in this country. Mr Punch —Just as long as John Howard is not running the country it will be all right. Mr SMITH —The honourable member should just wait. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) will be running the country sooner than the honourable member thinks, particularly if the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) continue to talk to each other on the car telephone. We are all waiting for the transcript to be made available. I must admit that if the Australia Council wants to fund its acquisition for the benefit of the public of Australia, we would probably support that. Mr Dobie —They tell me the telephone conversation is a real work of art. Mr SMITH —It is a real work of art. I must thank the honourable member for his interjection. Mr Leo McLeay —You have nothing to say, do you? Mr SMITH —The honourable member for Grayndler is now interjecting. He also should read the transcript. I think it could be well worth reading. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! I ask the honourable member to come back to the terms of the Bill. Mr SMITH —I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was distracted. The Minister is obviously interested in the transcript as well. Donald Horne signalled a change in direction in arts funding in his inaugural speech in January 1985. I will quote from what he said then because I think it is reasonably significant: . . . is it not possible that the Australia Council, while still providing some support for the large organisations, should be somewhat in the van, especially concerned with encouraging the risky and the innovative, with providing support for creative individuals and innovative institutions, with experimenting with appreciation, access and participation programs . . . This emphasis on innovative institutions experimenting with appreciation and participation programs led directly to the way-out funding most Australians found objection- able. I think Donald Horne swung the pendulum far too far when he took over the Australia Council. In a sense, this amendment seeks to bring it back, because the exposures by such bodies as the Waste Watch Committee, criticised though they were by the Government, have been accepted. What the Minister is trying to do is go on the path that his former Minister indicated was necessary-to put the decision making back in our hands and not to give it to the bureaucrats. In so doing, he is going to benefit the arts nationwide and not in any way detract from them. Clause 10 of the Bill refers to the creation of the Community Cultural Development Board, the Chairman of which is to be Donald Horne. Again, this Minister and the new Minister must look very carefully at this, because we do not want the Community Cultural Development Board to become yet another vehicle for the funding of what Donald Horne described on day one in the job as the innovative institution experimenting with appreciation and participation programs. I think that must be watched particularly carefully. It is interesting how people's views change. Recently my eye caught an article in the Australian by Gerard Henderson, a man who is well known to some of us in this place. He made this point, which I think even the Minister would accept, about how people change. The thrust of Mr Henderson's article was that a person who starts at the left tends to be heard more than if he starts perhaps from the middle ground or even from the right. It is interesting that the Minister started from the left and has now moved to the right, and that has accrued some personal benefit to him. I must admit that he is a far more sensible Minister for having made that transition. In any event, Gerard Henderson said this in his column in the Australian in this past week: During the time that Donald Horne was associate editor of Quadrant and a defender of the Australian commitment in Vietnam he was not a high flyer in the media. But since the time Donald purchased his `maintain the rage' badge the sky has been the limit. Indeed it has. Donald Horne seems to comment on all and sundry matters. Perhaps the House could advise him that he would be better off pursuing purely the arts issues and not delving into areas which really are of no concern to him. Before concluding my remarks, and allowing time for my colleagues to speak, I want to make some comments about the Design Board concerns that many of us have. The Minister will be aware that his Press release dated 3 June states that the Design Board was removed and that a committee has been set up under Donald Horne which will review the design elements of art rather than have the broad design role that the former Design Board had. I understand that on the committee is one of Australia's leading architects, Mr Andrews, who was on the Design Board. The Design Board was a lot smaller than many of the other boards. I make the point that the Design Board is particularly important in terms of the overall approach to design in Australia. It is a pity that the functions of design have been split. Design, as it relates to art, will now be put under this special committee and design in relation to industrial type design and improvements now falls within the purview of the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Technology (Senator Button). Previously there was a one-stop shop for design and it is to be lamented that it has changed. Indeed, the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories received a letter from the Institution of Engineers, Australia. That letter makes interesting reading and I will read a part of it because it encapsulates the concerns that many of us have: The Minister for the Arts and Territories, Mr Punch, has announced that the Australia Council will form a design committee to replace the Design Board. Such a committee will be concerned with `arts related aspects of design'. The Institution of Engineers, Australia wishes to record its concern at this decision-a decision that must adversely affect the promotion of industrial design as a powerful tool in the sale of Australian technology overseas. At a time when the Government is encouraging industry to face up to world competition by reducing protection it seems illogical to remove support mechanisms-such as the Design Board-that are already in place. The Institution strongly advocates the maintenance of these mechanisms and urges the Government to either reconsider its decision or ensure that industrial design is properly catered for elsewhere. When I picked up the statement on science and technology yesterday, it was interesting to note that in the preface the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce talked about the need to support education, science and particularly engineering to meet the very challenges that the Institution of Engineers talks about. Indeed, the need to make us competitive and innovative and to develop markets to enhance our export economy was talked about in the preface. The Design Board, though small, played a very special role. I urge the Minister to watch the new Design Committee carefully. Perhaps we have made a mistake in getting rid of the Design Board. Far be it from me to suggest that we have another board but I think that we ought to look very carefully at the merits of the design industry in Australia in its broadest context. Mr Punch —What would you suggest? Mr SMITH —We were going to suggest that you comment later when we release our policy. Mr Punch —No, we suggested something. What would you suggest? Mr SMITH —No, we will talk about it later. Another suggestion I make to the Minister is that there be a centre of excellence for design in Australia. In Tasmania we have a centre of excellence in aquaculture. There are other centres of excellence that the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) has been establishing and it is a sensible policy. But there is no centre of excellence for design. It is something that the Minister should pursue with his colleagues. More particularly, there are opportunities to pursue centres of excellence of design in particular areas such as furniture. If honourable members cast their eyes around this chamber and this building, they will see excellence in furniture design that perhaps is by far the best that Australia has ever seen. We want to maintain those abilities, those qualities of craftsmanship. Indeed, a centre of excellence in furniture and interior architecture is something that we could be developing in this country. There are many schools of architecture. A faculty of design in my area, the Institute of Technology in Launceston, Tasmania, may be a repository for such a centre. That is the direction in which we should be going. Mr Punch —Tasmania? Mr SMITH —Tasmania contributes mightily to the export wealth of this country. We are the only State that has been a net exporter since Federation. Mr Punch —When you come up here they say you are their best export. Mr SMITH —But they always have me back again. I think that in looking for a suggestion, this is something that the Minister could pursue. Indeed, the broader point is the important point. If we want to develop an export related economy, we need to pursue excellence in arts, which, in its broadest form, can benefit this country. We know of its economic benefits to this country. It is to be lamented that there has been a split of the arts related to design aspects and industrial related design aspects, if it means that the importance and the emphasis placed on design is to be lost. Perhaps the Minister can respond to that in his summing up. We have an amendment which is most appropriately commented on at the committee stage. The Minister is also proposing amendments to allow tele-conferencing. We will not be opposing those amendments although I will make some comments about them in committee. It is interesting to find those amendments coming forward. I will conclude my remarks and pick them up further during the committee stage. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(11.02) —There have been a number of rather interesting comments from the Opposition spokesman standing in for Senator Puplick. Obviously he did his work a little hurriedly because he got here too late for the debate. In fact, we could have been put in a rather ridiculous situation-except that the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) called a quorum when the Opposition might not have even been here to lead the debate on these amendments that the Government is proposing. The Opposition would like to have more bureaucratic controls even though it says it would not. Its attention should have been drawn to something that Lord Keynes said during a BBC broadcast in 1945: At last the public exchequer has recognised the support and encouragement of the civilising arts of life as part of their duty. If the Opposition had thought about that and the role that the Australia Council and other government funded arts organisations have in the life of Australia, it might have put a little more thought into its contribution to this debate. Instead the Opposition spokesman says, `Well, the worst thing that can happen to arts in Australia is that Gough Whitlam be given charge of the Australia Council'. When one looks at the Opposition's approach to arts funding in Australia and one goes back to the many years that the Liberals were in government, prior to Gough Whitlam becoming Prime Minister of Australia, one sees that the arts got relatively nothing out of the Liberal Party. In fact, it was Gough Whitlam who was the great impetus, with Jean Battersby, Nugget Coombs and others, in putting arts on the Federal agenda. But Opposition members know so little about the subject that they think that one of the worst things that could happen would be for Gough Whitlam to have something to do with arranging arts policy in Australia. The Opposition, as usual, has it all wrong. the Opposition is in the same position as Stephen Sondheim was when he put a song in that little confection called Sunday in the Park with George. In that there is a little verse that says: Art isn't easy even when you're hot. Advancing art is easy. Financing it is not. That is the problem that the Opposition has. It wants to be able to say all the things that it would like to say but, when it gets around to doing something about it, it has a real problem. In fact, it puts forward rather contradictory statements. It worries about bureaucratic intervention, Gough Whitlam, this Minister and that Minister. When the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) asked the Opposition what it would do, it said, `You'll have to wait till you see our policy'. An election was held last year and the Opposition did not have a policy then. There will be another election in a couple of years' time, but we have not yet seen a policy from the Opposition. The fact is that it does not have a policy. The people who are running the arts area on behalf of the Opposition are the cultural philistines of the Waste Watch Committee. The Opposition spokesman-the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith)-told us what a great job the Waste Watch Committee has done in finding out what ought to happen to arts funding in Australia. According to what we have heard from the honourable member for Bass, Senator Michael Baume and the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), the Waste Watch Committee will tell us what is right for art and what is not right for art; what is right for Australians and what is not right for Australians. That is the very reason that the Government has to keep the Australia Council model for arts funding in Australia. If it did not do so, members of the Waste Watch Committee would decide what was culture. I think that they would probably take their definition of culture from Goering because Goering once said: `When I hear someone talk about culture I get out my gun'. That is the view that members of the Waste Watch Committee would have. We need to have someone to put between those cultural philistines and the people who are deciding on what Lord Keynes said was a very noble thing for governments to do. I went into the inquiry of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, of which I was Chairman, thinking that maybe there ought to be some significant changes to the Australia Council. A number of people who appeared before my Committee told me that the Australia Council model ought to be changed. A number of people took the view of the Waste Watch Committee. A number of people took another view, but for finer motives. After talking to hundreds of witnesses and after going through four and a half thousand pages of transcript of evidence, the Committee came down with a unanimous report. The honourable member for Bass did not mention, in his fulminations, that he was a member of that Committee. Mr Smith —I was on the subcommittee. Mr LEO McLEAY —The honourable member would be aware that even subcommittees have to get their proposals agreed to by the whole committee. The honourable member for Bass voted for the Committee report-but now he seems to have been taken over by the Waste Watch Committee. It is amazing what happens to people when they become ambitious. The honourable member for Bass is now saying to the Parliament that we ought to go and have another look at this. I came to the conclusion, as did all members of the Committee, that if we wanted to go away from the arts council model and move to an arts ministry model, the waste watch committees ought to have a field day. If one looks at the way arts funding is done in the States-be they Liberal or Labor States-one sees pork-barrelling of the worst type. In the Commonwealth we have a different approach. In the Commonwealth we have said that we will have a form of peer review and arm's length funding: we will have the experts give us some information-not the dulcet tones of the honourable member for Mayo, the addled approach of the honourable member for Bass or the pernickety, stockbroker approach of Senator Michael Baume. We have said that we will have some people who actually know what they are talking about give us some advice. That is probably a strange concept for the Opposition to accept and why it is in such a parlous state at present. All it is bothering to do is to listen to its own empty echoes. If it went out and got some proper advice, and thought about that advice, it might be able to come in here and tell us that it has an arts policy; it might be able to have something constructive to say about these very good changes that the Government is making to the Australia Council model. There is no doubt that there were some deficiencies in the arts council model of running a large arts industry in Australia in the 1980s. The Government has not said, as the Opposition would like it to do, `Let's throw the baby out with the bath water and let us dole out all these things to our friends'. The Opposition spokesman had the hide to say that the Australia Council boards are made up of the Minister's friends. It may be that Labor Ministers are a little more cultured and have a wider sphere of friends. The Minister for the Arts and Territories, who is at the table, would count his friends by the hundreds; whereas Senator Puplick and the Opposition spokesman would be hard-pressed to even get invited to the opera, let alone bother to go. Mr Dobie —Oh, come on! That is totally insulting and you know it. I would like that withdrawn. Mr LEO McLEAY —The honourable member for Cook can get up here afterwards and try to make some apologies for his colleagues- Mr Dobie —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: An aspersion has been cast on Senator Puplick's art appreciation. I would like the honourable member for Grayndler to withdraw it. The claim that Senator Puplick does not go to the opera is a complete falsehood and the honourable member knows it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —I see no point in asking the honourable member for Grayndler to withdraw. Mr LEO McLEAY —Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Cook has just told us that Senator Puplick buys a ticket to the opera from time to time. Well, good on him. Maybe in the future we will see him at a rock and roll concert and then we can talk to him about popular culture. Then we might find out where the Opposition stands on something. What we have seen here today is a scandal. We would have been far better hearing from the honourable member for Cook about where the Opposition thinks arts is going than from that empty drum that stood up and told us that Gough Whitlam knows nothing about art. The honourable member for Cook would not tell us that Gough Whitlam should not have anything to say about art in Australia. The honourable member for Cook probably thinks that having Gough Whitlam with something to do with the arts is a good idea. Mr Smith —He said he would not take the position of chairman. Mr LEO McLEAY —The Opposition spokesman has just found some other things to say which he did not have time to say when he still had 10 minutes in which to speak. He could not even go the full round. That shows how little he knows about the issues. We found that some changes needed to be made to the arts council model and we suggested some changes. An all-party committee-including the honourable member for Bass-said, with the honourable member for Bass, that we ought to make some of these changes. I think that the changes which the Minister has introduced, together with the other changes that the Australia Council has made, will assist the implementation of government art policies in Australia, as well as doing their best to keep the politicians from dictating what art should be. One tends to think that the Opposition gets its thoughts from watching Yes, Minister on the television. If Opposition members watch Yes, Minister, as most of them probably do, they will have heard a great quote from Sir Humphrey Appleby, that doyen of the Civil Service on Yes, Minister, when he said: Subsidy is for art; it's for culture. It's not to be given to what the people want. It is for what the people don't want but ought to want. If they really want something they will pay for it themselves. The Government's duty is to subsidise education, enlightenments and spiritual uplift-not the vulgar pastimes of ordinary people. If we had the arts ministry model, the Humphrey Applebys of this world would be telling the Minister who to give the grants to. It would not be any of those addle-brained people on the other side who have no idea of what they want to do; it would be the secretary to the arts department. The Government, quite properly, has put a buffer in there-the Australia Council. That buffer provides the Government with advice and an expert selection system. On occasions the Australia Council could have ended up doing what it wanted to do rather than taking account of government policy. It is proper for the Australia Council to take account of government policy, but I believe that it is really improper for Ministers to decide, at the micro-economic level, which grant should be given to which group. Of course, that is what the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee would do. Those cultural philistines would want to go through every grant. They would decide what was and was not important as a function of their own narrow appreciation of things. However, as a result of these proposed amendments, the Australia Council will have to take account of the broad thrust of government policy. I think that is a very good thing. One of the other things which my Committee found when it went round Australia, unlike the Opposition, was that people had some criticisms of the Australia Council as a model for the delivery of arts funds but could not give a better solution. No-one within the arts industry-no-one out in the community-really liked the idea of a cultural ministry operation at the Commonwealth level. I suppose it gets down to the old saw about democracy, that democracy has all sorts of flaws. Every day we see those flaws in this chamber. Democracy flowers when there is a strong opposition, but one of the great flaws at present is that we do not have a strong opposition. However, even with the flaws in democracy, it is still the very best system available. It is my belief that the Australia Council model certainly has flaws. From time to time governments should try to overcome some of those flaws. However, the Australia Council seems to be one of the best vehicles available at present for the delivery of arts funding at the Commonwealth level. I think that the Government, particularly the Minister for the Arts and Territories, should be congratulated on making these changes, which will broaden the base of the Australia Council. It has been perceived for quite some time that there needs to be another view, as well as the view of the arts experts. My Committee has suggested, and the Government has accepted, that we should broaden the base of the people participating in that peer review process and that arm's length funding process so that people who have some expertise in public administration or some other field-people other than those who are necessarily arts practitioners-can be brought into the decision-making process. We think that that would broaden the base of the decision-making process and that it would then ensure that some of the criticisms levelled at the Australia Council would not be able to be levelled any more. One of the points brought up by the honourable member for Bass in his contribution was that we seem to be funding an arts bureaucracy. I think that this is a myth that many people around Australia have pushed for some time. There is no doubt that if the rest of the bureaucracy that delivers large and complex programs could get its administration costs down to the level of the Australia Council, we would be in a very good position with regard to the country's deficit. Administration costs of 12 per cent for running a program are not very high. The Australia Council is a pretty lean administrative organisation. Eighty-eight per cent of the funds appropriated to the Australia Council go to arts recipients. If the honourable member for Bass and his colleague Senator Puplick had a look at similar programs, I think they would find that the administration costs were higher. In all fairness to Senator Puplick, I do not think that that is a criticism that he makes of the Australia Council. We heard as well some questions raised by the Opposition on the removal of the Design Board. John Andrews, who was a member of the Design Board, has an interest in what it is doing and is strongly putting his point of view. However, with due respect to John Andrews and the Design Board people who share that view, I think they are wrong. If we have a problem with design of the type raised by the honourable member for Bass, who said that there is no centre of excellence in design in Australia, maybe one of the reasons for that problem lies in the fact that the Design Board is located within the Australia Council. I think that design in Australia will end up doing far better if John Andrews and the very good people like him start to exercise their influence in the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, because that is where the real money is. That is where the really significant appropriations for excellence in design can be made. Indeed, design has to become enmeshed in Australia's manufacturing industry if manufacturing industry is to blossom and contribute to Australia's economy. Whilst it might suit people from the Design Board to think that the Australia Council is a better home for them, a far more productive home for the Board would be in Senator Button's Department. I finish by saying that I think that the Government's amendments to the Australia Council Act will benefit both art practitioners and art consumers. By that I mean art and culture in the broadest possible terms. I do not hold to the view and I believe the Government does not hold to the view that art is just that narrow band of high arts. In the last two years the Government has made some significant changes to the way in which it funds broader cultural areas. On the one hand, we are looking at contemporary music and on the other, as the honourable member for Bass would have seen in the Budget, we have developed for the first time ever a small program of, I think, about $1.3m per annum for people of excellence. One of the worst things that was happening was that excellent artists were travelling overseas and staying there. What the Government has done, both the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for the Arts and Territories, in this Budget is to ensure that we encourage those people to stay here. This Government has a commitment to art and culture at both the highest and the broadest levels. These proposed amendments to the Australia Council Act will ensure that that commitment continues. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(11.22) —Let me start by saying that the release of the Opposition's arts policy is not in any way, shape or form going to be dictated by the timing decision of the Government to have its junior Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) introduce this amendment to the Australian Council Act on his second last day as Minister with that portfolio. Unlike the previous speaker, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), I do not intend to become personal about honourable members on either the Government side or the Opposition side. I do not plan to raise the issue of honourable members' latter-day interest in the arts, but just to talk for a few moments on the Australia Council Amendment Bill. The Minister at the table, the Minister for the Arts and Territories, and the two members of the Government and two members of the Opposition who are in the chamber at this time to listen to the debate on this subject will know that we are about to release our arts policy within a very short time. Let us then have a rather full-blooded debate on other matters. I support the decision of the Opposition to oppose the Bill. I believe that the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) has spoken quite adequately about the bureaucratisation of the debate. One of the great problems that happen in the arts-I speak as one who has been interested in the arts both as a practitioner and as an interested person all my life-lies in administering the arts. I am not relating these comments on administration of the arts to either side of the House. One of the basic problems with administering the arts is whether the role of the art administrators is to encourage a wider range of people to become interested and concerned in one form of the arts or artistic endeavour or whether it is to acknowledge, encourage and sponsor the special talents of very talented people. The honourable member for Grayndler quite properly touched on the differences in the roles of Federal and State governments in sponsoring, encouraging and acknowledging the arts. I have no reason to disagree with him on those points. In this country we are finding a growing interest by the third level of government, local government, in becoming interested in particularly the visual arts, if not the performing arts. I for one, with no criticism levelled at the retiring Minister, welcome the new Minister with great encouragement. As the honourable member for Bass said, he ought to be welcomed. I welcome him wholeheartedly. I am very much aware of the strength of his interest in the visual arts. I believe that he will bring to the portfolio a great talent for understanding the problems facing those who are involved in the visual arts. However, I do not believe that we should get too concerned about who runs the organisations. The real problem is the end result of the Government's policies. Are we going to see artistic form as part of our daily life or are we going to regard any expression of art-or artistic expression, to put it another way-as being something elitist? I believe that this is a false and slightly philistine attitude towards art in daily life. We are talking of getting models and what model the Australia Council should be. Let me suggest to the Parliament that the Arts Advisory Committee of the new Parliament House is a very useful model for any future administration that may take place in the visual arts. Perhaps the House is not aware that the Arts Advisory Committee, on which I was privileged to sit for six years as a parliamentary representative, brought out new forms of legal contracts. It brought out new forms of tendering for the use of art in public buildings. I would hope that the basis of the work done by the Arts Advisory Committee, under the superb chairmanship of Sir Laurence Muir and consisting of a most talented and wide-ranging group of people concerned with all forms of arts and crafts, is not just put to one side and ignored. Future approaches to administration of visual arts should look very clearly and closely at what that Committee achieved in the six years it was in operation and how it was encouraged by a great firm of international architects to see the art aspect of this building as part of the operation of the building and not just to take some museum-type approach. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Grayndler, talked about the differences between opera and rock'n'roll. So be it. If there is dedication to the art form, then it should be encouraged. I believe that those who apply themselves seriously to artistic expression should be serious in their intention if they are to expect government encouragement or acknowledgment, whether at Federal, State or local level. The chance of finding excellent administrators of the various art forms is very slim; it is very rare. In Australia we have had people such as Charles Berg, who died quite recently. He proved to be a superb man with regard to the promotion and administration of the now world acknowledged Australian Opera company. I believe he ranked in the same area as Rudolph Bing of the New York Metropolitan Opera in his better days. Today I would like to pay tribute also to Max Bourke, the present executive officer of the Australia Council, for the work he is valiantly trying to do to bring some sense into the application of the tasks that face the Australia Council. I am not going to talk about the waste of money in the arts, as my colleague the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) will be doing that when he follows me in this debate. But there is one point in the Bill which I take exception to, and I would like to talk about it now, despite the amendment that should be coming forward. It concerns the decision to remove the word `film' from the art form. As many of us know, the Literature Board of the Australia Council has great difficulty finding people who can write satisfactory scripts for the Australian film industry. The House should be reminded that, because of the strength of the language and the degree of violence appearing in some Australian films, they basically do not qualify for appearance on Australian television because of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's standards. So there is a great need for the training area of the film industry and the Literature Board to work closer together in the development of appropriate script writers within our film industry. There is a basic and sad lack of script writers in nearly every film industry around the world. One of the tragedies of films is that the wealthy film companies eventually take over all the talented script writers and other facilities. I am most disappointed that by taking `film' out of the description of art we are moving away from a really practical application of work for the current Australia Council. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I believe that the Bill increases bureaucratic intervention. It is appropriate for the Opposition to pick its time for the release of its arts policy and not be guided, as I said earlier, by the decision of this Government to flatter its retiring Minister for the arts by allowing him to bring this Bill into the House on his second last day as Minister. In his next portfolio-might I say as a kind aside to him-he will be hearing a lot more from me, and I hope to be hearing a lot more from him. But, of course, I am out of the context of this debate by saying so. I do not believe anything is achieved in this House by name calling, and the Minister will know that. I do not do it locally. We are political neighbours; our electorates adjoin each other. I do not believe in political abuse at any level, even in telephone calls, which may be recorded-a matter which for some reason seems to have crept into this debate today. I hope that the work of Max Bourke and the Australia Council is not in any way challenged or reduced by the introduction of this Bill and no doubt the passing of it in this House today. Mr Smith —You never know; they might cross. Mr DOBIE —One can only hope that the Government will see the light in this regard. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(11.34) —The Australia Council Amendment Bill 1988 will give effect to the Government's response to the inquiry into Commonwealth assistance to the arts by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, a committee chaired by a Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay). It is a pleasure to be able to follow the honourable member for Grayndler on this side of the chamber in this debate because, if I might be allowed to digress slightly, I think that his Committee's report, which was entitled Patronage, Power and the Muse, is a beacon for other committees of this place in the way in which they can make a significant contribution to formulating government policy. There has been a lot of debate about how this new building will affect the way in which we operate as members of parliament. I know that there have been criticisms of the size of the building and, therefore, the isolation. There have also been criticisms about the fact that there is a special ministerial wing and that that might isolate Ministers from backbenchers. One outstanding feature of this building is the committee complex, which I think is a wonderful set of rooms. It has all the types of electronic gadgetry which will enable the works of the committees to be known to all. They will be able to be connected both aurally and, in the long term, visually to all rooms. I think it is significant that the committee system which was set up following last year's election will enable back bench members of this House and the other place to play a role in the formulation of policy and the review of government administration. As I said, this committee report, which was the genesis of a lot of the work that has been completed by this Bill, is significant in that regard, because it shows the extent to which the workings of committees of the Parliament can succeed. This Bill acts upon the recommendations of the McLeay report calling for a more streamlined administrative structure for the Australia Council, a structure responsive to government policies. The amendments to the Australia Council Act 1975 contained in this Bill are intended to ensure a more efficient arts council organisation and to clarify the relationship between the Australia Council and the Government. Striking the correct balance in this relationship is a complex issue, as has been outlined in some of the contributions in this debate. On the one hand, the overt political control of the arts has been one of the hallmarks of totalitarianism. Nevertheless, democratic institutions have not been a guarantee against the accusation that arts funding has been used as a means of influencing political and social development or as a courtly hobby of Ministers. In 1972 Dr Jean Battersby, Executive Officer of the then Australian Arts Council, pointed out: The tendency to see the arts as an instrument of ideological and social conditioning is not confined to the communist countries. Even in France where the ministry was, under General de Gaulle, headed by Andre Malraux, an artist of great power as well as an understanding scholar in the history of the arts, there developed serious criticism of the political use of his powers and an alienation of the most vigorous and creative art's from the ministry. The most common model that has been developed to counter this problem is the Arts Council, incorporating an arm's length relationship with government and a peer review involvement of artists and those associated with the arts in decision making. The advantages of this model, as outlined before the McLeay Committee by the Australia Council, are: statutory independence, which is seen as fundamental in upholding freedom of artistic expression and ensuring that government funds are not restricted to politically acceptable art; capacity to support innovatory, experimental projects which could be political liabilities if supported directly by government; and an advocacy and policy development role on behalf of the arts community that is free from short term political considerations. The Arts Council model and the Australia Council are not without their critics. It might be argued that the concepts of arms length funding and peer review are ill-defined; that the Australia Council is at least, in part, the captive of its clients; that it has been a vehicle by which cultural policy has been determined by artists and their colleagues; and that this in turn has led to the imposition of policy on the community by a select elite group. While Gough Whitlam has rightly argued that `in any civilised community the arts and associated amenities must occupy a central place and their enjoyment should not be seen as something remote from everyday life', it is undeniable that in Australia subsidised arts and, in particular, the so-called high arts are principally occidental in focus and are removed from and not enjoyed by the vast majority of ordinary Australians. A national conference on arts policy for a multicultural Australia held in March this year and sponsored by the Australia Council, the Office of Multicultural Affairs of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the South Australian Bannon Government's Department of the Arts was highly critical of the very low level of support available to artists of non-Anglo Celtic backgrounds. A report of the conference in a recent edition of Artforce, the Australia Council's newsletter, pointed out: The message from the speakers was clear-that the cultural diversity resulting from Australia's immigration programs should be more fully exploited in the development of cultural programs. And further, that those responsible for developing these programs must see it as their responsibility to assist and promote a full range of artists in the community. In no area other than the arts can the differences between a policy of multiculturalism and the notion of one Australia be seen to be so different. In Australia, where we are continuing to develop our identity, it is obvious, given the background and the contribution that migrants have made, that Australia will continue to be a multicultural society and will be importantly enhanced not only economically by the contribution of migrants but also in cultural terms by their involvement. Between them, the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust, the Australian Opera and the Australian Ballet absorb approximately 26 per cent of Australia Council funds. Large State theatre and dance companies absorb a further 8 per cent to 10 per cent. There are some in the community who view this level of funding with concern. As Graham Seal of the Australian Folk Trust argued before the McLeay Committee: Opera and ballet are hardly the cultural treasures of Australia. They are the cultural treasures of the old world, transplanted and cosseted at the taxpayers expense into an overstuffed antique with meagre relevance to the Australian experience. I do not wish to suggest that the areas of activity currently funded by the Australia Council are unworthy of continued support. However, taking into account Graham Seal's extreme view, the point should be made that, in an electorate such as Scullin, very few people will ever see a performance of one of the so-called flagships. As the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) reflected, it seems that, like all good satire, the Sir Humphrey Appleby view that subsidy is to be given not to what people want but for what people do not want but ought to have is a distortion of reality but not entirely untrue. The McLeay Committee rightly rejected the view that it is the role of Government subsidy to simply provide wider access to traditional European high arts. The Committee took an approach to democratising the arts, as outlined in its first recommendation: Commonwealth arts support policy should aim to democratise culture by ensuring wide and ready community access to a diversity of cultural experiences. Arts policy should build on the work of individuals like the late George Seelaf. George Seelaf made a tremendous contribution to the Australian trade union movement. For 26 years he was the Victorian Secretary of the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union. He was a pioneer in Union involvement in occupational health and safety, playing a major role in the creation of the trade union medical clinic in the Melbourne western suburb of Footscray, a clinic which was a model for many community health centres in other disadvantaged areas, but also importantly specialised in industrial medicine and occupational health and safety. George Seelaf also had a passionate vision of making arts and culture accessible to working people. As a union official, he organised lunchtime recitals and the like in the workplace. In 1973, after his retirement from the meat workers union, George Seelaf took a part time position as the Victorian Trades Hall Council's first arts officer. He was involved in the Footscray and Victorian 150th anniversary committees and in the establishment of the Footscray Symphony Orchestra. He sat on the Myer committee of inquiry into public funding of the arts. Earlier this year, prior to his recent death, a George Seelaf trust fund was established to further his work by providing grants for workplace and community art in Melbourne's western suburbs. The challenge for government is to implement George Seelaf's vision of artistic and cultural life that is accessible and meaningful to all Australians. An important step in fostering the further democratisation of the arts is striking a correct balance in the relationship between the Australia Council and the Government. The amendments in the Bill before the House do not infringe on the Australia Council's independence regarding grant decisions; they do, however, provide mechanisms for the Minister to communicate to the Council in writing on any matter and to direct the Council in its activities. This is in keeping with the Government's actions to incorporate a general power of ministerial direction in relation to statutory bodies. The amendments also provide for the Council to have regard to the policies of State and local governments as they relate to the arts. In passing, I noted the comments of the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) when he outlined and indicated his awareness of the growing involvement of local government in the arts. This is to be encouraged because local government, as is often said, is the closest form of government to the people and therefore is perhaps in the best position to cater to the community's interests in all areas, including the arts. The amendments allow membership of the Council and its boards to representatives of community interest. This is particularly important as it will broaden the focus of the Australia Council to better reflect the concerns of the consumers of arts programs and the public at large. A related change which reflects both the Government's desire for a more efficient administrative structure and greater community input into the Council is the establishment of a new coordinating board. This board will have a large, flexible membership, including representation from the general public. The new provisions allow the Minister to establish this board as a community cultural development board. This measure is in line with the Government's response to the McLeay report. A community cultural development board should set about enhancing access to the arts at the community level. The importance of successfully filling this role can not be over-stressed. Democratisation of the subsidised arts is ultimately the only guarantee of their long term survival. For if it is true, as is sometimes alleged, that the majority of Australians pay for their entertainment directly out of their own pockets and subsidise the entertainment of a small minority of others through their taxes, then it is a situation which cannot go on for ever. The Minister for Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) has said that the amendments in this Bill, together with reforms already undertaken by the Australia Council itself in response to government policy and the McLeay report, will provide the Australia Council with a more responsive structure into the next decade. This is the only way forward. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(11.49) —The English writer John Elsom was famous not for many things but for his quote: The word `art' is like God: you may believe that it exists, but as soon as you try to define it, then bigotry creeps in. Much of the debate we have had in Australia over government involvement in the arts, both at Federal and State level, has involved a great deal of bigotry. I suppose in a general sense one would say that too many debates in this country really amount to little more than an exchange of slogans, rather than a proper analysis of the issues involved. Nowhere has that been truer than in the debate about government involvement in the arts. There is a strongly held view that the status quo should never be challenged. Any challenge to that status quo has been regarded as utterly outrageous-rather like talking about sex in the Victorian era. As a nation, we really need to think much more carefully and debate in a much more mature way the whole issue of government involvement in the arts. The first point that I think all honourable members of this House should make, if they are interested in the arts, is that in Australia there is an enormous enthusiasm for the arts. There is a view, at least among foreigners, that Australia is not one of the great cultural centres of the world. That is completely false. We should explain to people that it is false; there is enormous enthusiasm for the arts, not just because `arts is entertainment'-to use the expression of the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), the former Minister for the Arts, Heritage and Environment-but because of the very important cultural contribution which the arts make to the lives of Australians. I suppose that it is no exaggeration to say that through the arts of this country we, in some respects, define our existence; we criticise the way our society works; we celebrate some of the things that we like about our society, our country and its environment and way of life. It is also often said that it is the way in which we build our country, advance its cultural and intellectual character and build the sort of Australia that will evolve over the next generations. Let us make no mistake: Australians' love for the arts can be easily quantified-as everything can these days-in an economic sense. It is a multi-billion dollar industry which creates something like 120,000 jobs. So there is no question that the arts is important in an economic sense, as well as being fundamentally important in a cultural sense. The Australia Council Amendment Bill is a manifestation of the so-called McLeay report, entitled `Patronage, Power and the Muse', and to be brutally honest I must say that I do not think that report is a shining light, as the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) described it, in the debate on the arts. When I first read it I thought it was profoundly disappointing. I would have hoped that the Parliament could have produced a much better report on the arts. I think that one of the best reports produced on the arts in Australia in the past 20 years was the 1986 Industries Assistance Commission report on the arts. While there were some things about that report that I really did not like, I do think that it was a tremendously good reference document and the McLeay report is a popgun compared with that big piece of ammunition. The changes that the Opposition is opposing are relatively minor. What they do not do is redress the enormous mess in which the Federal Government's arts policy has gradually found itself. Before I talk about that, let me agree with what the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) and others said in congratulating the work of Max Bourke, who has tried to inject some common sense and sanity into the Australia Council. At times I think that common sense has not really been the hallmark of that organisation. Many people in the arts community argue that the way the Australia Council administers grants and the way in which the Federal Government's arts policy is now constructed is an example-perhaps this is an overstatement-of Labor's cronyism. The Minister is able to appoint people to the Australia Council. So much for the so-called principle of `arms length funding' with no ministerial involvement. Of course there is when the Minister appoints appropriate people, as he or she would see it, to the Australia Council. Of course the Chairman of the Australia Council, Donald Horne, is a man who pursues quite openly and very blatantly a political agenda. He uses the Australia Council as much as he uses any other forum to pursue what he believes to be the appropriate political agenda. There is also widespread criticism, to which the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) referred, about the way that grants from the Australia Council are allocated. Some people in the arts community have complained to me that there is a sort of network of mates who distribute grants to each other. They claim that that network of mates is particularly dominant in the city of Sydney, where the Minister comes from, but that people from other parts of Australia have no access whatsoever to those grants. That again may be an overstatement, but it seems to me that there is some foundation of truth in it. These are very common statements that one hears throughout the arts community. The Waste Watch Committee has been referred to and I will return to the allegation that it was filled up with a lot of philistines. That, coming from some honourable members opposite, I think is rather risible, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am sure you would be the first to agree. But the Waste Watch Committee did this country a very real service by drawing the attention of Australians to the way in which some of their money was being used to fund a lot of arts projects which had more political than artistic value. If we run through the 1986-87 annual report of the Australia Council we can see that this is still going on. The Australian Council of Trade Unions, which I do not think anyone would argue was set up as an arts organisation, received $26,750 in grants. The Western Australian Trades and Labour Council received $16,000 in arts grants. The United South Australian Trades and Labour Council-from my own State-received a massive $50,000 worth of arts grants. Yet the Arts Council of South Australia, which is the predominant community arts body in that State, received only $78,500. I repeat that there was $50,000 to the Trades and Labour Council in South Australia for arts grants. There are bodies like the Workers Cultural Action Committee, which got nearly $28,000 worth of grants. Trade union arts officers have received $42,000 in grants. I have always made the point that I have no objection to trade unions being involved in the arts. I am happy to see them being involved. I have no objection to big business, or small business for that matter, being involved in the arts. But I think there is a limit to where we distribute taxpayers' funds through the Federal Government and the Australia Council, and I think giving arts grants to trade unions really does go beyond that limit. Some of the grants have really been absurd. The Food Preservers Union got a grant for ceramics classes. The Australian Metal Workers Union got a grant for a painting-a very good painting those who have seen it have told me; I am not detracting from its quality-which hangs in the AMWU offices in Sydney. Taxpayers pay for the grant so that the painting can be produced, but the taxpayers are not able to see where their money has gone. I think that is basically wrong; I really do. But beyond criticising just the details of some of these grants-and, of course, that will always be a subject of some contention-I think a lot of the philosophy of the Government's arts policy is fundamentally wrong. the Government, it was revealed during the last Federal election campaign-which was particularly interesting in terms of the way the Australian Labor Party perceived the arts-apparently despises the emphasis we on this side of the House place on excellence and achievement in the arts. We have Labor member after Labor member and trade unionist after trade unionist sneering at our argument that we should be concentrating taxpayers' money on excellence and achievement. They said we were being elitist. Well, if elitism means doing things well, I would have thought that that was not a particularly pejorative expression. If they want to call us elitist, so be it, because our emphasis where taxpayers' money is concerned is indeed on doing things well, rather than concentrating taxpayers' money in the arts on a lot of middle class mendicant mates of some parts of the Australian Council. Let me go further with the Australia Council, because I have been sitting around waiting to get my own back a bit here. Professor Horne, as the Chairman of the Australia Council, has, I think, pursued a very blatant political agenda, and in doing that has brought discredit on himself-not from the people on the other side of the House, who regard him as a sort of sage and a hero, but from many people throughout the community. As Professor Horne pointed out in his Chairman's introduction to the latest annual report of the Australia Council, he regards Australian cultural life as derivative. That is a pretty pejorative thing to say about Australia-to say that this country is just derivative. Obviously there are aspects of it which are derivative, but Australia over 200 years-and perhaps one should include as well the 40,000 years of Aboriginal culture-has developed its own cultural identity, an identity of which we should be proud. We should not go around saying we are derivative. But Professor Horne thinks too much in Australia is what he describes as `derivative'. We all know his views on things like the monarchy-- Mr Tim Fischer —The Stockmen's Hall of Fame. He attacked that the other night. Mr DOWNER —Actually, I am not sure of his views of the Stockmen's Hall of Fame. But he thinks the flag and many of the traditions of Australia are complete and utter rubbish, and I suppose that is what he means by `derivative'. He points this out in his annual report; that we have to do more to get away from something he describes as `derivative'. I think that is an expression, at least intellectually, of his sort of agenda. In his annual report he goes on to say a whole range of things which I think, frankly, are rather regrettable, coming from somebody who is supposed to be the independent head of a statutory authority. But Professor Horne's philosophy is the philosophy, if you like, of the nanny state: the Australia Council knows best. There is an absolutely staggering presumption in what he says that if anybody outside the Australia Council dare criticise the grants, even though those grants are made with other people's money, that person is somehow a philistine and anti-intellectual. The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) said that the Waste Watch Committee was made up of philistines. I think that comment is particularly inappropriate. One can say what one likes about the Waste Watch Committee, but it certainly was not composed of people who, in terms of the arts, were philistines. Many of them were tremendously enthusiastic supporters of the arts. But the Waste Watch Committee criticised grants made by the Australia Council, and people like Professor Horne and his friends in the Labor Party regard this as utterly outrageous. Let us look at what Professor Horne says in his annual report: The most disappointing- fair enough, he can think it is disappointing, but he says also- debilitating and dangerous type of criticism made of the Australia Council during the year was connected with attacks on grant processes including those of the Australia Council . . . Professor Horne's arrogance, his intellectual snobbery, his total contempt for democratic processes where ordinary people's money is being spent by Professor Horne and the Australia Council, and his contempt for members of parliament expressing values and views about the way that money is spent are really staggering. It is the most undemocratic sort of arrogance imaginable. It is the sort of attitude and arrogance that was so characteristic of the last days of the Bourbon regime in France of Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette-perhaps one could go back further to include Louis XIV and Louis XV as well. It is the sort of attitude that says, `What would the people know? What would they know about the great arts? What would they know about the way their money should be spent? We should not involve them in those sorts of processes. They are just philistines; they are just fools. The people shouldn't be involved. We will take their money from them, but don't let them tell us how we should spend it. We know better than they do'. I would have thought that the Labor Party, which professes to be so enthusiastic about democratic principles, would find that attitude pretty offensive-apparently not. Apparently when it comes to the arts everything is different. All the traditions of parliamentary democracy are fine in relation to most areas of human activity, but the arts is completely different. Professor Horne is more than just somebody who is intellectually arrogant about ordinary people. He is somebody who, during the last election campaign, revealed himself as being a completely party political figure, and I think that was a very inappropriate and improper thing for a head of a government authority to do. I have here an article from the Australian of 8 June 1987, in which Professor Horne decided that he would go public and attack the Opposition's approach to the arts. Many of the things he said about the stand the Opposition took were just totally false. They were doubtless helpful to the Labor Party. He said that under the Opposition's policy the arts would `become a political matter'. That is a staggering thing to say. He is a political matter, saying things like that during an election campaign. And he accuses the Opposition of wanting to politicise the arts. We have no intention at all of politicising the arts or arts grants. Yet he did not speak to me, as the then shadow Minister, about this question; he simply went to the media and accused us of politicising the arts. Another quote from the same article has Professor Horne saying: Mr Downer's statement that `there need to be significant changes if, as a community, we are to get better value for money for our arts dollars and ensure that arts funding bears some relationship to community tolerance and aspirations', was an attempt to place restrictions on the freedom of the arts. That is what I mean by the sort of intellectual arrogance and contempt for democratic processes that we on this side of the House have had to put up with in the arts debate for far too long. The article goes on: Professor Horne said there would have been no modern painting and no modern sculpture if such a yardstick had been used in the past. Who would believe that sort of party political rhetoric on behalf of the Labor Party? That is just a disgraceful thing to say during an election campaign. We said things that I know he agreed with, but when, for example, we talked about the New South Wales Government making a greater contribution to the funding of the Australian Opera Professor Horne refused to comment. He is quite happy to go around giving us a good hammering in the media and at some public forum to which he did not invite the Opposition; he is quite happy to go around being a party political figure for the Labor Party; but when it comes to talking about the aspects of the Opposition's policy that he agrees with, he does not really care and he will not comment. The fact is that significant changes need to be made in funding for the arts and in the way that the arts will develop in this country. We need to restructure the Australia Council significantly so that there is significantly less emphasis on spending money on arts administrators and on administration in general, to ensure that the money that this Parliament votes for the arts goes to the artists. The Government boasts that it has reduced the administrative bill for the Australia Council-and I congratulate Max Bourke on what he has achieved there-but it was still $6.7m last year, out of a $43m total budget for the Australia Council. I do not accept the Government's argument that it could never reduce that. Indeed, as I argued during the last election campaign, if the Australia Council was set up as an advisory body rather than an administrative body, we would be able to ensure that the bulk of that $6.7m went to the people who needed it, the creative people of Australia, not arts bureaucrats. I have made the point again and again that I think the Australia Council needs to be properly accountable to this Parliament, as is arts funding in the States of New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria-and so the list goes on. There is no controversy at all on the other side of the House about arts funding being subject not to ministerial involvement or control but at least to ministerial accountability in each State. There is no debate about that at all but, when it comes to Canberra, apparently all the rules are changed and there is this sort of phoney argument about arms length funding, as though, as I have said a couple of times already, the poor old people just do not matter. The second change that needs to be made is that we have got to do a lot more to encourage private sector funding. I am sure that the Government would strongly agree on this point. Only 13 per cent of major companies in Australia sponsor the arts now and we must consider more creative and imaginative ways of getting them to do more. I am sure that the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) has been thinking of how to do that and I hope that his successor will also do so. We have to ensure that the companies of national significance are properly funded, to ensure that they continue to be companies of national and world significance. Finally, matters pertaining to community arts must be passed to the community. The funding must come from the States and local government, with the Federal Government funding perhaps only the community arts boards, such as the South Australian community arts boards, but not project grants. The Federal Government has had its fingers very badly burnt in funding project grants, as it has in the funding of the art in working life projects. Let us get the Commonwealth out of all of that and ensure that particularly our museums, our galleries and our companies of national significance are properly funded so that they can do the job they were established to do. Finally, a word about arts education- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PUNCH(Barton-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(12.09) —in reply-Because this is the last piece of legislation that I will bring to the House in my capacity as Minister for the Arts and Territories, at the outset let me say how much I have enjoyed my limited time in this portfolio. I have found it highly invigorating and I, for one, am not ashamed to stand in this House and say that I believe that I have learnt a great deal by it. I feel broadened as an individual, not only by what I have seen and learnt but also by the people I have met, a number of whom I hope will remain friends down the years. I suppose that that characterises the difference between the Government and the Opposition in relation to this matter. Not one Government speaker has got up today and proclaimed himself to be an expert in the arts-as though if one is not it is some cultural debilitation with which one is born. That is why we on this side of the House believe so passionately in what we have been doing over the past five years in the arts and in what the Australia Council has done. The Australia Council has been at the forefront of innovation and the encouragement of excellence right across the Australian community, through greater access to the arts, so that the kids from Fairfield in Sydney have as much opportunity and, indeed, as much right to access to the arts, whether it be painting, music, sculpture, acting, or any of the other many sectors of the arts, as have children born of wealthy families. That is what we are about and that is what the Australia Council has been about for quite some time. It is why I will always passionately defend the Australia Council. It has done very great things in this area. In response to the snide comments that have come across the chamber, some direct and some indirect, might I say that, as kids, neither the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) nor I had the opportunity to learn music or take painting classes. We did not come from backgrounds as privileged as that of the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer). We did not have the opportunities that he had. But both of us-as indeed is every member on this side of the House-are committed to ensuring that our kids and our grandchildren, and the kids of every working family in this country, have these opportunities, as we develop these programs down the years. That is what this is all about. This has been a very sad debate in very sad times for Australian politics. In the past week or so we have seen the end of bipartisanship on immigration and ethnic affairs. At the beginning of last week we saw the end of any hope of bipartisanship on Aboriginal affairs. I fear that what we have seen today is the beginning of the end of any semblance of bipartisanship in relation to the arts. This double standard, this about-face, this turnaround, is epitomised by what has happened today. The recommendations that we are discussing in the House today came from the McLeay report of September 1986. That was a bipartisan and unanimously supported report of the House of Representatives Expenditure Committee. For the information of members of the House and for the public more generally, particularly the arts community, I point out that eight Opposition members were party to that report, one of whom was the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith), who today led the debate against these changes. In not quite two years we have seen a total and complete about-face. As with the debates on immigration and ethnic affairs and Aboriginal Affairs, we now see an attempt to put the New Right dogma in place in the arts and cultural affairs in this country, an attempt to discard all the words and all the work over two years in the compilation of this report as though they did not happen. It is pathetic. This morning we have heard personal attacks on the Chairman of the Australia Council, Donald Horne. He is more than big enough to defend himself. I found him to be a complete and magnificent chairman of that body. But in attacking the Australia Council for allegedly seing itself as the one and only judge of artistic merit in this country, the Opposition, although it does not realise it, has indicted itself. By scrapping, watering down, appending or siphoning off-whatever the final wording of this policy will be, if it ever comes from the Liberals-members opposite are arrogantly proposing to replace the collective expertise of what is now five boards, which have rotating membership, with peer assessment and the best minds and contributors to the arts in this country, with just one Minister, who will dictate his or her personal opinions, flavours and discretions in the arts according to party dogma. That is a sad thing. If there is one thing that this Government stands for, it is equality of opportunity and the pursuit of excellence in tandem. This country must pursue excellence in science, technology, industry and the arts. We are living in the most exciting of times for the arts in this country. The arts reflect how we are growing and how we are changing-they are leading the way in many respects. The arts stand to gain so much from the tourism boom in this country and tourism stands to gain so much from our artistic and cultural ventures. I believe that the arts must play a greater role in opening doors in foreign affairs and trade for this country. I agree with the honourable member for Mayo in one respect, and that is that we must see greater private sector involvement in the arts for the mutual benefit of both. But in order to do these things, the arts need to be strong, vibrant and flowing. They need, as it were, to be market determinant of themselves. It is hypocritical in the extreme that we have seen here today that the supposed party of the market denies the arts community the market determinant factor. In terms of the arts debate, the Liberals, like so much that we see now, seek total and absolute control of the sector. What they are suggesting here would reduce the nation's cultural vibrancy to the petty ante of the pork barrel. I suppose that under some future coalition government we would even have someone from the National Party of Australia as the Minister-the ultimate pork barrelling process. We have seen the honourable member for Bass seek to thwart the structure of the Australia Council that encourages the innovative at a time when this country needs to be applauding innovation. We have heard a number of speakers from the other side effectively seek to deny the Chairman, Donald Horne, the right of free speech. This leads us to the question of the whereabouts of the Liberal Party's arts policy. Senator Puplick, the shadow Minister, instead of swanning around like a drake on the lake and gladhanding at various arts functions, ought to be doing a bit of work and getting the arts policy of the tories in place so at least they can say that they stand for something, because they presently do not. We have only to measure the contributions in this House this morning to see that. The honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie), who is a bit more sympathetic to the arts than I think are some of the other members of the Opposition who spoke, said that he hoped the work of Max Bourke was not challenged or reduced by anything in this package. The honourable member for Bass and the honourable member for Mayo tried to do in the Australia Council at 100 miles an hour-their statements were completely in conflict. The honourable member for Cook was praiseworthy about the extent to which local government is now getting involved in the arts. He is going to oppose the Government's package this morning, although proposed new sections 6a and 6b specifically refer to the Australia Council taking cognisance of local government policy in the arts, where local government has been involved in specific areas and specific grants. Indeed, when the honourable member for Mayo said that too often the arts debate in this country has been about an exchange of slogans, how little did he know that he was indicting himself and his colleagues. It is no wonder we have seen no release of the Opposition's arts policy. If the Opposition gets its way-as I depart this Ministry I sound this warning to the arts community across the country-there will be a very real danger to the cultural and democratic foundations of this country. By the use of ministerial discretion in respect of the supposed flagrantly wrong misnomers about taxpayers' money being wisely spent, we will have a return to the late 1950s when the recipients of arts grants in this country were vetted by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. What a sad state of affairs that would be. Someone should talk to Frank Hardy about the late 1950s. Someone should talk to Judah Waten, the author of Alien Son, to Alan Marshall of I Can Jump Puddles fame and to D'Arcy Niland the author of the Shiralee. They were the sorts of people in the late 1950s who were discriminated against by the Commonwealth literary board which used political discretion in the handing out of arts funding. Indeed, much of what the Opposition says it is concerned about in this debate this morning is addressed in this package. The Government is streamlining the Australia Council. It is reducing the number of boards from eight to five. Senior Executive Service positions have been reduced from 13 to eight. We have cut over $1m in two years from the administration side of the budget. Only 12 per cent of the Australia Council's budget is now taken up with administrative costs. Earlier this year I gained the agreement of the Australia Council for multi-year funding to encourage further economies of scale. This package is about encouraging access. That is why we are instituting the coordinating board. We are putting community interest representatives on the Council and each of its boards to encourage that access. That is why we are also preserving arm's length funding. I draw the attention of the Opposition to the increased role under proposed new sections 6a and 6b for ministerial directive on policy and program issues. This deliberate intent by the Government was derived directly from the McLeay report recommendations to bring about greater cognisance of policy and program development in accordance with the democratic will of the Parliament and the Government. We have made those changes. But we have not made the changes that those on the other side of the House have called for, where every grant, every author, every painter, every sculptor, every dancer and every performer would be subject to the political discretion of the government of the day and one single Minister's own dogma, and nor should they. That would be the end of innovation in this country; that would be the end of excellence in the arts. I say to the Opposition here and now: It is wrong. The arts community says it is wrong. As my colleague the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) said to the Opposition on the other topic debated last week, I say that it should retract because it is the wrong. It should retract now. The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) more than adequately covered the Design Board. I would point out that the sweeping statement that there is no centre for design in this country is quite wrong. We do have the Industrial Design Council of Australia and the Design Institute of Australia. The amendment circulated by the Opposition seeks to reinsert the term `film' in the preamble to the Australia Council Act. For the purposes of this Act the definitions of the arts relate to the boards that are in the new Australia Council structure. The omission of the word `film' from the Act is purely a housekeeping exercise for the purposes of the Australia Council only. The council originally had a film, television and radio board and this was abolished in 1976, its functions being transferred to the Australian Film Commission. Today the Government has four film organisations: the Australian Film Commission; the Australian Film Television and Radio School-the training arm; the Australian Film Finance Corporation, which we have just set up; and, of course, Film Australia, our own film company. In addition, we have a very heavy involvement in the Australian Children's Television Foundation. What needs to be said is that the Australian film and television industry this year enjoys $101.385m. The film industry, that arm of the arts covered by film, is more than adequately covered by five arms of government elsewhere, and that is why this exercise is being undertaken. It should be pointed out that the Australia Council has continued to support the film industry through increasing support for Australian writers such as Albert Facey, who wrote A Fortunate Life; Peter Carey who wrote Bliss; Christopher Koch, who wrote The Year of Living Dangerously; and, of course, David Williamson who wrote Emerald City. So that amendment is not necessary. The Opposition should not fear that the film industry is being downgraded in terms of the arts. In fact, the whole action of this Government has been to upgrade its involvement in and support for the film industry. Indeed, that is obviously the case and it is obviously supported by the film industry. The Government has put forward an amendment which will allow teleconferencing for the Australia Council. I am pleased to see that that amendment has the support of the Opposition. The provision of teleconferencing will-the honourable member for Mayo should take account of this-in the long run affect administration costs because it will save a lot of money in air fares. I conclude by saying that in the last seven months I have enjoyed the arts portfolio, I suppose for one reason in particular, amongst so many, because it symbolises the excellence, creativity and innovation of this country-what it can do, what it can be acclaimed to be doing and what it has done-right around the world. The Sydney Dance Company and the Australian Ballet, through their European performances, have had great reviews and have brought great merit upon this country's good name right around the world. But in every instance of the arts there has to be a starting place, a laboratory of experimentation, a place of innovation. That is, as we on this side of the House acknowledge, subject to policy and program framework laid down by the democratically elected government. These amendments ensure that the Australia Council will, as always, be subject to those policy constraints and, for that matter, those policy performance targets. These amendments allow that innovation and experimentation, where necessary and desirable, to progress and to enhance by allowing the very people who know best about the arts in this country-the arts community itself-to play a great role. It has stood us in great stead for so long and it will continue to do so. For the welfare of this country, its arts and its cultural future, I urge the Opposition to retract from its position. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (The Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Howe, B. L.Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. 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'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Price, L. R. S.Dubois, S. C. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J.Duncan, P. Sawford, R. W.Edwards, Ronald Scholes, G. G. D.Fatin, W. F. Sciacca, C.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Snowdon, W. E.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Grace, E. L. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.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. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.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.Katter, R. C. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 (Interpretation). Mr SMITH(Bass)(12.37) —I move: Clause 2, page 1, line 10, omit paragraph (a). The Opposition has moved the amendment for one primary reason. We believe that the word `film' should be retained in the Australia Council area so that the issue of scripts can be addressed. The honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) explained during the debate on the Australia Council Amendment Bill that in Australia there was a lack of scriptwriters, particularly for films. Because of the standards of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, many of the scripts that have been completed, involving bad language and violence, are unable to be used for television. It is our view that there ought to be maintained an ability for the Australia Council, probably through the Literature Board, to be able to fund young Australians so they can enter the industry and develop a better ability to write scripts for the film industry. It is for that reason that we propose the amendment. In doing so, may I add that the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch), in his response in the second reading debate, mentioned the reason for the amendment. Whilst I welcome some of his comments, I think he can appreciate the point that the Opposition is trying to make. The general points he made in his summing up could be described as alarmist and, in lots of ways, a misrepresentation, because they misrepresented the Opposition's position. No-one in this debate has suggested that the arts are not important to this country. What we are arguing about is the method by which we are funded. If we take away all the Minister's rhetoric and your rhetoric, Mr Chairman, we find that the Bill represents a significant incremental step away from the concept of arm's length funding. It may well be that by the Minister's amendment, which follows the advice and the views that were put as long ago as 1985 by the former Minister, the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), the Government is heading in the direction in which we want arts funding in this country to go. Those listening to this debate and those who have followed it ought to take note of that point. I congratulate the Minister on a very short stint as Arts Minister and wish him well in his new portfolio. I think that he indulged himself in his swan song in being so critical, unnecessarily so, and by missing the point of this debate; that is, how we fund the arts. Sixty per cent of funding for the arts in this country comes via the States, directly out of ministries. It is not done on the arm's length system. Private enterprise which supports arts does not do so by way of arm's length funding. In his summing up the Minister said that he wanted private enterprise to be more heavily involved in arts funding in this country. Does he think that it will do it other than directly? Does he think that it wants to have interposed between it and the recipients a whole series of bureaucrats? It most certainly does not and we do not either. My final comment in speaking to the amendment concerns the remarks made about the Opposition's arts policy. If the Minister thinks that we will come into this place and announce policy to his agenda, he is obviously very new to politics. We will release the details of our arts policy at a time of our choosing. I might say that, after today's debate, we can guarantee that a lot of people out there who are interested in the arts will want to see our policy when it comes out later in September. Mr Punch —September? Mr SMITH —We are putting a date on it. Mr Barry Jones —This year? Mr SMITH —This year. The Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business interjects. The Minister for the Arts and Territories spoke earlier about the lack of bipartisanship on arts. I might say that there is bipartisanship on science; that is, that there needs to be greater recognition of the importance of science. The CHAIRMAN —the honourable member will keep to his amendment or we will never finish this Bill. Mr SMITH —We will get to lunch; I have a minute. We on this side of the House speak in support of science: it is a pity that Ministers on the other side do not demonstrate their support for science with more than rhetoric. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Bass will speak to the amendment before the chamber. Mr SMITH —Mr Chairman, I have pleasure in supporting the amendment. Mr PUNCH(Barton-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(12.43) —We oppose the amendment because it is completely unnecessary. The Opposition seems to be under the misapprehension that, by removing the word `film' from the Australia Council treatise, somehow scriptwriting will not continue to be funded by the Australia Council. That is not so. I have already listed examples. We are streamlining the Australia Council in a number of ways. The Government's primary film funding activity resides with those four other bodies and, in part, a fifth-the Australian Children's Television Foundation-and not with the Australia Council. It is a rationalisation in words; it is an identification of that rationalisation for the film industry; and it will not alter the support of the Australia Council for Australian writers who write scripts for television and films. I know that some people opposite are a little hard to get through to so I have said it a second time and I have said it slowly. I hope that the message sinks in. Let me say one last thing about arm's length funding. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) said that the private sector does not engage in arm's length funding of the arts. A few weeks ago I had the privilege of opening a major exhibition of 300 young Australian artists at the Australian National Gallery (ANG), which was supported by the Philip Morris group. The Philip Morris group did not select the 300 young artists who were the beneficiaries; the staff of the ANG did that. They did so because the people running the cigarette company did not think they were qualified to do so. That was a very laudatory view for the Philip Morris people to have: they recognised that the excellence resided with the arts community. All we are seeking is that the Opposition do the same. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Mr PUNCH(Barton-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(12.44) —by leave-I move: (1) After clause 8, page 3, insert the following new clause: Meetings ``8a. Section 17 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end the following subsections: `(10) If the Council so determines, a member of the Council may participate in, and form part of a quorum at, a meeting of the Council by means of any of the following methods of communication: (a) telephone; (b) closed circuit television; (c) another method of communication determined by the Council. `(11) A determination of the Council under subsection (10) may be made in respect of a particular meeting, or in respect of all meetings, of the Council. `(12) A member of the Council who participates in a meeting as provided by subsection (10) shall be taken for the purposes of this Part to be present at the meeting. `(13) If the Council so determines, a resolution shall be taken to have been passed at a meeting of the Council if, without meeting, a majority of the number of members who would, if present at a meeting of the Council and entitled to vote on the resolution at that meeting, have constituted a quorum of the Council indicate agreement with the resolution in accordance with the method determined by the Council.'.''. (2) Clause 9, page 4, at the end of proposed section 17a add the following subsections: `` `(7) If a Committee so determines, a member of the Committee may participate in, and form part of a quorum at, a meeting of the Committee by means of any of the following methods of communication: (a) telephone; (b) closed circuit television; (c) another method of communication determined by the Committee. `(8) A determination by a Committee under subsection (7) may be made in respect of a particular meeting, or in respect of all meetings, of the Committee. `(9) If a Committee so determines, a resolution shall be taken to have been passed at a meeting of the Committee if, without meeting, a majority of the number of members who would, if present at a meeting of the Committee and entitled to vote on the resolution at that meeting, have constituted a quorum of the Committee indicate agreement with the resolution in accordance with the method determined by the Committee.'.''. (3) After clause 13, page 5, insert the following new clause: Meetings ``13a. Section 29 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end the following subsections: `(10) If a Board so determines, a member of the Board may participate in, and form part of a quorum at, a meeting of the Board by means of any of the following methods of communication: (a) telephone; (b) closed circuit television; (c) another method of communication determined by the Board. `(11) A determination by a Board under subsection (10) may be made in respect of a particular meeting, or in respect of all meetings, of the Board. `(12) A member of a Board who participates in a meeting as provided by subsection (10) shall be taken for the purposes of this Part to be present at the meeting. `(13) If a Board so determines, a resolution shall be taken to have been passed at a meeting of the Board if, without meeting, a majority of the number of members who would, if present at a meeting of the Board and entitled to vote on the resolution at that meeting, have constituted a quorum of the Board indicate agreement with the resolution in accordance with the method determined by the Board.'.''. As explained earlier, the purpose of the amendment and the proposed new clauses is to allow the Australia Council to engage in teleconferencing. Mr SMITH(Bass)(12.45) —Mr Chairman, I will make one brief point. I think that this amendment is a rather significant amendment that could be applicable to many statutory authorities. I understand that it is based on an opinion from the Attorney-General's Department. The lawyer in me wants to raise one particular point in regard to whether decisions that may have been made previously are actually covered retrospectively. For example, we could have a decision dismissing someone made by way of teleconferencing. The person concerned might claim that that was an unjust dismissal, overturn that decision and win in the action in the court. I am not sure whether this proposed amendment covers that retrospective element. I do not want to delay the Committee on this particular point but, because it is significant and has application to so many other statutory authorities, I think that perhaps the Government and the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) should take account of that. Mr PUNCH(Barton-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(12.46) —I will draw that to the attention of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). Amendment and proposed new clauses agreed to. Remainder of Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Punch)-by leave-read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.47 to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Madam Speaker, as a courtesy I inform the House that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Humphreys, is representing the Government at Malaysia Day at World Expo 88 in Brisbane. He will be absent from Question Time today. Questions which would normally be addressed to Mr Humphreys should be directed to the portfolio Minister, Dr Blewett. Madam SPEAKER —In the House yesterday the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) raised the matter of standing order 321. In my reply to him the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), commented, `You gave him the escape clause', as recorded in Hansard. I point out to the House that page 531 of House of Representatives Practice states: The Speaker has laid down procedural rules to be followed when a request for tabling is made under this standing order. It goes on to say: . . . the Chair will ask the further question `Is it a confidential document?'. So I did not do anything that previous Speakers have not done. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to the alleged comments made by his former Foreign Minister and reported in today's Australian Financial Review in which the maturity of our closest neighbour, Papua New Guinea, was questioned; the people of Indonesia were described as erratic and hostile; our largest trading partner, Japan, was termed as hypocritical; and the then Foreign Minister of Malaysia was described as oafish. Does the Prime Minister agree with these views of his former Foreign Minister? How does he reconcile them with his Government's alleged attempts at improving relations with the countries of South East Asia? Will he explain how it is possible for his Government to seek improvement in our relations with the region whilst his Foreign Minister held such emphatic, prejudiced and close-minded views? If the Prime Minister does not share those views of his former Foreign Minister, will he explicitly repudiate them in the House today? Mr HAWKE —In regard to this matter generally, it is obviously premature to jump to conclusions about where the apparent breach of security occurred. That is precisely the subject of the investigation which I can assure the Leader of the Opposition has been initiated. May I say without conceding the accuracy of the leaked documents that it is quite proper for opinions to be expressed privately by Ministers to officials in the course of their duties, and I trust that the Leader of the Opposition is not implying otherwise or suggesting that a Minister, in the course of his duties, is not able to make comments. As I say, I do not refer to the accuracy of what has been published, but a Minister must have the opportunity of full freedom of comment between him and his officials. As to comments which have been published, I think the Leader of the Opposition would know that those comments do not reflect my views. As far as the countries of our region are concerned, I make this comment: those countries can be completely assured that Australia's foreign policy is as it has been articulated in definitive statements by the Government, including statements by the former Foreign Minister and by me. It includes and embraces, as I think the Leader of the Opposition would understand, a complete commitment to the development of friendly and productive relations with all countries of our region and a commitment to an independent foreign policy based upon Australia's national interest. None of those positions, which are fundamental to the position of this Government, is qualified in any way by publication of alleged private comments by the recent Foreign Minister. I assure the Leader of the Opposition that that is our position. My attitude towards the countries and the peoples of this region is quite clear. Without in any sense wanting to raise matters of recent days, I suggest, with respect to the Leader of the Opposition, that if there is any quarter in Australia from which there is coming any suggestion of statements, not private but public, which could endanger the relationship of this country and the countries of this region, it is the other side of the House and not this side. Mr WRIGHT —Further to my questions yesterday regarding the need for constitutional recognition of local government, I now direct a question to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General advise the House of the nature and extent of the longstanding support for constitutional recognition of local government? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —As has been well known for some time, local government has always been encouraged to participate in constitutional debates, which have gone on for a long time, some 15 years or more. When the Constitutional Commission invited evidence as to what might be the merits or otherwise of giving some recognition to local government in the Constitution, it received pretty substantial evidence. At present in Australia there are 836 local government authorities, and they do a very worthwhile job. There are 8,000 elected representatives. Recognition of local government will be on the basis that there will be a continuance of the system of local government. In no way is it suggested that some system will be designed by the Federal Government or related to Canberra. The proposed constitutional change would give the electors in the community the right to have a local government system. It would also recognise, of course, that State governments can remove local government authorities or amalgamate them. In future communities might not have to be beholden to a local government Minister who may have no real interest in their area. In fact, he may act in a way that causes damage to the area. For example, in Cairns Mr Russ Hinze encouraged development that was against the interests of the community. When the community won a battle in the courts the Queensland Government altered the law to guarantee that the development would take place. Under the proposal also local government bodies would not be beholden to a public servant appointed to administer affairs for their community. Local government has been in existence since about 1841. It is recognised as a third tier of government. It is a valid form of government. It is proposed to recognise its status in the community so that each community can have an election to replace a local government that may be removed. Communities will not be beholden to local government Ministers. Such Ministers may still continue to sack local government, but the community will be able to get back to the Minister and say, `We want another election'. Mr Tuckey —How? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —They can get a declaration on that basis. Mr Tuckey —What? From the High Court? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, on the basis that the community might at least have a say in the management of its own affairs and not be subject-- Mr Porter —Can the people of Aurukun do that? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Here are the great democrats opposite who want to object to their own electors having a chance to have a say in government. Are they quite happy to be beholden to the likes of Mr Russ Hinze or somebody else? Does the Opposition wish to say something about that or is it silent? Mr Tuckey —That is not what your referendum question says. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I suggest the honourable member for O'Connor be silent. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Members of the Opposition have encouraged opposition to the question, but it is very interesting that in former days they supported it. All of a sudden they have switched against the recognition of local government. Why? They were told to do so. Even the shadow Cabinet suggested recognition of this matter. Let me give some evidence as to what the position is. Mr Henningham, the Secretary of the Local Government and Shires Associations, of New South Wales, at least kept the Opposition's correspondence. I shall read what has been said by some members of the Opposition. The honourable member for Macquarie wrote: Constitutional recognition by 1988. The Opposition supports and will continue to strive for Constitutional Recognition for Local Government at the earliest opportunity. He is not on his own. Let us look at what was said by Senator Michael Baume, who is well known. He stated: The Opposition supports this issue- that is, the constitutional recognition- and will continue to strive- I like the way the Opposition is striving- for constitutional recognition for local government at the earliest opportunity. It continues with the honourable member for Ryan, who is usually able to make a contribution: Firstly, the Coalition Opposition supports and will continue to strive- it will be noticed that the Opposition is striving in every letter- for constitutional recognition of Local Government at the earliest opportunity. The Opposition could not fight its way out of a paper bag, judging by the way it is striving in this issue. The honourable member for Lyne, whom I respect and whose views I understand, said: With respect to constitutional recognition of local Government, it would appear that the bicentenary year is an appropriate time for it to be adopted. Honourable members will notice that he did not have to strive. We then come to the other issues-- Mr Cowan —Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member for Lyne have a point of order? Mr Cowan —Oh yes, a good one. I want the Attorney-General to give me the opportunity of telling why I changed my mind. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member does not have a point of order. But he does have a point. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am quite happy to tell him. I have a fair idea that it was due to outside influences. Then we come to a bit of a classic-a letter from the Leader of the National Party. He is quite capable of writing letters, and he wrote this one. This is the reason he is the Leader. Listen to this: While in principle I support Constitutional recognition for Local Government, this depends on a successful referendum following the introduction . . . You would realise that the timing of any referendum is for the Government of the day to determine against other priorities it has for Constitutional change. Mr Sinclair —Precisely. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The right honourable member was not really violently opposed! Then we come to the letter that we know exists-from the distinguished Leader of the Opposition. The Ryde Municipal Council wrote to him as their local member. Mr Howard —And I represent them very well. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I wonder what the Council will think after Saturday. The point is this: The Leader of the Opposition wrote to me, saying, `Look, Attorney, I enclose a letter from Ryde Municipal Council'. The letter from the Ryde Municipal Council was sent to Mr Howard as Leader of the Opposition, and said: Council at its last meeting resolved to express its support to the Constitutional Commission for the recognition of Local Government. And to have that inserted in the Constitution. The letter continued: It would be appreciated if you could support Council's views in this matter. So the distinguished gentleman wrote to me, saying: I fully support Council's request that a chapter should be inserted in the Constitution dealing with Local Government. I would appreciate your comments. So I gave him my comments. I said: The Government has consistently supported the claim . . . In your letter you supported the Council's view. I am sure that the Constitutional Commission would appreciate the details of any proposal you might have for the constitutional recognition of local government. Of course, it is a big fat no-that is the result of the Leader of the Opposition's proposal. I think this is a matter for the record. What is the problem with the Opposition? What is the problem with local government? Let us get it very clear. If the honourable member for Lyne wants to tell me why he changed his mind, I would be very delighted. But do not tell me; tell all the local government associations which the Opposition mis- led for so many years. What was the point in putting them on the constitutional conventions, encouraging them to come along as members to talk about participating in our nation as a third tier of government? When the question is put to those opposite, again they fail. Mr HOWARD —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister: Does he agree with the views of the honourable member for Prospect that the Government has lowered the tone of the immigration debate by using racist slurs? Does he agree with the honourable member for Prospect that it is wrong to label people racist unless they really are racist? Does he agree with the honourable member for Prospect that such conduct only gives standing and credence to real racists if anyone uses that description of people who are not, in fact, racist? Does he also agree with the honourable member for Prospect that the Caucus decision yesterday regarding the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, who maybe has flowers for the Prime Minister today, almost proves that member's complaint that the Government was trying to suppress people with different points of view? If he does not share these views of the honourable member for Prospect, will he repudiate them with the same vigour that he repudiated the views of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie? Mr HAWKE —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Let me make it clear that I have no evidence at all that the honourable member for Prospect has expressed the same views as those from the honourable member for Kalgoorlie which I have repudiated. It is not accurate to suggest that the Government has accused people of racism; indeed, on the contrary, the Hansard shows quite clearly that, speaking on behalf of the Government, I went out of my way to say that the Leader of the Opposition was not a racist. I have never believed and I do not now believe that the Leader of the Opposition is a racist. He may recall that I said that sadly I made, in a sense, the more serious charge against the Leader of the Opposition; that is, I charged him with cynical opportunism. In that respect, I have made a judgment which is shared around this country by many people in his own Party, including those who were so disgusted by him that they crossed the floor of this House and another who crossed the floor of the Senate. It is not only a judgment which is shared by many members in his own Party; it is a judgment which is almost universally shared in the editorials of this country. In a sense, it is the graver and sadder charge because, if indeed he does not-as I believe he does not-harbour racist attitudes, all the more is the responsibility upon him to say nothing which unleashes those unsavoury and divisive causes in this community. He may try as much as he likes to latch on to some words from the honourable member for Prospect, but unfortunately he will not escape from the charge that I have made. I repeat it: You are a cynical opportunist. Mr Shipton —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I suggest that the words the Prime Minister has just repeated-a charge of cynical opportunism-are outside the Standing Orders. Madam Speaker, I refer you to House of Representatives Practice, which at page 460 states: The practice of the House, based on that of the House of Commons, is that a Member cannot direct a charge- the Prime Minister has used the word `charge'- against another Member nor reflect upon his character- which indeed the Prime Minister is doing- or conduct- which the Prime Minister is doing- unless he does so upon a substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House. The Prime Minister is out of order in accordance with the practices of this House. Madam SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will withdraw the charge. Mr HAWKE —The charge of cynical opportunism? Madam SPEAKER —The Prime Minister may not charge a member of the House. Mr HAWKE —I see. I withdraw the charge of cynical opportunism, Madam Speaker, and I say that-- Mr Ruddock —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Prime Minister seriously reflected on me. I want withdrawn the remarks he made when he said that I crossed the floor because I was so disgusted by him-that is, the Leader of the Opposition. I was one of the four people clearly identified and he was referring to all of us. There was no basis for that. I ask for a withdrawal of that reflection upon me. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's point of order really should be put into a personal explanation. Mr Ruddock —Madam Speaker, my reasons were given in the adjournment debate. It is a serious reflection upon me that I was so disgusted by him-that is, the Leader of the Opposition-that I crossed the floor. The reason I crossed the floor was clearly stated in my personal statement in the adjournment debate. Madam SPEAKER —Perhaps the Prime Minister did not hear the personal explanation made by the honourable member for Dundas. Mr HAWKE —No, I did not hear the personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Well, he made a personal explanation. Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, I imagine you are asking me to withdraw. Madam SPEAKER —I am asking you to withdraw, yes. Mr HAWKE —What are you asking me to withdraw? Madam SPEAKER —The comments you made about the honourable member for Dundas. Mr HAWKE —Oh, sure. I withdraw the comments I made about the honourable member for Dundas. I say that the Leader of the Opposition has acted in a cynically opportunistic way; indeed, the judgment that I have made, that the Leader of the Opposition has acted in a cynically opportunistic way, is a judgment which is shared not only by many in his own Party but almost universally by the editorials of this country. The tragedy that has been introduced into this country now is that, because he has some poll research put under his nose which suggests that there is this attitude in the country, he specifically abandons a position which has been adopted and embraced by this Party for almost a generation. It was his predecessor, Mr Harold Holt, who repudiated the white Australia policy, who took it out of the policy and practice of this country. To the credit of Mr Holt's successors-that is, Sir John Gorton, Sir William McMahon and Mr Fraser-they all, without any equivocation at all, repudiated any suggestion that in the conduct of the immigration policy of this country race in any way could be a criterion. However, the Leader of the Opposition has had a bit of polling put under his nose which suggests that he should make some noises which may give some comfort to those people who have that attitude and he is prepared to say those things in order to give those people that comfort. It is a tragedy that within this country those forces have been given comfort and have been more activated as a result of what the Leader of the Opposition has initiated. It is an even greater tragedy in the sense that the future relations of this country with the countries of this region have been damaged by what he has initiated. Honourable members opposite can make all the mouthings they like, but this country will continue to make that adverse judgment about them because the Australian people are correct. Mr LINDSAY —My question concerns an Australian achievement for the advancement of science. I ask the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business: What is the significance of the Australia Telescope which will be commissioned by the Prime Minister in Culgoora on Friday? Will it restore Australia's pre-eminence in radio astronomy and what are its industrial spin-offs? Mr BARRY JONES —The commissioning of the Australia Telescope by the Prime Minister on Friday will be the scientific high point of the bicentennial year. It has been one of the greatest projects in the history of astronomy and Australia clearly regains its pre-eminence in radio astronomy. The project has enjoyed strong bipartisan support-like the building of the new Parliament House but at one-twentieth of the cost and with prospects of higher efficiencies and even greater international recognition. It was strongly supported by Malcolm Fraser and David Thomson, as it has been backed by this Government. The most determined opponent of the project has been the former Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition, who fought it in Cabinet. He does not look pleased. Mr Hawke —Why should he be pleased? Mr BARRY JONES —Exactly. I was pleased to see the supplement on the Australia Telescope in today's Age. It will also appear in tomorrow's Sydney Morning Herald. The Australia Telescope will operate in a `long baseline array' in conjunction with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's 64-metre dish at Parkes. The Prime Minister will commission six antennae, each of 22 metres diameter, on a three-kilometre rail track at Culgoora near Narrabri in the electorate of the honourable member for Gwydir and one more three kilometres away near Mopra near Coonabarabran. Mr Griffiths —Why three kilometres away? Mr BARRY JONES —Because it gives perspective for the compact array. Mr Griffiths —I thought that was the reason! Mr BARRY JONES —This area in the central-west of New South Wales is close to the optical telescopes at Siding Spring-the Anglo-Australian telescope and the Schmidt telescope. But unlike the Australia Telescope, these two have to work in hours of darkness-rather like the Opposition. The Australia Telescope-and this will gladden the hearts of students of cost-benefit analysis-can work 24 hours a day. It does not matter whether it is raining or cloudy, whether it is night or day. We will get a 24-hour pay back out of the Australia Telescope. In conjunction with the other antennae, here, overseas and in orbit, this telescope will have a resolving power which is 10,000 times greater than the best optical telescopes on earth. The project is a great tribute to Australian industry, which has developed skills in microengineering on a grand scale-if that does not sound too Irish. We have excellent prospects for selling antennae as the spin-off from the Australia Telescope. It is a project in which Government initiatives came first and industry collaboration followed. Had we waited for industry to initiate it, it would never have happened. I conclude by saying that one of the great achievements that we have in microelectronics is the development of something called the correlator chip. Four thousand of these chips are used in the heart of the telescope instrumentation. Each performs 1,000 million multiplications per second-that is faster than the Treasurer-- Mr Beazley —Fractionally. Mr BARRY JONES —Yes, fractionally. This allows the signals from the various antennae to be combined to simulate an antenna six kilometres in diameter. This project is something which we ought to be very proud of collectively and, on behalf of all honourable members, I congratulate all those in the CSIRO who brought this great project to fruition. Mr Tuckey proceeding to address a question to the Prime Minister-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's question is out of order: it is not within the Prime Minister's portfolio responsibility. Mr Donald Cameron-I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer to your previous practices. Normally you allow a question to be finished before you rule it out of order and I ask you, in the name of consistency, to let the honourable member finish. Madam SPEAKER —The question is obviously out of order. It is not within the Prime Minister's portfolio responsibilities. Mr Sinclair-I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you suggesting that the Prime Minister is not responsible for the behaviour of Ministers in this House? That is specifically the point of this question which has been raised by the honourable member for O'Connor and I believe that it is appropriate, and always has been, that a Prime Minister in this place should accept the responsibility for each of his Ministers. In that light I believe that your ruling is quite inappropriate and I ask that you reconsider it. Madam SPEAKER —I consider that the question is out of order as I considered a question to be out of order yesterday. It is not within the Prime Minister's portfolio responsibility. Mr Sinclair-Madam Speaker, are you saying that the Prime Minister has no responsibility for his Ministers? Madam SPEAKER —I am ruling the question out of order on the ground that it is not within the Prime Minister's portfolio responsibility and there is no further comment. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.27) —I move: That the ruling be dissented from. The nature of the responsibility of government in this place is that the Prime Minister, having been called to Government House, has, above all, a responsibility to nominate those who shall with him exercise the responsibility of government. There is no other member within the ambit of government who can be seen to have responsibility for the actions and deeds of each of those whom he appoints to the respective ministries. Your ruling, Madam Speaker, has said that nobody in the Government has a portfolio responsibility for the behaviour of Ministers. There is no more abject nonsense than for a Prime Minister not to be given a responsibility for those whom he appoints. The whole concept of our ministerial system is that the person who is Prime Minister is Prime Minister because he has the ability to appoint a ministry, determine the number of Ministers, choose those who will be in Cabinet and set out the responsibilities that they share. Indeed, Madam Speaker, at the beginning of each session you accept the Prime Minister's ability to stand up in this House and make explanations as to who will or will not give answers because some Ministers are not here. Madam Speaker, your ruling shows absolute contempt for what we see as the exercise of ministerial responsibility. Not only that, Madam Speaker, as we see it, you are determined to deny us on this side of the House a proper opportunity to question Ministers, including the Prime Minister, on those matters that are properly within their care. You are smiling, Madam Speaker; it ill becomes you that you do so. I believe that there is nothing more important than your allowing the Prime Minister to accept total responsibility for those whom he appoints to his Ministry. You in your position are not there to act on behalf of the Government. You are not there to exercise a ruling because any member of the Government asserts that he does not really want to respond. Your responsibility is to this House. The ruling you have just given about responsibility denies you the ability to ask Ministers to answer in accordance with the Standing and Sessional Orders you are called upon to administer and to see that all members observe. Within our Standing Orders and within our ministerial system, one person alone is responsible for determining Ministers, the duties of Ministers, the allocation of portfolios and the way in which they behave in this House-as my colleague has just said, establishing standards of propriety. Madam Speaker, if you are not prepared to call on the Prime Minister to act, it means that nobody in the Government has any ability at all to act when matters concerning the propriety of ministerial behaviour come into question. Indeed, Madam Speaker, your ruling throws wholly into doubt the circumstances of the behaviour of government under the system which you in this Parliament are called on to administer. The Prime Minister has a unique responsibility. As we see it, the Prime Minister is called on to act in response to us through questions without notice and, within this Parliament, he is called on to do so for all those matters that are within the ministerial responsibility of government. You know, Madam Speaker: The Minister is not here; the Prime Minister can be called on to answer questions with respect to his portfolio. You, Madam Speaker, know that it is only the Prime Minister who has any responsibility for the whole embrace of government. Here, as in the Senate, there is one person-the Leader of the Government. And the Leader of the Government in this House is the Prime Minister. Madam Speaker, what you have done specifically with this question is say that it is not for the Prime Minister to be concerned what assertions, inferences or whatever slurs might have been made by the Treasurer about him are appropriate. I find that an absolutely incredible doctrine. It is important for those of us in this Parliament to be able to ask questions of the Prime Minister about ministerial behaviour. Your ruling, Madam Speaker, suggests that the Prime Minister has no responsibility for ministerial behaviour. Your ruling, Madam Speaker, denies any responsibility in this place for anything that a Treasurer or other Minister might say relating to the behaviour of any other Minister. That the Prime Minister is not responsible for ministerial behaviour is an absolute fantasy, Madam Speaker. Your ruling has no bearing in our Westminster system. Your ruling denies the very basis by which Ministers in this place must be seen as answerable to the Prime Minister. Madam Speaker, I strongly put to you that you should reflect on the nature of your ruling. I believe you should advise this House in what way and on what basis in future you will be able to give us a person to whom we can properly ask questions relating to ministerial behaviour. Is it true that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr Richardson) in the other place can say what they like on the telephone about the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and it does not matter? Madam Speaker, you might feel that it does not matter. We believe it goes to the crux of the Prime Minister's responsibility for his Ministers. Indeed, my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) commented yesterday that he felt there were occasions when a leader has some sensitivity about car telephone conversations, and I believe it is not inappropriate that the Prime Minister might reflect on the way in which action might or might not be taken against his colleague. I know how close and chummy they are. I know how brotherly love is reflected in the very way they smile in this place. But I also know that when they get away from here it is amazing how that friendliness seems to dissipate. Madam Speaker, I put to you that it is important that there be an opportunity, above all, for you to allow the Prime Minister to accept responsibility for the behaviour of his colleagues. All joking aside, Madam Speaker, I am afraid it is important in this place that the doctrine of Westminster responsibility give to the Prime Minister the responsibility that our system bestows upon him. Madam Speaker, your ruling denies us any opportunity to question matters relating to ministerial propriety and to question ministerial attitudes and their relationship to the Prime Minister. Madam Speaker, I put to you that your ruling in that sense is totally false and totally wrong and should be withdrawn and reconsidered. I very much regret that the ruling, to me, goes quite against the continued practice in this Parliament of the Prime Minister being responsible for the behaviour of his Ministers. I believe you were totally wrong in the ruling you gave. Mr Tuckey —I second the motion. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member wish to speak? Mr Tuckey —I do wish to speak. Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(2.35) —The section of our Standing Orders referring to this matter is, of course, standing order 142, which states: Questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which he is officially connected, to proceedings pending in the House, or to any matter of administration for which he is responsible. Madam Speaker, I put it to you that maybe the question the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) should be asking is: Has he ever been responsible to this Parliament for anything that goes on-other than in the way he chooses and other than in the way he is allowed to go on? Madam Speaker, in reference to your previous rulings, I ask you: If this is the case on this occasion, why is it that a question was allowed to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on the matter of his passport? If we are to get down to this fine line, this splitting of hairs, on responsibility, is it not a fact that we should have addressed that question to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding)? What about the situation when the Prime Minister was under attack regarding former member Mick Young and the Combe-Ivanov affair; Mr Young and the Paddington Bear affair; Mr Keating and his tax return? It might be argued that the Treasurer, even though he does not agree, did have some responsibility as Treasurer to see that he and other Australians put in their tax return. The point I am putting to you is that we are arguing a case on the basis of words: . . . or to any matter of administration for which he is responsible. As the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) has already pointed out to you, Madam Speaker, it has been a practice in this place for Prime Ministers to be responsible for their Ministers and their Ministers' actions. Madam Speaker, if you are abdicating that responsibility, maybe that matter should form the balance of the debate today, because in fact many of us believe that. The person who believes it most is the Treasurer. He has believed for a long time that he is running the shop; that the Prime Minister is the figurehead, Mr Charisma. As a result of that, he wants the Prime Minister's job because he sees him as an unnecessary appendage. We know what is going on. We know why the Government is so embarrassed that it has compromised its Speaker into stopping questions relating to any matter of administration. Of course, Madam Speaker, it is outrageous that the Opposition is denied the right to ask these questions. But it is even worse that the Prime Minister clearly does not want to answer. Of course, it is even worse that after 24 hours the Treasurer is showing such arrogant disregard of his Prime Minister as to not deny these allegations. He brushes them aside in his usual arrogant fashion because he has an arrogant disregard for his Prime Minister. But, Madam Speaker, there is no reason whatsoever for the Chair to have an arrogant disregard for the Parliament. There are rights which we all obtain or achieve when we are elected to this place. We get rights and, Madam Speaker, we get responsibilities. The responsibilities that exist for members of parliament represent a responsibility in terms of the person in whom we put our trust in respect of the chairmanship of this chamber. Madam Speaker, the Standing Orders are clear on this matter, and the responsibilities of the Prime Minister in this situation are quite clear. Madam Speaker, please let me repeat to you the question, in case in haste you did not hear it correctly. The question that I put to the Prime Minister was: Have you had any discussions with the Treasurer about alleged telephone conversations between him and Senator Richardson? What is so improper about that? Madam Speaker, I remind you that it was at about this point that you started to call `Order!' The question continued: In particular, have you sought and received assurances that the conversation did not involve derogatory and disloyal remarks denigrating yourself? And, Madam Speaker, I might have added `your office'-not that the Prime Minister has very much concern for the office of Prime Minister. Madam Speaker, it is reasonable to put those questions to the Prime Minister. Those are the sorts of questions that a Prime Minister would generally answer. There is nothing outrageous in them and, had the Prime Minister chosen to answer no, we might have asked, `If not, why not?'. We might have asked of the Prime Minister, `Why are you such a wimp that you have failed to demand of your Treasurer that he should either deny these allegations categorically, and preferably in this place, or admit to them and apologise to you?'. Mr Hawke —Ha, ha! Mr TUCKEY —If the Prime Minister wants to laugh about the denigration of himself, he is welcome. If he wants to laugh at himself, he is free to do so. Mr Beazley —On a point of order, Madam Speaker, this is a technical debate about an interpretation of Standing Orders. It is not on a motion on which these broad issues can be canvassed. The honourable member for O'Connor is clearly out or order. Madam SPEAKER —I think the honourable member is following the previous speaker. The previous speaker was allowed to range. The Chair has no problems. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pity that the Leader of the House, in his embarrassment, is trying, of course, to stop me from giving some good advice to his Prime Minister. The reality is that past Prime Ministers have been very sensitive, and past Prime Ministers have been very proud of their office, and would have defended their reputation to the last drop of blood. They would not have tolerated a Treasurer, particularly an arrogant Treasurer, treading over the top of them. They would not have tolerated it. They would have called that Treasurer to account, and I think they would have demanded that the Treasurer deny that he had even sunk to the point of making derogatory and disloyal remarks about his Prime Minister. That is the first thing that any other Prime Minister in history would have done. Gough Whitlam knew how to deal with Ministers who did not behave. This Prime Minister will go down in history as never having sacked one. That might be because he is too frightened or it might be that he does not know how. The reality is that the airwaves are full of allegations that the Treasurer has been both insulting and disloyal on the next best public medium to going out and writing it in a press release-we all know how car phones work-and the Prime Minister has done nothing, apparently. But he is so-- Madam SPEAKER —Would the honourable member come back to the motion before the Chair. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, Madam Speaker, I am coming right back to it. The fact is that the Prime Minister is so embarrassed by his inability to control his Treasurer that, in our view, he has now compromised you, Madam Speaker. Mr Beazley —Madam Speaker, I am going to take a point of order on this again to see whether you have a different interpretation of your ruling. The honourable member is clearly canvassing issues far broader than whether or not you are acting in accordance with Standing Orders. Madam SPEAKER —Yes, I think I should remind the honourable member for O'Connor that it is the Chair that is under attack, not the Prime Minister. Would you please get back to the motion of dissent. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Speaker, we are moving dissent from your ruling, but we are also expressing great concern about the fact that there is an apparent conspiracy within the Government to compromise your position. On reading standing order 142, we cannot see that your ruling can in any way be justified and we can only assume that, in fact, the Prime Minister is demanding that this be done. Mr Holding —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. In relation to a motion of this kind, which is a simple motion of dissent, it is not appropriate for any member of this House to talk about the compromising of the Chair. That constitutes a gross and wilful reflection on the Chair. The honourable member ought to withdraw that or else move a censure motion. He cannot use that terminology in respect of the Chair in a motion of this kind. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to ask the honourable member to withdraw. Madam SPEAKER —I think you are quite right. The suggestion of a conspiracy between the Chair and the Government should be withdrawn. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Speaker, I withdraw. I certainly was not criticising you. I was criticising the Government for what it is doing to you. Madam SPEAKER —I point out to you that you should now return to the motion, which is a dissent from my ruling. Mr TUCKEY —In returning to that motion, let me remind you again that we are dealing with the right of the Opposition to question Ministers of the Government. Standing Orders provide: Questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which he is officially connected, to proceedings pending in the House, or to any matter of administration for which he is responsible. It is as clear as we are standing in this place that the administration to which we refer in the case of the Prime Minister is that in relation to his responsibility for the actions of his Ministers. He may have forgotten, but he has the word `Prime' in front of the word `Minister'. In any other parliament he would be No. 1. In this Parliament he is not No. 1, and he is demonstrating it at the moment on this issue by dodging and ducking behind your skirts, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will return to the dissent motion. The House is attacking me, not the Prime Minister. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Speaker, how else can I put to you this issue pertaining to the words in the Standing Orders `or to any matter of administration for which he is responsible'? That has normally applied to Prime Ministers, but we have to exclude this one, and we admit that now. The present Prime Minister has abdicated his responsibility. How can I otherwise refer to the matter before us, a dissent from your ruling, unless I demonstrate to you how inadequate this Prime Minister has been in keeping control of his Treasurer? His Treasurer has gone ahead-- Mr Beazley —Madam Speaker, on a further point of order-- Mr TUCKEY —Why does it keep hurting, Kim? Mr Beazley —I just enjoy interrupting you, Wilson. By the last comment that the honourable member made, he quite clearly is initiating a totally different debate. He quite clearly pointed out that he intended to proceed no further with discussing dissent from your ruling but to proceed with an imaginary confection of relationships that exist on this side of the House. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor should now prove to the House why the Chair was wrong in its ruling. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Speaker, I must refer you again to standing order 142. We addressed a question to the Prime Minister-in any other parliament No. 1, not a lame duck. You must take that into account, Madam Speaker, in your ruling. We are not addressing a question to a Minister who has a very narrow responsibility, like the Minister responsible for Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, or some of the others. We are not addressing a narrow area of responsibility; we have addressed a question to the Prime Minister. If he is a lame duck, that cannot alter your ruling. Madam Speaker, you have to judge your ruling in relation to all other Prime Ministers-not this one. That is the point I am making to you. All other Prime Ministers would have expected to answer a question relating to the activities of their Treasurer in particular. He is normally pretty important, even though normally not so arrogant-and none of them has ever raised taxes on every individual Australian by $275 a year. Mr Beazley —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I do not need a point of order. Either the honourable member for O'Connor will return to the specific question that is before the Chair or I shall require him to resume his seat. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Speaker, this is becoming a very taxing matter for me, but I will do my best. I still have to say to you, Madam Speaker, that the issue is that you have ruled that the Prime Minister should not answer a question relative to the activities of one of his Ministers, namely, the Treasurer, and they are personal matters about being disloyal. In that regard, let me say that the House would welcome advice from the Treasurer that the conversation never took place. These are the things we might elicit from this question. Mr Beazley —On a point of order, Madam Speaker, again the honourable member has moved away from the subject of the debate here, which is dissent from your ruling. What he has done is to invite from the Treasurer a response that is completely irrelevant to the debate. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will return to the point of the question or the Chair will ask him to sit down. Mr TUCKEY —I have nearly concluded my remarks, Madam Speaker. I do plead that you reconsider your ruling, Madam Speaker, particularly in regard to that part of the Standing Orders which refers to any matter of administration for which the Prime Minister is responsible. Mr BEAZLEY(Fremantle-Leader of the House)(2.49) —I suppose the most galling feature of this dissent motion is to have to sit here and suffer the unction of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), who is repeatedly disciplined in this place for abusing the forms of the House in Question Time. For him to be standing up here and criticising a ruling of the Speaker on the grounds of propriety is an irony which fortunately the majority of this House will not accept. The honourable member for O'Connor and the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) actually put the answer to their dissent motion in the arguments that they made-that is, the way in which Speakers have interpreted standing order 142 in the past. Standing order 142 states: Questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which he is officially connected- that is, his ministerial duties on public matters that arise in accordance with his ministerial duties- to proceedings pending in the House- and, clearly, that is not a question at issue here- or to any matter of administration for which he is responsible. Nothing in the implications of that sleazy little question relates to any one of those three criteria. The Opposition's alleged claim is that there has been a tape recording of a private conversation. That is the allegation. If the Opposition wants to pursue that allegation it can do so in the way in which it pursues any other similar allegation in the House-on the basis of a substantive motion. It should not use the opportunity here to attempt to denigrate the Speaker and to attempt to change the forms of the House whereby those opposite reinterpret what is quite clearly the meaning of those words. In case those opposite think the words are not quite clear, I draw their attention to page 489 of Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice. I quote from the following selected parts because not all of the text is relevant: The underlying principle is that Ministers are required to answer questions only on matters for which they are responsible to the Parliament. Consequently Speakers have ruled out of order questions to Ministers which concern- and it goes through a number of them- . . . anything of a private nature, that is, not related to the public duties of a Minister. As mentioned in the cases above, it is not in order for the personal conduct or private affairs of a Minister to be criticised by way of a question. If such a set of events did take place as described by the Opposition, it clearly relates to private conversations unrelated to portfolio matters and it is clearly outside the responsibility not only of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) but also the Treasurer (Mr Keating), as Madam Speaker correctly said yesterday. In this matter the Opposition is continuing the process of hectoring you, Madam Speaker, in Question Time. You happen to be a very liberal Speaker in this House. You have given the Opposition full rein and this is the way it has chosen to repay you. We will not permit you to be abused any longer and I therefore move: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. McLeay, LeoCourtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Sawford, R. W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Snowdon, W. E.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B. (Teller)Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Taylor, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Katter, R. C. Wooldridge, M. R. L. In division- Mr Tim Fischer-Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order in relation to the conduct of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman). Whilst I realise there have been previous rulings about the reading of newspapers generally in the House, he is reading one in the middle of a division. Perhaps he is reading about his own comments-- Madam SPEAKER-Order! It certainly is true that newspapers should not be brought into the House. Perhaps all members could be made aware of this. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Sinclair's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B. (Teller)Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Peter Smith, W. L.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Taylor, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Woodridge, M. R. L.Katter, R. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, G. N. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. HCharlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. McLeay, LeoCourtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Sawford, R. W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Snowdon, W. E.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Dr Klugman —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. During the counting of the first division the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) took a point of order about my reading a newspaper. Could I ask, Madam Speaker, what those of us who do not go in for meditation or idle chatter are supposed to do during the six to eight minutes that it takes between the ringing of the division bells and the counting of votes? What kinds of booklets would the honourable member for Farrer prescribe for us to read? Madam SPEAKER —It has been a convention of the House for quite some time that the reading and displaying of newspapers in the House are not acceptable. I suggest that you read the Notice Paper or the Hansard. Mr SHACK(Tangney) —I ask whether you, Madam Speaker, are aware of a report on page 3 of today's Canberra Times headed `House chefs lose meal ticket' in which it is reported that two chefs at Parliament House have been told to find work elsewhere because they refused to join a union. I ask whether you are aware of statements attributed to the Assistant Secretary of the Joint House Department that: . . . in certain Government-run areas, closed-shop agreements were in place. Are you not concerned that the dismissal of the Parliament House chefs is an attempt to establish a closed shop? What action will you take to ensure that this enforcement of compulsory unionism is not tolerated in the Parliament House work place, which is certainly not a government area? Madam SPEAKER —Could I take the question from the honourable member on notice? The matter is still under discussion and I will report back at a later date. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —Madam Speaker, I wish to address a question to you. After Question Time yesterday, the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs was asked to table certain documents. There was some interchange in the House. I have not received the information that the Minister indicated he would give. I wonder whether the documents had been tabled. Madam SPEAKER —The documents have not been tabled. I suggest that the honourable member take it up with the Minister. It is not a matter for the Chair. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in Hansard and the Votes and Proceedings. The schedule read as follows- Waterfront Investigation-Inter-State Commission-Preliminary Findings and Discussion Papers, Volumes 1-5-section 10 of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975. Australian Tobacco Board-Annual Report 1987-including the Auditor-General's Report-sub-section 26 (3) of the Tobacco Marketing Act 1965. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Mr Fife-Madam Speaker, on a point of order: The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) asked you a question about papers which the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) indicated yesterday he would table. I think I heard you say that the honourable member should take it up with the Minister. Is it not a matter for the Minister to report back to the House? Mr Holding-Madam Speaker, I did not indicate that I was proposing to table the documents. What I did indicate was that I would be happy to provide them to the honourable gentleman. Madam SPEAKER —That was my understanding: they were not tabled. Mr Holding-I have asked the Department to put them in a readily digestible form. Opposition members interjecting- Mr Holding-I am sorry that Opposition members are such a bunch of-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will get on with it. Mr Holding-I am perfectly happy to make the information available. Mr Fife-Will you table the documents? Mr Holding-I do not have any problem about tabling them. There is no problem. The nature of the documents is such that the answer I gave yesterday was culled from a whole range of documents. It is unsatisfactory for the House for a Minister to come in with a pile of papers when he can give a summary answer. The answer I gave is recorded in Hansard. The base of that information will be made available to the honourable gentleman and anybody else who wants it. They can then draw their own conclusions or take whatever further action they wish. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Medical Education and the Medical Workforce entitled Australian Medical Education and Workforce into the 21st Century. I seek leave to make a brief statement on the report. Leave granted. Dr BLEWETT —Honourable members have already been sent a copy of the report during the parliamentary recess, but I consider it appropriate that it be tabled in view of its importance and significance to medical education and work force planning for the next decade. I should like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Professor Ralph Doherty and the other members of the Committee for their magnificent efforts in producing a report of which they should be justly proud. It is a report of high quality that will provide valuable guidance to governments, medical organisations and medical education institutions for many years. In a relatively short time the Committee managed to review, in a most thorough way, all levels of medical education-undergraduate, specialist and continuing-as well as the current and future size, composition and distribution of the medical work force. As one would expect from an inquiry covering such a wide range of subjects, the report is substantial and contains over 100 recommendations. The Government is currently assessing the report and its recommendations and will be moving quickly to establish its priorities in relation to those recommendations that directly affect its areas of responsibility. Many of the recommendations, of course, are directed at State governments, medical schools, medical boards, specialist colleges, and other organisations. The Government is in touch with these parties and it will make every effort to ensure that the recommendations are appropriately considered. The inquiry, and the debate and decisions that will flow from its report, will provide valuable assistance to the Government, which is committed to promoting a medical work force that is appropriately trained and of appropriate size, composition and distribution for the needs of the Australian community. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —by leave-Acknowledging the other demands on the Parliament today, I will speak briefly. The Opposition also congratulates Professor Doherty and his Committee of Inquiry into Medical Education and the Medical Workforce on the excellent work they have done. I am sure that it will be beneficial to the oppositions and governments of today and of the future. We will be very pleased to respond to the Government's response in due course. We will use many of the decisions and advice in that in terms of our own policy formation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Hawke Government's failure to act fairly and democratically in promoting the four referendum questions to be put before the Australian people on 3 September 1988. 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 PEACOCK(Kooyong)(3.15) —We on this side of the House have had a great deal of respect for the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen). He has been an ornament to his cause. He has been our political foe and political enemy. We have not agreed with his political line, but we have respected that he has been a punter who sometimes makes it and sometimes does not. But on this occasion we disagree not only with what he is punting on next Saturday but also with the way in which he and the Government have conducted the whole referendum campaign. Never has a referendum campaign in this country been conducted with such deceit, misleading questions and misleading campaigning and, frankly, on occasions, with the appearance, if not the substance, of fiddling the system. The presentation of the television advertisements was adjudged not by the Parliament but by a court of law to have been a false presentation and to have been a presentation that was biased. The presentation, using the taxpayers' money to present allegedly objective material, was knocked out of court because of the bias which was evident. My office has been flooded with calls from concerned citizens raising the question of the biased presentation of the booklet that has been sent around-with the large `yeses' and the small `noes'. Add to that the ticks and the crosses controversy and we have a pretty sleazy campaign run by a government which has not been fair dinkum with the people on the propositions that are being put on Saturday. We have termed the matter of public importance: The Hawke Government's failure to act fairly and democratically in promoting the four referendum questions to be put before the Australian people on 3 September 1988. Question 2 calls on the people of Australia to vote for `fair and democratic elections'. The question is neither fair nor democratic in the manner in which the campaign has been conducted. Like all four questions, the simple questions being put to the people are highly misleading. Frankly, if the Government were trying to sell its case in the world of commerce, in the private sector, rather than simply shovelling out the taxpayers' money to pay for this campaign, it would be dragged before the Trade Practices Commission. If the Government wants fair elections, what about some fair questions? Question 2, on fair and democratic elections, is unfair and undemocratic because the Government has brazenly biased the question towards a yes vote. The honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) has criss-crossed this country plausibly and strongly arguing the No case. The evidence and the trend, as a consequence of the effectiveness of his arguments, are shown as the polling is coming down. I can say to the Attorney that he will not succeed on Saturday. I have said to him that question 2, on fair and democratic elections, is unfair and undemocratic because the Government has biased the question towards a Yes vote. However, it is also unfair and undemocratic because people are being deprived of the opportunity to make an informed decision. They are being asked whether they favour `fair and democratic elections', when the supporting Bill is actually a complex document adding 13 new clauses to and deleting five clauses from the Australian Constitution. People think that they are answering four questions and that there will be only four changes to the Constitution. There will be an abundance of changes to Constitution that was put together with a spirit of goodwill among men who accepted that the government of the day that put referenda questions would put them fairly and honestly. If the question was phrased according to fair and democratic principles, it would ask the people whether they believed that the Federal Government should have the power to impose rules upon and to intervene in State election matters. Honourable members will recall that debate on the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill was gagged-a sleaze element which I did not think would have intruded into a referendum campaign, but which has been so much a part of the conduct of this Government in action. The sleaze element which brought in these misleading questions and gagged effective democratic debate in this country has gone on throughout the campaign to stifle debate and the manner in which the referenda are conducted. The Bill does not put an end to gerrymanders. What it will mean is that the people in, say, Sydney and Melbourne will be telling people in Tasmania or Western Australia how to run their State elections and how to run their State parliaments. Furthermore, the Bill has the potential to invalidate existing procedures for some State parliaments. Unquestionably, it could destabilise the whole electoral process in some States. The mistakes in the Bill, admitted by the Government, and the manner in which the Bill was subsequently amended in the Senate undoubtedly demonstrate the slipshod manner in which the legislation was prepared and rushed through the Parliament. Let us be blunt and to the point: Frankly, question No. 2 is about political manipulation and expedience. It should be rejected on those grounds alone. I remind the House of what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has so succinctly put in regard to these questions. He has said on behalf of this side of the House that we oppose the first question because it will dramatically weaken the Senate, thereby hurting the smaller States. He has said that we oppose the second question because the electoral boundaries of the States should be fixed by the parliaments of the States. I do not understand why we bother to have States at all if someone in this place is to determine their actions. Thirdly, he said that we oppose the third question because, local government having been created by the States, it is only right and proper that local government should be entrenched in and protected by the constitutions of the States and not the Constitution of the Commonwealth. Local government bodies are creatures of the States. They exist as a consequence of State legislation, not as a consequence of the Commonwealth. We oppose the fourth question out of a passionate belief that any attempt to define in complete detail a basic human right renders the risk, through inadvertent omission, that such rights will be restricted rather than expanded. Collectively, the four proposals increase Canberra's power and weaken our federal structure. That, succinctly, is what the Opposition Leader has put so accurately in terms of the Opposition's view of the referenda questions on Saturday. When the leading citizens, or those who thought they were, came together in the constitutional conventions of the 1890s they put together a Constitution which, whilst implementing the Westminster system of government, looked at the United States in terms of the division of powers. They deliberately wrote in a number of constraints. For example, the Executive was constrained and answerable to the Parliament. The Parliament was answerable to the people. No-one had unfettered powers. Interestingly enough, not even the people have unfettered powers because the people's view is actually constrained in regard to the manner in which a referendum is determined. It is not by a vote of the majority of the people; it is by a vote of the majority of the people in the majority of the States. Every element of fairness that was laid down in the Constitution exuded the spirit of goodwill of those conventions. This is the very thing that has been lacking throughout this campaign. There has been no spirit of goodwill towards the people. To be precise, $41m has been spent on this referenda campaign. This is not the Government's money; it is the taxpayers' money. The referenda are not being held in harness with an election campaign; they have been dumped out. For what reason? We thought that perhaps it was because Government members were going to go into some jingoistic campaign, beating their breasts and proclaiming what great nationalists they were. In fact, they have tried to do it the other way. They decided to shovel out the money and let the campaign be quietly conducted so that people really would not see that so many of the checks, balances and constraints which I have just mentioned and which are written into the Constitution would bypass the argument and, therefore, allow them to have more power in the Parliament. The mob in government are great collectivists. They deal with the trade unions and the big corporations on the basis that the more they can centralise power the more control they have over this nation-a nation which was founded on a Constitution that has effective checks and balances which honourable members opposite have been seeking to override. Not only did honourable members opposite sweep that aside; they swept aside conventions. They swept aside practices which have been adopted over a period and which have become what are generally termed in the law conventions. In January the Attorney-General gave the four questions he wanted in the referendum to the Constitutional Commission. This Commission was set up by the Government to advise it on how to run the referendum and on what changes ought to be made to the Constitution. But that was not good enough for the Attorney. He might have had a bad day at the races-I do not know-but he said, `You will do these four things'. He told the Constitutional Commission what he wanted. The Government then used the opening of the new Parliament House, this magnificent new building, to encourage the Yes vote. Honourable members have seen the advertisements. They were beautifully presented. They depicted the new Parliament House and we were led to believe, by implication, that we ought to have a new Constitution. All the shavings of the honest and objective conventions of the past were moved aside by the use of an emotive influence in the advertisements. The Government asked itself, `When will we have the referendum?' On the basis of steering away from having too much attention directed to the matter, the Government decided to have it two weeks after the Budget. The Government thought-this was prior to Graham cruising the streets of Canberra or wherever with a car phone in hand-that the Budget would dominate and that therefore there would be no opportunity for argument on the referenda. As I said, in terms of the breaking of conventions, the questions are undeniably, on the basis of any objective test, biased towards a Yes vote. I have said that debate on the Bills was gagged in the Parliament. It is a reasonable convention in this country to have effective parliamentary debate. However, the Attorney has gagged debate on something as essential as a referendum campaign. The Attorney has refused constantly to debate publicly the issues with the honourable member for Flinders. I have seen the Attorney-General on television. He bobs up on the box in one studio, but he will not enter the same studio as the honourable member for Flinders and have a debate with him. I know what I did to the Prime Minister in the 1984 election campaign. But fair go! Four years later the Government ought to have got over that traumatic experience and be prepared to have a go at him. If the Attorney thinks he has the arguments, he should be prepared to sit in a studio and debate the issues with the honourable member for Flinders. Whether it is the manipulative television campaign, the dodging of debates with the honourable member for Flinders or the dodging of debates in this Parliament, the Attorney-General has twisted the normal conventions to override. At the end of the day, the taxpayers will be paying for even his own Party's advertising agency to produce the ads. We have the old technique of shoving the money off to the Government's mates. I dare say a bit of the money has gone back to the Party as a donation from the profits that have been made. But taxpayers' money is being used to produce a so-called objective advertising campaign. The next point I raise relates to the four questions. As I have said, these four simple questions will involve 33 changes. That means that in one day, at one referendum, there will be more changes proposed to the Constitution than all the amendments to the Constitution since Federation. There will be 33 separate changes involving a repeal of nine clauses, the insertion of 20 clauses and the amendment of four clauses. Like a thief in the night, the Government has snuck this through, expecting people to buy it. Well, the people will not. If the Attorney-General, as a punter, is out at Randwick, or wherever the races are, on Saturday he will find that this quadrella is down the drain. He should look at another four on Saturday when assessing the form, because I think these ones were nobbled from the start. People have woken up to the Government. If we were on the track there would be a stewards inquiry. I remind the Attorney that there have been 38 referenda since 1901, only eight have been approved, and only one of these was a Labor initiative. The people do not trust the Government on this matter and the Government will find out on Saturday. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.30) —It is always refreshing to hear the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). He adds a touch of class to this place. He understands how to present an argument, even though we do not have to agree with it. He does not lose his temper; he has a controlled emotion. He is able to put forward a case with a fair amount of skill. I welcome the remarks he made about me. They sounded like Mark Antony's speech over the dead body of Caesar, but we will not go into that because I have a lot of affection for the honourable member for Kooyong. I do not know why he was raising the issue of how well he went in the 1984 election, because he seems to have lost his prime poll position since that time. That might relate to talking on car telephones. I wish to come to the issue of what we are trying to do here. The point that we are about is what the people are interested in at the referendum on Saturday. The honourable gentleman is very anxious to say that the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) has done a very good job, and he has. But he will not debate with me here. All the matters of public importance have been brought on by somebody else. Mr Reith —You wanted to bring on the leaders, and you brought the leaders on. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Could the honourable member give me a little bit of quiet. We had two matters of public importance last week. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) was absent. He was doing his job out in the country, trying to get the votes up whilst leaving this matter to somebody else. Today, because there is some suggestion of a leadership challenge coming up, everybody has to make a run and impress the back bench. So now we have another matter of public importance. I want to reject completely the view that I have been up on my feet for the last two weeks in Parliament arguing the Government's case whilst my opposite number has not been here-admittedly he does not want to be here. He would rather be somewhere else where people do not know as much about the issue. I do know a little about the issue. I want to put at rest completely the suggestions that there is some deceit about this matter. We cannot do this with the Opposition but the gallery might be interested. The point I want to make is that the Constitutional Commission brought out its first report, in a preliminary way, on the first referendum question last October. We debated it here with the greatest of intensity. The Opposition said that it was outrageous to be suggesting that there was going to be a joint sitting of the Houses when we had a disagreement. I accepted that. The Opposition has been saying sotto voce, `What a dreadful thing it is that the Attorney- General hasn't agreed with the second proposal, the second chance for the Commission'. That was that we could not pass any legislation in the first three years and the Senate could not throw us out in the first three years. I read-and I think I read it right-that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would not want the Senate so inhibited or restricted. I would be amazed if the Senate would allow to pass a law saying that senators could not do anything for three years. Let us get this issue right. There is this suggestion of deceit because I did not use the recommendations of the Commission. I used what I thought would be a fair analysis of the proposition for the first question that we ought not to inhibit the powers of the Senate, and that is the way the first question is phrased. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is here, and I respect that. We had a discussion about four-year terms and he agreed with them, on the one condition that the Senate have eight-year terms. We cannot give the Senate eight-year terms, because we would have the position of senators-- Mr Howard —You would have got it through. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —But the Leader of the Opposition would have changed his mind. The Leader of the Opposition said, `Look, I think it is a bit hard to ask for eight years'. I am certain it is. Senators would get a parliamentary pension after one win. They would be so far removed from reality that they would not care less what they did. The point the honourable member wants to come to is what we are about in the first question. It is not deceitful. The fact is that there should be fewer elections. The first question does away with the need for half Senate elections. It does away with the reasons that Prime Ministers have been giving-when they have gone to the Governor-General-that they want to keep the Houses in kilter. They do not have that any more. I have no hope of convincing the Opposition of this, because it has made up its mind; but the people ought to understand that when we are putting forward the question of four-year terms it is a legitimate question. It is on the basis that we will have fewer elections because those explanations given in the past will no longer be valid. That is very clear. We cannot stop double dissolutions if the Senate rejects legislation twice-nobody has argued that-but the Senate comes out in toto. Nobody objects to that. The Commission said, `We have not had a six-year senator elected since December 1964'. The Opposition has been in power for most of that time. The number of dissolutions which those opposite sought is very significant. On that basis we want to make the Senate accountable for the position of Supply. It is a reasonable situation. If the Senate, quite legitimately in its view, said, `It is a bad government; they are out' we would have eight-year senators sitting there saying, `Terrific. We don't have to come out'. That is the position. Mr Howard —I offered you that as well. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The point that we are about is-- Mr Peacock —He is right. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If I could only have my time uninterrupted. The Opposition is so worried about the weakness of its case. The Leader of the Opposition said, `What about five years for both?' Mr Howard —That was the Prime Minister. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, it was not. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —If the Leader of the Opposition continues to interject I will name him. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know that the Leader of the Opposition is getting excited. He had one of these goes himself. I would probably get more sense out of the honourable member for Flinders by way of interjection, because at least he knows what the subject is about. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Attorney-General should not respond to interjections. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am responding to the argument that there is deceit and misleading advertising. Another allegation was that we had done something illegal. We offered it to the Electoral Commissioner, who got the opinion of two Queen's Counsel and he said, `It is in order'. We will accept the judgment. That is what happened. We did nothing. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition then says, `What a dreadful thing it is'. Look at the way the case is printed. I will give a few marks to the Yes case but look at that No case. It is very difficult to read; it is a jumble of words'. The presentation was made by each side. Mr Peacock —And never before have they been done in that way. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Can I just continue uninterrupted? Each case was presented and the typeset was made that way. We were not impressed to have our Yes set alongside a No either but we had nothing to do with it. The people will wonder what the blazes they are reading when they come to this. It had nothing to do with us, because we had the independence of the Electoral Commissioner. Mr Reith —So he was responsible for the pamphlet? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He was responsible for the layout, the lot. It is a matter of record. There were discussions with the Opposition regarding the typesetting arrangements. That is the way it went because-- Mr Howard —So we had big yeses and small noes? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is far too much interjecting on my left. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence. The Attorney-General should be heard in silence. I would ask the Attorney-General not to respond to the interjections, although it is not his fault that people are interjecting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point that I am trying to make is that it is very clear that people can always cast aspersions on somebody and suggest that they are doing the wrong thing. Nothing wrong has been done here. The questions mean what they say. They relate to the Constitutional Commission. I have dealt with the first question. The other three questions relate directly to evidence given to the Constitutional Commission. The honourable member for Kooyong spent a fair bit of time saying that it was quite unfair to be talking about fair and democratic elections. He went on to say that we should not be trying to do that and that we should leave it to the States because that was what we had States for. The honourable gentleman knows that when evidence was given to the Commission it was on behalf of people in those States, in Queensland and Western Australia, saying how outrageous it was to have a rorting of boundaries and a weighting of votes three to one simply because a party wanted to rely on a minority to be a government. Russ Hinze has been able to say, with some eloquence, that he carried the National Party, that some of the seats in Queensland were rigged to the extent that all one had to do was get a National Party tag and one could win it forever and a day. He is right. That has brought bad government in Queensland. It is corrupt. That is known to the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct. The Queensland Government called the Parliament together for only 49 days last year. It did not care less about the Parliament. It was a Government of patronage, privilege and cronyism. That is what the Queensland people are up against on this occasion. What is the good of them going to that Government and saying, `Are you going to make the boundaries fair?' Fancy talking to the executioner about whether he is going to spare your life! No chance. That is exactly what happened. But members of the Liberal Party have enough gumption and fairness to say, `Listen, we are into this. We want fair elections'. The only way they can get them is by having boundaries under which they know they have a chance of increasing their membership in parliament and possibly winning an election. Why do members of the Opposition want to deny that? The Government of Western Australia is saying, `We want fair boundaries'. Again, the boundaries in that State are rorted to suit the upper House in the ratio of 3:1. The Western Australian Government cannot get fair boundaries through the upper House, but it is asking the people of Australia to legitimise fair electoral distribution. There is nothing wrong with that. The people have been asked to vote on whether they think it is a fair thing for a fair go, and I am sure that they will say `Yes'. Then it is up to the governments of those two States to fix up the boundaries in accordance with the wishes of the people. It is not hard to do. Every member elected to this House of Representatives from across Australia, including Queensland and Western Australia, is elected on fair boundaries. That is not a problem. Why do members of the Opposition have this lust for power? Why do they say, `We want to remain in power. Even though the boundaries are crook and corrupt we are going to stay'? They should look at the results they have got. That is why they ought to look at the situation as Australians. They should not look at it from the point of view that, because they are always in opposition, they have always got to say no. I read out today the list, the litany, of those in favour of the recognition of local government. Why are members of the Opposition so outrageous that they cannot even agree with the proposition that local government is deserving of recognition? They have got to understand that local government is not at all impressed. The Local Government Association wrote to Mr Howard on 25 August, saying: I am writing to appeal to your sense of fair play. I am sure he will find it one day, but on this occasion the situation was that the honourable member for Flinders was out there saying all sorts of things and local government was saying, `This is outrageous': This morning on the Mike Carlton radio show Mr Reith stated that Local Government Associations . . . are dumping the Yes case. These are blatant lies . . . That is what has been said. The honourable member has to wear that. Local government said, `They are blatant lies'. Look at the policy of the Liberal Party. The issue is this-- Mr Reith —Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask the Attorney-General to withdraw that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I was just about to call the Attorney-- Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will withdraw it, but the honourable member for Flinders has not made any personal explanation. His leader has had the letter since 25 August. I would have thought the honourable member for Flinders would have been up in the House explaining his conduct. I withdraw it for the honourable member. But, listen, this is what the Local Government Association has written about him. Do not try to square it off with me. I accept the honourable member's view, but the Local Government Association does not. Given another couple of minutes, I will deal with the other two questions. The issues of trial by jury and fair compensation were in the honourable member for Sydney's last platform of reform at the time we went to the last elections. Mr Reith —Not your words. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —What was that? Speechless again; all right. When asked why all this was happening, the honourable member stated, `I am damned if I know'. He said, `I am damned if I know why the Opposition will not support questions Nos. 3 and 4'. We are all in the same boat as the honourable member on that issue because there is no danger or deceit in those questions. In summary, question No. 1 means fewer elections. Question No. 2 entrenches in the Constitution the right to vote, which Australians have not got following McKinlay's case, fair voting, recognition of local government, and the extension of the democratic rights that already exist. If the honourable gentleman is not convinced by my advocacy, he is worried about the Budget Speech coming on this day. He knows that it takes the Electoral Commissioner 100 days to send out the Yes and No cases. We passed the legislation through the Senate in the first week in June. If we add about three months to the first week in June, we get to 3 September. Mr Howard —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I mentioned to the Leader of the Opposition previously that I thought the most appropriate time to call him to make a personal explanation was at the end of this debate. It is my recollection that it has been the practice of the House for personal explanations to be made during breaks in the proceedings. I understand that there is an arrangement between the parties that there shall be two more speakers on this matter. Mr Howard —Are you refusing me leave? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am quite willing to call the Leader of the Opposition at the end of this debate. Mr Howard —Are you refusing me leave? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition may also be aware that there is a provision in the Standing Orders that this debate may proceed for two hours. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to take part in the debate, there is no doubt that debate can continue for that two hours, though in the past there have been agreements from the parties to limit the speakers to two a side. I think that, in conformance with previous practice, I should call the Leader of the Opposition at the end of this matter of public importance. Mr Howard —Mr Deputy Speaker, on other occasions people have been allowed, in relation to matters that are relevant to debates under consideration, to make personal explanations. If you are refusing me leave I simply note the fact that the indulgence normally accorded to leaders of the parties in this Parliament is not being adhered to on this occasion. The Opposition will carefully note that. Mr Peacock —It is a special position. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —My recollection is that there is no special concession for leaders of either side to break into the middle of debates, unless they are willing to explain something that they were debating; and there are substantial differences in those two arrangements. Mr Fife —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I would like you to just reflect on the ruling that you have given, and I give you an opportunity to rethink, without losing face, what you have said and to reverse it. To the best of my knowledge-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member for Hume can put to me a case in the past where this has occurred, I am quite willing to hear him; but I do not recall a case in the past myself. Mr Fife —To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the Standing Orders that would prevent the Leader of the Opposition making a personal explanation now. I submit to you that you should permit him to do so because he is not participating in this debate and what he wishes to explain to the House is relevant to the debate. In those circumstances I put it to you, in a very sincere way and in the interests of the good running and harmony of this House, that you permit the Leader of the Opposition to make his personal explanation forthwith. Mr Tim Fischer —Mr Deputy Speaker, further on the point of order, I submit in support of the honourable member for Hume that Madam Speaker has, on previous occasions in rulings and intimations from the Chair, said words to the effect that leaders of parties in this House do have certain leeway in the proceedings of this House; and that is what we are asking you to recognise on this occasion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no doubt that certain indulgence is given by the Chair to leaders of parties, but I doubt whether that indulgence should go to the extent of breaking into the middle of a debate to allow a party leader to make a personal explanation. The party leader may take part in the debate if he wishes, or he may wait for the other two speakers-I imagine they are going to speak for only 10 minutes each, which is the normal course of this debate-and I most certainly will then give him the call. I think it is inappropriate that we should have people seeking in the middle of debates to make personal explanations. It is no doubt appropriate that a person who has taken part in a debate and is then misrepresented further along the way by another person in that debate should be able to seek the call to explain where he was misrepresented, but I do not think it is appropriate that someone who has not participated in the debate should be able to break in. Mr Howard —Mr Deputy Speaker, on that issue, may I submit to you, with respect, on a further point of order, that the explanation you have given would make sense if the subject matter of my personal explanation was unrelated to the subject matter of the debate. I can understand that. But in the course of his speech, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) made an observation about me which is untrue. It goes to the very core of the debate now under way and a correction of that allegation is material to a conclusion of this debate in an objective fashion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Then there is nothing to stop the Leader of the Opposition exercising the prerogative that is usually given to Leaders of the Opposition or the Government by their own parties by standing, seeking the call and participating in the debate. I do not propose to allow a personal explanation now. Mr Howard —I note that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are abrogating a longstanding practice of this House to grant a certain degree of indulgence to Party leaders. If that is the pattern by which the Government is going to run this House, then the character of the House will change. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I put it to the Leader of the Opposition that this is not a matter that is anything to do with the Government. It is something I am doing now in conformity with my understanding of how this debate has run over a number of years. I will call the next speaker on my left in this debate. Mr Fife —I raise a further point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. What you have decided today is a break with tradition-that is, the tradition of calling the Leader of the Opposition when he feels he has need to address this House and when it is not in breach of Standing Orders. The Leader of the Opposition has explained to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that what he has to say is material to this debate. He will not be speaking in the debate and if you do not permit him to speak now, it will be the most disgraceful act that I can recall from anybody occupying that chair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am taking the view that this debate is proceeding, that there is a matter of public importance before the Chair. I have indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that I am more than happy to call him at the end of this debate which will be, I would think, in no more than 20 minutes. Or, if he wishes to participate in the debate, I will call him now. I am now able and willing to call someone on my left who wishes to participate in this debate. Mr Howard —I seek your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I wish to clarify the situation. Is it the case that you are refusing the leave now to make a personal explanation? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am indicating, as I did previously, that when there is a break in matters before the Chair-when there is no matter before the Chair-I will call you or any other honourable member who seeks the call on matters on which they have already approached the Chair in order to make a personal explanation. Mr Howard —With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am unsure of what you are doing. Are you refusing me leave? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have pointed out to you in what I think is quite clear language that I will call you if you wish to make a personal explanation when this matter is not before the Chair, which I understand will be in about 20 minutes, or I will call a person on my left to participate in the debate. Mr Howard —So we have a situation in which you are unwilling to tell me whether you are refusing me leave. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not think I can explain myself much more clearly. The Leader of the Opposition will either participate in the debate or resume his seat. Mr Howard —You are refusing me leave? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will not call you now to make a personal explanation. Mr Howard —You are refusing me leave? That is noted by the Opposition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat or part- icipate in the debate. As no-one else is seeking the call, I call the honourable member for Gippsland. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(3.55) —The flippant but totally dishonest charge flung by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) at the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is typical of the sordid, deceitful campaign that has marked the conduct of this referendum. I believe, as do all honourable members on this side of the House, that the charge he made against the Leader of the Opposition, almost as an aside, is of such a serious nature that it deserves to be answered by the Leader of the Opposition on the spot. This referendum campaign has been a very sorry exercise in partisan politics. If the Attorney-General wanted to make the campaign his last major achievement in a lifetime in politics, then I am sorry to have to say that he is leaving under a cloud. The Government has been biased and it has not been open and honest at any time during this campaign. This is the easiest brief for any lawyer to argue. We should have known that the conduct of the campaign would be biased and deceitful when the Labor Government abolished the Constitutional Convention, made up of Federal, State and local government representatives, and replaced it two years ago with its hand-picked Constitutional Commission. At a cost of $6m, that Commission set about tramping all over Australia arguing the case for the need for changes to the Constitution. That was of great assistance to the Government. The strategy of the Government was to capitalise on the bicentennial euphoria that has surrounded 1988. Some years ago Senator Gareth Evans gave us a clue about the Government's strategy for 1988 when, on 30 March 1983, he said: If we really build a momentum to 1988, succeed with fixed-term Parliaments, get in place a popularly elected convention, we have the potential to set in train some quite major structural reforms which will affect the quality of the way Australia is governed for decades to come. That tells us two things: first, that Labor was always going to capitalise on 1988; and, secondly, that these are not merely minor changes to the Constitution, but major fundamental changes to our system of government as well as to a number of our long held values and traditions. To continue the list of rorts in which the Government has engaged during the past few months, we note that the time allowed for debates about the referendum is only three months. The Bills were introduced on 10 May and they will be voted on on 3 September. Yet the Referendum Machinery Act allows six months. By the Government's own legislation it could have allowed six months, yet we are left with three months. As the Government realises now from opinion polls, these referendum questions will be defeated on Saturday. Is it any wonder that the Government wanted to cut the time for debate to an absolute minimum? Let us now refer to the wording of the questions. There would not be one single person in this chamber, on either side of the House, who really believes that the questions convey the true meaning of the changes to the Constitution. Leaving aside the phraseology, how can four questions properly summarise 33 changes to the Constitution-20 additions, eight deletions and five amendments? A total of 33 changes are hidden behind seemingly innocuous, bland questions. We need only refer to the words of the Managing Director of the Roy Morgan Research Centre, Mr Gary Morgan, when he said a couple of months ago: Any public opinion polling company who asked questions as blatantly biased as the Government proposes would completely lose credibility. The Government has engaged in a fraud. But it does not stop there. The Government has run for cover at every turn of the debate surrounding the referendum. This Attorney-General will not accept any invitation to debate the issues. The shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) has, on numerous occasions, challenged him to a debate, as have a number of media outlets, including the National Press Club. Yet the Attorney-General steadfastly refuses to debate the issues except in the parliamentary context where he makes a number of rambling, almost incoherent explanations about the four questions. Again, the Attorney-General revealed himself when he said on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio earlier this week: The Government's low key approach to the four questions has worked well so far . . . He went on to say that no politicians in the Labor Government should get involved. In fact, his exact quote is: The ALP machinery should not come into the debate at such a late stage. They've never been involved in it. This has been a different campaign because I wanted to keep politicians out. Mr Lionel Bowen —That is right. Mr McGAURAN —The Attorney-General agrees that politicians, representing as we do so much of the Australian electorate, should not have a say. Between us, the Opposition and the Government members represent 100 per cent of the Australian electorate, yet the Attorney-General has muzzled his own members. We on this side will not be muzzled. When the results of the vote are known next Saturday the Attorney-General will be totally and utterly repudiated. The rorts-there is no other word for it-and the fraud and the lying continued with the rigged tele- vision campaign at the expense of $3m. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable gentleman used an unparliamentary term. I would ask him to desist from using the term and to withdraw. Mr McGAURAN —I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. The dishonest and utterly misleading television campaign has blown up in the Government's face. This television campaign was supposedly to raise awareness of the need to vote on 3 September. The truth is that it was a deceitful attempt to assist the Yes campaign. In fact, the script was not even subtle. Honourable members on this side laugh at it because it was so obvious to any bush lawyer that the Government had attempted to influence the referendum. Sure enough, the High Court of Australia agreed with us when it struck out two of the three television advertisements. I now turn to the ticks and crosses. The fraud continues. We understand, at this stage at least, that four ticks will equal a Yes vote. But four crosses will not equal a No vote; four crosses is informal. Four ticks is yes; four crosses is informal. So all I can say to the Australian people up against this inbuilt barrier is, `For heaven's sake, vote `Yes' or `No' if you really want to get your message across'-but, of course, we are voting No. There is nothing fair about four ticks equalling a Yes vote and four crosses being rendered informal. It is important that the Australian people know that the Opposition put up a Bill to rectify this inbuilt injustice, and the Government rejected it. The Attorney-General has been at pains time and time again to reassure Australians and to tell us that there is no hidden agenda-as if the wording of the questions is not enough to signal the Government's true intention. The Constitutional Commission, the child of the Labor Government, made 80 separate recommendations for constitutional change in its first report and there will be many more in its second report due after 3 September. So people just have to understand that the Labor Government intends to redraft the Constitution to fulfil its own national platform. Quite frankly, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) admitted as much when he addressed the national conference in Hobart on 3 June. He said: We have now started a process of the agenda of reform. He went on to say that the work of the Constitutional Commission will `not be lost, because it covers a very wide spectrum of what we're about, and we have a very realistic agenda for gradual reform'. The campaign has been one of misinformation, deceit and utter dishonesty. I very much regret that the Attorney-General has been so deeply associated with it. The intervention by the churches in regard to question No. 4, the freedom of religion question, should set alarm bells ringing, not just to the implications of that question but to all the other questions as well. That question No. 4, having within it three separate questions, was always a double-edged sword. It now impales the Government, because it believed that, if it included a question involving freedom of religion, people would have to go along with the other two. Now that question will almost certainly be rejected, and the other two will sink with it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(4.05) —It was incredible to listen to the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). Of course, it was very good to see that he had all the National Party of Australia members there supporting him. The reason they are supporting him is that it is the Nationals who have hijacked the Liberals' policy on this matter. It is the National Party that has the most to lose with respect to the question of fair and democratic elections, and it is no wonder that they are here to listen to what the honourable member for Gippsland had to say. They talk about the Government being unfair and not doing everything democratically. But what the honourable member for Gippsland did not tell Parliament is that the Government at least tried to rectify the ticks and crosses question. On 6 June it tried to introduce legislation to provide that a `yes' or a `no' in writing would have been sufficient. But what happened? The Opposition in the Senate refused to allow it. So much for our supposedly trying to mislead the public. The honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) rambled on in his quite eloquent way, as he normally does. He is a person with much experience, having held the job of Leader of the Opposition and many others. He said to us that he is against the four proposals. I want to ask him this question: How did he vote in the shadow Cabinet? The shadow Cabinet of the Liberal Party agreed to accept two of the referendum questions; namely, the one relating to constitutional recognition of local government and the one relating to fair and democratic elections. But what happened? I will tell honourable members what happened. In the meantime, the National Party was worried about its situation in Queensland. Senator Stone, the person who seems to be calling the shots in this Opposition-not the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), but Senator Stone-was able to convince honourable members opposite on their party floor to go against the whole four referendum questions. Today's debate has been another attempt by this Opposition to give impetus to that concerted campaign it has waged over the last couple of months to deliberately distort the facts, to try to bring about a scaremongering attitude in the community and to confuse the public. If some members of the public are turning around to the Opposition's way of thinking, it is not because the Opposition has come out with any reasoned argument but rather because they have been utterly and totally confused by some of the deliberate campaign tactics that have been used by the Opposition in this referendum debate. The Opposition is running scared. When it can no longer attack the logic of the proposals, it tries to attack the Government's independent handling of the referendum, claiming we have been unfair. The fact is-I suppose honourable members opposite were talking about the advertisements-that we have not only the opinion of two Queen's Counsel but also another opinion which states that there was nothing unfair about them. The fact is that there was nothing unfair about them at all. We can go only on the opinions we receive. It is a furphy to try to confuse the public as to what this is all about. The true reason why these referendum questions-which I believe should have received bipartisan approval, certainly from the Liberal Party-have been totally and utterly confused is simply that the Leader of the Opposition nowadays wants to preach confrontation rather than worry about what the people want and what we might think is the best thing in terms of fixing up that very old Constitution which even the Liberal Party says quite categorically in its policy should be changed. In case honourable members opposite do not have a copy of their policy, I have one here for them. As I said, the Liberal shadow Cabinet approved these questions. But what happened? Senator Stone, as usual, along with the Leader of the National Party of Australia, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), hijacked the debate completely. What is the position? Why are honourable members opposite so adamant about saying no to all these referendum questions? I will tell you why. It is because, as the National Party knows, the only jewel in the crown the National Party has is Queensland. I do not know for how much longer it will have it; nevertheless it has it. It is the only jewel it has. On a State by State basis, most National Party members come from Queensland. What has been happening in Queensland is absolutely atrocious. The Premier has spent some $80,000-- Mr McGauran —Eight hundred thousand. Mr SCIACCA —I thank the honourable member. He has spent $800,000 to try to confuse the people and to convince them to say they do not want any of the referendum questions carried. What the National Party really means is that it does not want the second question carried because, in case honourable members do not know-I refer this to the honourable member for Gippsland-the gerrymander in Queensland is definitely the best example of gerrymandering. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong, said that the question of fair and democratic elections is up to the States. Is he suggesting that if the States cheat, as they do in Queensland, we should allow that to continue? In every election, six out of 10 Queenslanders effectively vote to end the gerrymander. But the value of their vote is diminished by the very system that they are protesting against. A lot has been said with respect to some of the more stark examples. Honourable members have heard of the doughnut principle and a number of other principles. But when somebody in one seat has a vote worth only a third of that of someone in another seat that has to be stopped. That is what this referendum proposal No. 2 is all about. That is what the Opposition is very scared about. Despite the ramblings of the honourable member for Gippsland, he knows that this is what it is all about. He is hoping that, by saying vote no to all the questions, people in the community will be sufficiently confused to vote no to question No. 2. There is no point in his laughing about it, because he knows that that is the truth. To illustrate the effectiveness of the Queensland gerrymander, four of the six largest electorates in Queensland are Labor held seats. The five smallest electorates are all National Party seats. In the 1986 State election the Labor Party won 30 seats, and had to average 17,000-odd votes per seat to achieve that. The Liberals won 10 seats and averaged 17,000 votes per seat as well. The National Party won 21 seats in the western, far northern and country zones but averaged a mere 6,800 votes. I cannot understand why the Liberal Party is so stupid to accept what the National Party has told it on this occasion, because in real terms it affects the Liberal Party just as much as it affects us. We have the unbelievable situation that, when the shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), who is the President of the Queensland Liberal Party, puts on his Federal hat he says no, while when he is in Queensland he says yes. Of course, we all know that there is not much difference between the Liberals in New South Wales, Victoria or Queensland. They have adopted a two-bob each way attitude-those who support the Queensland Liberals should say yes, while those who support the Federal Liberals should say no. How absolutely ridiculous. In fact the honourable member for Ryan has become known in Queensland as something of a court jester. The shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), has been crisscrossing the country and telling everybody about the 33 amendments that will occur with the passage of the four referendum questions. The fact is that a lot of those relate to technical arguments. Again, the Liberals are trying to confuse the public. Not only has he done that; he has also told deliberate untruths, with the Local Government Association and certain local government bodies in South Australia finding it necessary to put out press releases to repudiate them. I do not care about what was said here today by the shadow Attorney-General and other members of the Opposition concerning withdrawing this proposal. The fact is that it is here in black and white in the press release-and they talk about the Government being unfair and undemocratic! The press release from the South Australian Local Government Association states: The Federal Opposition's `No' campaign to prevent recognition of local government in the Federal Constitution in next Saturday's referendum has been rejected by South Australian councils as a scurrilous attempt to politicise local government in South Australia . . . The announcement, on ABC radio, has created a furore in Port Augusta, the council referred to by the Opposition . . . And on it goes. In addition, we have already heard from the Attorney-General about the letter, dated 25 August, from the Australian Local Government Association to the Leader of the Opposition, appealing to his sense of fair play. That Australian Local Government Association has turned around and virtually said that what the shadow Attorney-General has said was absolutely untrue. If anyone has been unfair in this referendum debate it has been the Opposition, not the Government. If anyone has been undemocratic, it has been the Opposition, not the Government. There is no question about that, and I ask the public to vote yes on all referendum questions and to not be intimidated by the scare- mongering tactics of the Opposition. Mr Howard —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Is the Leader of the Opposition seeking to speak to the matter of public importance? Mr Howard —I am seeking to contribute briefly. If that is not allowed, I will seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the Leader of the Opposition is seeking to make a personal explanation on the basis of being misrepresented-- Mr Howard —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —He may fairly anticipate that, and I will resolve the debate forthwith. The discussion is concluded. I now call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —During the debate there was an exchange between the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and me regarding the attitude of the Opposition to the first referendum question. I think it important that I set out the sequence of events, because they involved exchanges between the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on behalf of the Government and me on behalf of the Opposition. The House would be aware that I asked the Prime Minister some months ago whether it might be possible to have a bipartisan approach on question No. 1. He indicated a willingness to talk to me. I subsequently saw the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General in the Prime Minister's office. I said to both of them that the Opposition would support a four-year proposal for the House of Representatives, provided it was accompanied by eight years for the Senate. I also said, importantly, that we would support yet a further amendment to the Constitution providing in effect that, if the Senate sent the House to an early election, the Senate too would have to go in its entirety to that election. Mr Lionel Bowen —You could not guarantee that. Mr HOWARD —That is what I put. It is of no use the Attorney-General interrupting. The more serious part of the misrepresentation is that, during the debate, the Attorney-General said by way of a reply to an interjection that I had raised the option of five years. The Attorney would remember as well as I do that as I was about to leave the Prime Minister's Office the Prime Minister, almost out of left field, said, `Let's have some lateral thinking; what about five years for both?' It was the Prime Minister who suggested five years. I know that the Attorney was a bit stunned, because obviously the Prime Minister had not talked to him about it. That was the sequence of events. I said that we would support him on a particular basis; I said that unless the Senate was looked after and the position of the Senate was preserved there was no way on earth-- Mr Lionel Bowen —Preserve the position. Mr HOWARD —I make no apologies; we are preserving the position of the Senate. For the benefit of the Parliament and the Australian public, I just want to correct this business about five years. That was the Prime Minister's suggestion; it was not my suggestion. It shocked and surprised the Attorney and, therefore, I am not amazed that the Attorney should be confused as to who suggested it, because obviously the matter had not been discussed within the ranks of the Government. However, it was the Prime Minister who suggested five years and not me, and it is the Attorney-General's fault and not ours that there is not bipartisan agreement on this issue. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —The Attorney-General claims to have been misrepresented? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I claim to have been misrepresented in respect of the matter that has just been mentioned. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) quite fairly has put what he thinks is the position, and he has said it with some conviction. In the context of that, he also said that I would know that what was said about five years for both was said by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I think the Leader of the Opposition's recollection is wrong. Mr Howard —Oh, Lionel! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think his re-collection is wrong. He acknowledges it was said. Mr Howard —Oh, Lionel! You have to be joking! You are a decent man. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It would appear that both gentlemen, who undoubtedly are speaking from personal conviction, are unlikely to reach a point of agreement on the matter. I do not think the House should be required to engage in continuing debate on something which cannot be resolved. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I agree, except to say that I did not misrepresent the position, although the Leader of the Opposition thinks that I did. As to when five years for both was mentioned, I am convinced, as he is equally convinced, as to who said it. The interesting thing is that nothing was said after that. I find that unusual. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —I wish to make a further personal explanation, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —The Leader of the Opposition again claims to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, I do, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed on that point. Mr HOWARD —The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) says that it is odd. Can I just say to the Attorney-General, to correct that, that the proposition that the Government has put is for simultaneous terms of four years. As a matter of logic, an individual or a party that wants simultaneous terms of four years would be far more likely to suggest simultaneous terms of five years than a person or a party that wanted different terms. With the greatest of respect, the Attorney-General's recollection is completely wrong. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! I bring the personal explanations to a conclusion. Clearly, this defies resolution within the confines of the House. Dr Harry Edwards —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: Just before you closed the debate I sought to catch your eye to ask, by indulgence-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no debate before the House. The honourable member for Berowra is under a misapprehension. Dr Harry Edwards —I sought to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, before you closed the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —To which debate does the honourable member for Berowra refer? Is it the matter of public importance? Dr Harry Edwards —I did seek indulgence to ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether it can be checked that the letters in respect of local government that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) referred to at Question Time and in the debate all pre-date the day, 10 May, when we first saw the small print of the Government's proposals and we learnt that the third question referred to `a system of local government', which first alerted us to the dangers and difficulties associated with this referendum. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Berowra has exhausted the indulgence that he rather presumed. He will resume his seat. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Madam Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House of the appointment of Senators Durack, Macklin and Morris to the Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Madam Speaker has received advice from the Prime Minister nominating members to be members of the Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979, the following members be appointed members of the Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation: Mr Cross, Mr McGauran, Mr Milton and Mr Wright. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: That Mr R. J. Brown be discharged from attendance on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, and that, in his place, Mr Sawford be appointed a member of the Committee. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(4.22) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of National Medical Cyclotron facility, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney. The proposed public work provides for the construction of a building at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney to house the national medical cyclotron, associated laboratories and facilities for radiopharmaceutical production. The work also includes refurbishment of a nearby patient clinical facility to house a positron emission tomography (PET) camera and a rapid transfer system linking it with the cyclotron building. The need for a medical cyclotron in Australia has been mooted for almost 20 years. The present proposal is the outcome of extensive objective appraisal by Government, the Australian scientific and medical communities and invited experts from overseas with significant experience in cyclotrons and the introduction of new medical technologies. The national medical cyclotron will have a significant impact on the future of diagnostic nuclear medicine in Australia. It will be used to produce radioisotopes for the immediate medical application of ultra short-life radioisotopes in the clinical PET centre facility at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, and for nationwide distribution, to other major hospitals in Australia, of the longer life radioisotopes used in other medical applications. In this latter role, the cyclotron will complement the reactor HIFAR at Lucas Heights and will ensure that the complete range of radioisotopes is, for the first time, readily accessible to medicine in Australia. The cyclotron and associated laboratories will be housed in the one building. It will comprise a basement for the storage and treatment of radioactive waste, a ground floor to accommodate the cyclotron and laboratories, and a first floor for offices and plant room. The cyclotron will be the focus of the building and will be housed within a 1.9 metre thick concrete vault. Careful consideration has been given to the safe handling of radioactive substances, drawing on 25 years relevant experience at the Lucas Heights research laboratories. To prevent accidental releases, the facility has been designed on the principle of double containment and all waste products will be controlled. An essential feature of the total proposal is the refurbishment of part of the second floor of the hospital's Albert Pavilion to house the PET centre in the mainstream clinical area. The PET camera weighs two tonnes and is being funded separately by the hospital and will greatly enhance the hospital's diagnostic and research capabilities. Patients will inhale or receive an injection of small amounts of radioactive tracer processed through the pharmaceutical laboratories which are integral with the cyclotron building. The gamma rays emitted by the tracer are detected by the PET camera which surrounds the patient. The information is computer processed to produce cross sectional maps of the trace distribution within patients. The third major component of the work is the construction of a transfer system to deliver the products of the cyclotron to the patients in the PET centre. Because of the very short radioactive half lives of the radioisotopes used in PET, their time in transit must be minimal. The cyclotron building will be linked to the PET centre by an underground conduit between the buildings. The cyclotron building has been designed to follow the pavilion style of other buildings in the hospital complex. The Council of the City of Sydney has approved a development application for the proposal and the New South Wales State authorities are satisfied that the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been met. In the light of these approvals which clearly indicate that the cyclotron will not have a significant impact on the environment, my colleague the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), who is responsible for the proposal, is satisfied that the provisions of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 do not need to be invoked. Neither the Heritage Council of New South Wales nor the National Trust of Australia has objected to the demolition of existing buildings that is implicit in the proposal. The limit of cost estimate for the building works totals $8.9m at January 1988 prices. This is slightly less than half the total project cost, including equipment, consultant fees and training et cetera. Early consideration by the Public Works Committee is required in order to secure the benefit of the tendered price for the preferred cyclotron type before the expiry of the validity period at the end of this year. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation proposes to manage and supervise construction of the cyclotron as well as the installation and commissioning of major equipment. In collaboration, the hospital planning staff will manage and supervise construction of the PET facility and transfer link. Total completion is envisaged in about 20 months from approval. I table plans and details of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr PORTER(Barker)(4.29) —The Opposition welcomes the reference of this proposal to the Joint Committee on Public Works. As an Opposition ex-spokesman for health I recall that back in about 1985 there was a great deal of discussion about the building of a cyclotron facility. I note that the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) reports to the House that the need for a medical cyclotron in Australia has been mooted for almost 20 years, so it has been some time coming. In about October 1985 the National Health Technology Advisory Panel gave a report to the Minister for Health in relation to this proposal. That report covered a number of matters including the feasibility of establishing a cyclotron both to produce the material used by nuclear medicine laboratories and also to feed a positron emission tomography (PET) camera. I am not a specialist in this very highly technical area but I understand that that report to the Minister discussed the commercial viability of the proposal. In some respects I think the viability was reliant on the production and sale of iodine-123. I understand that the technological advances in the intervening three years since that report was handed to the Minister have resulted in alternatives to iodine-123 being used. I therefore ask the Public Works Committee to look at the viability of this proposal and to see whether it is still timely. I am not suggesting that it is not timely. As the Minister says, this has been mooted for 20 years and, as it is a fairly fast changing area of nuclear medicine and alternatives are now in use, I am suggesting that the Public Works Committee report back to the House as to, one, the viability of this proposal and, two, whether this is the best use of the money that we will be spending, or whether that money should be spent on more modern technology. I do not know the answer to that and I would therefore like the Committee to report on it. I understand that it is within the terms of reference of the Public Works Committee. The other matter that I raise results from the fact that the short radioactive half-life of the radioisotopes used in PET means their time in transit must be minimal. The Government has obviously taken a decision to establish only one of these units. As described by the Minister, the cost of this is $8.9m for half the total project cost. It is quite an expensive project. The Public Works Committee ought to look at whether this is the best way to go. I think that the Austin Hospital in Melbourne wanted a similar plant. I am not sure whether there are smaller cyclotron facilities now available which are capable of being purchased by the Government. Perhaps we could have smaller facilities in a couple of the major capital cities instead of putting all our eggs in one basket. Again, I do not know the answer to that. It may not be technologically or economically feasible to introduce this new technology into two hospitals in Australia rather than only Sydney. I would again like some answers. I remember that at the time it was a matter of debate as to which hospital or which couple of hospitals would get this facility. I imagine that debate is continuing. Whilst I do not want to take the project away from Sydney, if it is possible to introduce a couple of these facilities-perhaps in Sydney and Melbourne-and if it is current technology, the Australian community would be well served. The third point that the Committee will want to review is whether, given the advice from the specialist committees, this is wise expenditure of the health dollar. I suspect that it is but again I would like the Public Works Committee to look at that question and report back to the House. Certainly nuclear medicine is one of the faster growing areas of medicine and one which is proving to be very important in the diagnosis of disease. In that respect I imagine the Public Works Committee will report very favourably on this request. Nevertheless, I raise those three points and would like the Public Works Committee to take them into account when it reports to this House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(3.05) —I move: That, in accordance with the provision of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Development of new utility helicopter facilities, phases 2, at Royal Australian Air Force Base, Townsville and Oakey Army Airfield, Qld. The proposed work is for the provision of operational support and administrative facilities at Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Base, Townsville, and Oakey Army Airfield in support of the second phase of delivery of the new Sikorsky Black Hawk helicopters. The proposal was referred to the Public Works Committee on 14 April 1988 and the Committee has duly reported to the Parliament recommending the construction of the facilities. Construction of the Phase 1 works at RAAF Base, Townsville, which are for facilities to accommodate a squadron to be equipped with the first 14 of the Black Hawk helicopters, was approved by the House in April 1987. A number of these facilities have been completed and occupied by the Army. The remaining works will be completed shortly. Since that time the purchase of 25 additional helicopters has been approved. Control of these battlefield helicopters is being assumed by the Army over a five year period. To this end the Army is raising a unit known as 5th Aviation Regiment at RAAF Base, Townsville, which will provide tactical air support to combat elements of the operational deployment force. Once the Black Hawk helicopters become operational the Army proposes to conduct conversion and operational training for aircrew and maint- enance personnel at Oakey Army Airfield, 150 kilometres west of Brisbane. At both bases there is a need to upgrade and extend existing operational, technical and administrative facilities to accommodate both new personnel and equipment and the relocation of existing operational units. The proposed work at RAAF Base, Townsville, includes works associated with the Army's new 5th Aviation Regiment and with the relocation of the existing RAAF No. 35 Squadron consisting of the extension and upgrading of buildings for headquarters facilities, flightline facilities, technical support and store facilities; the extension of hangars to accommodate the Black Hawk helicopters and relocated Caribou aircraft and workshop facilities; the provision of new single living in accommodation for 248 persons and the upgrading of security services and engineering services. When this proposal was referred to the Public Works Committee, I indicated there was a need for additional married quarters in the Townsville area to house the increased married personnel who were associated with the basing of the 5th Aviation Regiment at RAAF Base, Townsville. Provision of these houses was to be undertaken separately by the Defence Housing Authority and was therefore not included in the proposal referred to the Committee. During the hearing of the proposal, the Defence Housing Authority did however provide details to the Committee of the possible number of houses required and the various alternative delivery methods available. The Committee in its report has concluded that this housing should have been referred to the Committee as part of the reference. I have been advised that although the exact number of houses required and their methods of delivery by the Defence Housing Authority are still to be finalised, the bulk of the housing will be obtained from either available houses from the Defence Housing Authority's existing stock in the Townsville area, or through acquisition of existing and new project homes. Acquisition proposals of this nature are not public works which are required to be referred to the Committee. The number and cost of houses likely to be constructed on Commonwealth land and so be considered a public work would fall well below the $6m figure which would require separate referral to the Committee. Under the circumstances, the briefing of the Committee by the Defence Housing Authority during the public hearing is considered an appropriate method of handling this aspect. The cost of the facilities at RAAF Base, Townsville, as recommended by the Committee is $19.2m at October 1987 prices. This equates to $20.9m at August 1988 prices. Subject to the approval of the House to proceed, it is intended that construction will commence in late 1988 with completion scheduled by mid-1990. During this construction period the on-site work force is expected to peak at about 100 by mid-1989. The proposed work at Oakey Army Airfield includes extension of buildings for aircrew training facilities and maintenance personnel training facilities; extension of technical facilities, including a maintenance hangar, workshop and storage facilities; provision of an enclosed aircraft shelter for the six Black Hawk helicopters to be stationed at Oakey; and the extension of the existing aircraft apron and taxiway. The cost of the proposed work at Oakey as recommended by the Committee is $5m at October 1987 prices. This equates to $5.5m at August 1988 prices. Subject to the approval of the House to proceed, construction is planned to commence in early-1989 with a construction time of approximately 10 months. This will allow transfer of training courses to Oakey in early-1990. The on-site work force at Oakey is expected to number about 40 during the peak construction period. I would like to thank the Committee for the support that it has given to this proposal and I commend the motion to the House. Mr PORTER(Barker)(4.43) —The Opposition welcomes the Government's proposal: it will provide a much needed upgrading of Australian Defence Force facilities. We on the Opposition side have been deeply concerned for some time about the rundown in Defence Force numbers; the lack of appropriate equipment for the defence forces; and the lack of appropriate facilities. Whilst this proposal is only a small step, at least it is a step in the right direction. I raise with the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) the concerns of the Joint Committee on Public Works, which I share. The Minister says that only part of the total project was referred to the Committee-not the total project-because of some technical matter whereby the housing that will be required for some of the personnel at the facility was to be acquired through some means and, therefore, did not come within the guidelines established for reference to the Public Works Committee. I do not accept that excuse. I do not think that the Public Works Committee can do its job with only half a reference. Part of its job is to look at the totality of a project and see whether it is a cost effective way of meeting the goals that the Government has set. By referring only part of a project to the Committee, it cannot do its job properly. The Government has to get its act together. This is not the first time that we have had instances of referrals with insufficient details being made to the Committee. In some instances, referrals have not been made at all. It appears that the Committee picked up information on these married quarter facilities during the inquiry and took evidence on it. It has made it very clear what its view is. It says: On the basis of the information provided by the Defence Housing Authority the Committee concludes that the housing is an integral component of the overall project and that the houses to be constructed using the mechanisms of project housing, the house and land package, and land purchase with project homes involve construction and are therefore a public work. I do not know how the Minister thinks that they do not involve a public work. The excuse he has given today is paper thin; it is pathetic. He would be better off getting these things right at the start rather than coming in here and making pathetic apologies. The Committee's report continues: As a result, the Committee concludes that the houses to be constructed using those mechanisms should have been referred to the Committee as part of the reference. I do not question that. I think the Committee is right and the Minister is wrong. It is about time the Minister got his act together. This is not the first time this has happened. With a number of projects he has rushed in here at the last moment seeking a variation of the normal rules of reference because the Government has not got its act together and wants to get on with a project without even referring it to the Public Works Committee. That is just not good enough. A lot of taxpayers' money is being spent. The Public Works Committee was established to serve a purpose-to advise this House as to the advisability and viability of projects that the Government proposes. If the Government does not want to put projects through that Committee, why does it not just say so? Why does it not come into the House and say, `We are going to scrap the Committee', and let us have a debate on it, because it will lose: it will lose its own members on that. If we are to have that Committee, let us treat it with the respect it deserves and refer to it the total project work so that it can make a proper assessment of proposed government works. It is no good sending the Committee off ill-advised and without full information. I repeat: Whilst we welcome the Public Works Committee's recommendation-my colleague the shadow Minister for Defence, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) will make some more comments on the defence aspects-we warn the Government that we will be reviewing closely this tendency towards sloppy administration by this Minister in the reference of works to the Public Works Committee. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(4.48) —I congratulate the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) on his initiative in putting this motion before the House. This is a wonderful initiative for the Australian Defence Force and also for the economic benefit of the people of Townsville. The Hawke Government is purchasing 39 Sikorsky S70A9 Black Hawk battlefield helicopters to replace its existing Iroquois helicopter fleet. The Black Hawk is being acquired to meet specific Australian Army battlefield functions, as I have said previously in this House. Unlike all other multi-role aircraft, the Black Hawk will operate solely within the ground warfare environment. In November 1986 the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) announced that the battlefield helicopters would be transferred from the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) to the Army over the next five years. The integration of the helicopters into the Army-although it has not been greeted well by the RAAF-reflects the Government's emphasis on mobility as the key requirement for Australia's ground forces. In other words, the provision of the Black Hawk helicopters will provide tactical air support to combat elements of the operational deployment force. There has been an Air Force presence in Townsville since the late 1930s. It has been the northern area headquarters, and later the north-eastern area's headquarters, since the Second World War. The existing facilities on the base are a mixture of buildings dating from the war and modern buildings. The RAAF Base, Townsville is the only permanent Air Force establishment in northern Queensland. The main functions of the base are to provide tactical air support to Army combat elements of the operational deployment force and combat survival training; air traffic control services; air-sea search and rescue about the airfield; support for deployed elements of the RAAF's strike and tactical fighter forces; and staging services for maritime and transport aircraft. The acquisition of the Black Hawk helicopters is planned to occur in two phases. The first phase provides for the re-equipment of the helicopter squadron, No. 9 Squadron, with 14 Black Hawk helicopters. Phase 2 provides 16 aircraft for the balance of the company group lift for the Operational Deployment Force, as well as six aircraft for training purposes to be located at Oakey army airfield, and three attrition aircraft. No. 9 Squadron, equipped with 14 Black Hawk helicopters, will relocate to Townsville in early 1989 and will be accommodated in the new facilities to be constructed as part of phase 1 of the works. The Army will raise a unit, known as 5 Aviation Regiment, at Townsville, which will provide all the necessary requirements for the complete operation of A Squadron and B Squadron of the Regiment. Phase 2 of the project provides for the delivery of Black Hawk helicopters which is planned to commence in July 1989 and be completed in September 1990. Another pleasing aspect of this motion is the fact that during the construction period the on-site work force is expected to be about 100 employees by mid-1989. Of course, this will be of tremendous benefit for the people of Townsville, with the provision not only of employment opportunities but also of services for those employees working on the project. I would like also to record the thanks of this House and the people of Australia to Flight Lieutenant Ian Glendenning who has played such a sterling role in the administration of this particular project and who has had such an involvement in this project. I would like to thank him also for the enormous amount of work he has done in organisation and administration, and generally seeing to the completion of a wide range of improvements at RAAF Base Garbutt. He has been responsible for the administration and supervision of the upgrading of a major hangar and single airmen's and single airwomen's accommodation-which is now among the best in Australia. In other words, a host of facilities has been upgraded during his time at RAAF Base Garbutt. I believe-I know that my belief is shared by many people in the RAAF-that his services deserve the highest commendation for performance of duty and for service to his country. I also would like to place on record the thanks of the people of Australia to the Chairman of the Public Works Committee, the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), the Vice-Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) and other members of the Committee for the speed with which they have dealt with this particular reference. This project is an urgent one. Phase 2 of the works must be commenced and completed as soon as possible to meet the time frame for delivery of phase 2 of the Black Hawk helicopters. Despite the problems that were encountered in the course of the evidence that was taken at Townsville, I would like to place on record the thanks for the competence with which the members of the Public Works Committee performed their tasks in the taking of evidence, the assessing of evidence and the production of its report. It is one of the better reports that I have seen produced in this Parliament. I know that the people reading the record of this debate will place no emphasis whatsoever on the comments made by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). They are irrelevant to the present motion. There are many occasions on which urgency motions are moved in this House in respect of Public Works matters. The fact of the matter is that the people of Townsville have taken a lot of interest in the redevelopment of RAAF Base Garbutt for the location of the Black Hawk helicopters. They know what work is required. They support the work done there. They support the work of the Public Works Committee. They support this motion. I would like to commend all those involved in the work to date on the Black Hawk helicopter facilities at Townsville and thank all who have been involved in the preparation of this report. I commend the motion for support in the House. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(4.55) —I note with interest that the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) has spoken to this motion, as well he might. He takes a great deal of interest in defence matters in his own electorate. I also know how important this matter is to him because of the hard time he is getting from all the defence personnel in his area. We support the provision of these facilities in Townsville and in Oakey. It is about time something was done to make life in the Services more bearable and bring it up to scratch-to the same standard and conditions which pertain to the civilian work force. It is interesting to note that this motion has been moved a week or so after the defence budget was brought down in this house. The point must be made that, despite all the posturings of the Government about defence expenditure, the 1988-89 defence budget represents the lowest proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) for the last 40 years. Mr Lindsay —It is 2.4 per cent. Mr WHITE —A defence budget of 2.4 per cent of GDP is the lowest defence budget, as a proportion of GDP, for 40 years. However, honourable members posture in this House and around the country, saying how they are looking after servicemen and how much money is being spent on defence. Honourable members opposite know better than anybody else that the record losses from the defence forces month after month are debilitating the services to the extent that the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) can no longer be called an operational arm of the Defence Force, because too many of its units are just not capable of operating to the capacity expected of an operational unit. Honourable members opposite know that better than anyone else. It is time that this myth of Labor Government support for defence personnel was exposed. For 40 years there has never been a lower defence budget in this country. I will have more to say in the Budget debate on this matter. The new helicopters are a very necessary addition to the Australian Defence Force (ADF). Of course, the facilities that go with them to service them, maintain them and to look after the people who fly them and maintain them, are very important. It is particularly important that some of these helicopters are located in Townsville and that that mobility is given to the Operational Deployment Force. That force has very limited mobility at present. It is an absolute joke for anyone in Australia or any of our friends or allies in this region to think that we have the capacity to give those friends and allies meaningful assistance should they require it. One does not need to labour the point. The honourable member for Herbert is shaking his head. However, he knows very well that were we required to do something in Fiji, Vanuatu, Noumea or, perhaps, New Guinea-which is looking increasingly unstable-we would not have the capacity to move troops in meaningful numbers. Nor do we have the capacity present to move one single Black Hawk helicopter by sea off shore from Australia. It is a joke with our allies and friends that we pretend to be some sort of power in this region and attempt to project some influence in the region. They look at what we have and at our capacity and say: `Who is fooling whom?' Now we are being provided with Black Hawke helicopters. That is good. Why do not honourable members opposite turn their minds to some sort of mobility for these Black Hawke helicopters if we have to move them off shore? As a start, why does the Government not look at the Jervis Bay and do something about bringing it back into the regular Navy by turning it from a training ship into a regular force ship? At least it would give us the capacity to move a few of these helicopters. It is absolutely ridiculous that the Government has not turned its mind to giving us some off shore capacity in this country. The Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) comes in here and talks about Australia's capacity to have some influence in the region. The capacity is absolutely nil and the Government knows it. The other question which must be raised when talking about Black Hawk helicopters is: Are we really going to have anyone left to fly and maintain them? The ADF in many units is collapsing. The sorriest story of the lot is in the RAAF: 123 pilots left last year. In one month of this financial year 42 RAAF pilots either left the service or indicated that that they would leave. In normal circumstances we train about only 75 pilots a year. Even the training has been cut back because of a lack of qualified flying instructors. Mr Lindsay —What has this got to do with the motion? Mr WHITE —The motion is about Black Hawk helicopters. It is all very well to provide facilities for Black Hawk helicopters and their crews, but the question that has to be asked is: `Are we going to have the crews to fly them and maintain them?' The report of the Public Works Committee makes the point that these helicopters will, over a five-year period, be handed over to the Australian Army to fly and maintain. Although that decision was controversial at the time, it is now an accepted decision and the Opposition supports it. There is absolutely no way, when we come to government, that that decision will be reversed. The Minister's report to the House also mentions the question of housing. Single room accommodation will be provided for those who choose to live on base. It is high time that it was provided. When one goes around Army or Defence Force bases and sees the condition under which soldiers, airmen and sailors are required to live-four to a room, cramped together, no privacy and no facilities-it is no wonder that they are leaving in droves. Those facilities, while they might have been acceptable years ago, are no longer acceptable standards in 1988. When the officers go out and visit their civilian friends and see what is regarded as normal in civilian life and come back to conditions under which they are expected to live they immediately become dissatisfied. There is also a proposal to acquire 13 additional married quarters as part of this package for Townsville. I see that 42 of them are to be transferred from the Army to the RAAF. If it is those Army quarters with which I am familiar in the Lavarack area, let me say that most of them are an absolute disgrace. Again, it is no wonder that people who are required to live in those houses are leaving the Services. To my knowledge, some of them were so lacking in maintenance that the floorboards in the bathrooms were falling out and the occupants could not get them fixed for months. Mr Lindsay —They have been fixed. Mr WHITE —I am pleased to hear that that has been improved. The Defence Housing Authority is heading in the right direction by making improvements to these quarters. The point I make, without harking back to who is responsible-various governments over the years have been-is that those dog boxes that were constructed row after row in the Townsville area should never have been built. There is no concrete underneath and there are no verandas around the houses. To expect people to live in them and be happy and serve as productive servicemen and women is asking the impossible. I notice that new houses are to be constructed. Some will be purchased and some will be leased. I hope that they will be spread around the town. Some people like to live in Army containments; some like to live in the normal civilian areas. That is a matter of choice and, as far as possible, people should be give that choice. There is no doubt that Townsville is becoming an important Defence Force base and that proper facilities must be provided. I am not sure-and I would very much doubt it, looking at some of the proposals for Darwin-whether air-conditioning is going to be provided in these houses. I do not think it is. I seriously urge the Minister to look at the proposal for air-conditioning. It is not a unique thing in 1988. Something that we can discuss later is the fact that air-conditioning has not ever been provided in the married quarters in Darwin, only air-cooling. There is a great difference between the facilities provided for defence personnel and those provided for public servants. In my view it is absolutely essential that air-conditioning be provided in Townsville and Darwin. It is simply not productive to put people in these dog boxes-hopefully they will soon be better-and not give them air-conditioning. It is just another case of dissatisfaction. The Army Aviation Centre, which has been at Oakey for sometime, is labouring under facilities which are certainly substandard. I am very pleased to see that the facilities there are being improved. Oakey is and will continue to be a very important Defence Force establishment. The decision to conduct the operational conversion training there was a sensible one. I am very pleased to see these limited facilities being provided. I hope we never go back to the stage where the facilities that are provided do not relate to those in the civilian community, because if that gulf between civilian standards and Defence Force standards continues to widen then the loss rate from the Services will continue at record levels. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Industrial Relations)(5.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Introduction The Government Business Enterprises (Miscellaneous Reforms) Bill 1988 gives effect to the first of what will be a wide-ranging series of measures to reform government business enterprises. These measures reflect the Government's continuing commitment to improving the efficiency of the federal public sector. That commitment was enunciated in the Australian Labor Party's 1983 policy statement `Labor and Quality of Government'. It was reflected in the Government's December 1983 policy paper, `Reforming the Australian Public Service' and again in the `Policy Guidelines for Commonwealth Statutory Authorities and Government Business Enterprises' tabled by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) in October 1987. The policy guidelines established processes for better defining and expressing the objectives which enterprises serve and against which their performance could be evaluated. They also acknowledged the need to reduce the extent of government controls over their operations. The thrust of the guidelines is to devolve responsibility-to let managers manage-with appropriate accountability for results. The Treasurer (Mr Keating), in the 1988 May economic statement, referred to this Government's pursuit of wide-ranging policies directed at improving the operation of domestic markets and the efficiency with which resources are used. As part of this, the Government is conducting fundamental reviews of the principal Government business enterprises. The first results of this task were seen in the statement by the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) on 25 May 1988, `Reshaping the Transport and Communications Government Business Enterprises'. Under the proposals spelt out in the Minister's statement, the emphasis will be placed on planning and accountability for results. Enterprises will be expected to plan in advance their major financial and operational goals and the measures required to achieve them, including the achievement of community service obligations; to work towards pre-set financial targets; and to report on success in meeting those targets and other previously identified performance indicators. Integral to the new arrangements is the clear delineation of responsibilities between the Government as owner-shareholder, the enterprise board and enterprise management. The board and management will be largely free of government day to day controls to achieve the goals and targets set and agreed to by the Government. The reviews of individual enterprises are continuing. Key Elements I turn now to the Bill itself. Full details of the Bill are provided in the explanatory memorandum. Here I wish to refer to its most significant features. The Bill establishes new arrangements for the appointment and remuneration of the chief executives of the Australian Shipping Commission, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. Other enterprises will be covered by similar arrangements as their reform proposals are brought forward. Each chief executive is to be appointed by the relevant portfolio Minister after receiving a recommendation from the enterprise board. Consistent with the heightened emphasis on organisational performance and accountability, and commercial practice, chief executives will not have any security of tenure. Enterprise boards will determine the terms and conditions of appointment of chief executives. Separate administrative provision will be made requiring boards to consult the Remuneration Tribunal in the course of developing remuneration arrangements, and to advise the Tribunal of the arrangements which they make. The Bill amends the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973 to enable the Remuneration Tribunal to provide advice to the boards of enterprises. The Tribunal will no longer make determinations in respect of the chief executives of the authorities covered by these arrangements. As boards will be responsible for determining remuneration, the Bill provides that each authority will be required to incorporate in its financial statements a report on the remuneration of the chief executive consistent with the obligations placed on listed corporations by the Companies Act 1981. The Government's intention is that boards should not be encumbered by public service terms and conditions of employment in establishing the remuneration arrangements of chief executives. To this end, the Bill provides that the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976 will not apply to the chief executives of these authorities or other enterprises to be covered by these arrangements. Other legislation relating to the terms and conditions of employment of these offices will be amended accordingly. Boards will also be able to establish remuneration arrangements for senior executives consistent with the arrangements for chief executives. These remuneration arrangements will also apply to the chief executive of the Reserve Bank. There are no considerations for the Budget arising from these proposals. Conclusion This Bill is an important initiative in the overall process of the reform of government business enterprises. By enabling boards to recruit managers of high calibre and reward them appropriately, it furthers the Government's commitment to improving the efficiency of these enterprises whilst maintaining standards of public accountability. I commend this Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr White) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Industrial Relations)(5.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to implement the recommendations of the Remuneration Tribunal in respect of holders of judicial office and the President and members of the Inter-State Commission. These recommendations are contained within the Remuneration Tribunal's 1987 review which I tabled in the Parliament on 25 February 1988. The recommendations included increases to allowances based on consumer price index movements and a second tier wage adjustment. Section 72 of the Constitution provides that remuneration for these offices shall be fixed by the Parliament. In relation to the second tier salary adjustment, I am satisfied that the changes to practices and procedures in the various courts and tribunals in the federal jurisdiction, together with changes in the value of work of the office holders, justify an increase of 3 per cent in conformity with the national wage case principles. Clause 3 deals with increases in the expense of office allowance for the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island, President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, President of the Trade Practices Tribunal and members of the Inter-State Commission. Clause 4 deals with increases to rates of travelling allowance payable to the Chief Justice and justices of the High Court of Australia. Clause 5 provides an increase to the additional allowance payable to justices of the High Court who are not resident in or near the Australian Capital Territory. Clause 6 increases travelling allowance paid to holders of certain offices and amends provisions relating to the costs incurred in an overnight stay. Clause 7 provides an increase in travelling allowance payable to the President and members of the Inter-State Commission. Clause 8 of the Bill provides for the Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Act 1984 to be amended to provide for increases to the expense of office allowance and to salary payable in respect of the offices reported upon by the Remuneration Tribunal. The salaries have been increased by the second tier adjustment and the recent national wage case increases of 10 March 1987-$10.00-and 5 February 1988-$6.00-which were passed on automatically in accordance with an earlier decision of the Tribunal and as provided for in the Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Act 1984. The cost of implementing the Tribunal's recommendations in respect of judges and the President and members of the Inter-State Commission will be of the order of $1.2m in 1988-89. Further information on the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which is being circulated to honourable members. I commend this Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr White) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Industrial Relations)(5.17) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides for a number of measures aimed at fine tuning the operations of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC). Before proceeding to outline the specific measures contained in the Bill I wish to place in context the origins and role of the Commission. When this Government came to office, activity at the federal level in the area of occupational health and safety was virtually nil. This was despite the fact that Australia had an unacceptably high incident of work-related death and injury which would not be tolerated in other westernised nations. To give honourable members an idea of the magnitude of the problem-each year in Australia 550 men and women die as a result of work-related accident or disease. In a work force of seven million this incident rate of 77 per million can be compared with figures produced in the 1984 International Labour Organisation Year Book of Labour Statistics, which showed an annual fatality rate per million workers of 22 in Sweden, 24 in the United Kingdom, 20 in Japan and 37 in the United States. Conservative estimates show that more than $6 billion a year is wasted in Australia through loss of production and associated costs because of occupational injury and ill health. The human costs, of course, cannot be quantified. The Hawke Government came to office with a firm commitment, written into the Australian Labor Party party platform and reaffirmed in our accord with the trade union movement, to redress this situation. While occupational health and safety regulation was, and still remains, the responsibility of the States, we recognised the need for coordination of effort through an agreed national strategy. In 1984 we set up an Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission to advise on the appropriate framework for such a strategy. The Interim Commission recommended the establishment of a statutory commission constituted along tripartite lines. The Government accepted this advice and the Commission was set up in 1985 following the passage of enabling legislation through Parliament. The primary role of the Commission, which has adopted as its working title Worksafe Australia, is to provide a national forum for the development of national standards and strategies in cooperation with the States. The tripartite structure of the 17-member Commission, which includes representatives of the States, of industry and of the trade union movement, provides a consultative framework for development of uniform standards and avoidance of duplication of effort. Through its research arm, the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety, the Commission aims to provide research, testing, statistical collection and analysis and training of occupational health and safety professionals. Although the Commission has existed as a statutory body for less than three years, it has made significant progress towards the development of a national strategy. The Commission's achievements include development of a uniform national data set of comparable statistics on the incidence and nature of occupational health and safety problems. This has been a massive task involving all State and Territory governments in the collection of uniform data with minimum disruption to existing systems and without adding to the reporting burden on employers. The Commission is also in the process of developing national standards and codes of practice, which detail preventive action required to avert deaths, injuries and diseases, on a range of issues. It has already declared codes of practice for the occupational overuse syndrome-previously known as repetition strain injury or RSI-and for asbestos. At its September meeting the Commission is expected to declare a code of practice on timber preservatives. Also, work is continuing on agreed standards, codes and guidance notes for safe manual handling, lead, noise and mechanical equipment safety. I emphasise that these standards and codes are advisory in nature-a point which has been misconstrued in some quarters. The structure of the Commission reflects the Government's belief that improvements in occupational health and safety standards in Australia can be best progressed by cooperation, not coercion. By providing a national forum for the development of cooperative arrangements between the States, the Government aimed at laying the groundwork for the progressive shedding by the States of their complex, and often conflicting, web of regulations. By issuing advisory codes, the Commission aims to reduce rather than increase the degree of regulation concerning occupational health and safety in this country. Companies which operate across State borders can especially appreciate this point. The States are in agreement on this approach and most have moved in the past few years to replace their respective plethora of regulations with modern Robens-style self-regulatory legislation which emphasises the application of broad occupational health and safety principles at the workplace level. To complement this development NOHSC has provided significant funds for the training in occupational health and safety awareness of workplace representatives and front-line managers and supervisors. Australia's capacity to respond to occupational health and safety problems will depend in part on the level of available knowledge about such problems. NOHSC has moved to greatly enhance our stock of knowledge by the recruitment of a number of world-renowned experts to the National Institute. These include its Director and acting Chairman of NOHSC, Dr Ted Emmett. Dr Emmett is an Australian whose work on occupational skin diseases and cancer is well recognised and who came to the Institute from Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University where he was Professor of Occupational Medicine. The Institute's Deputy Director, Dr Wai-On Phoon, also brings a wealth of international experience to the post. Dr Phoon was formerly Professor of Social Medicine and Public Health at the University of Singapore and has held a number of advisory posts with the World Health Organisation and the International Labour Organisation. The Institute's depth of expertise is further evidenced by the fact that it also has on staff a range of internationally recognised experts in fields such as epidemiology, toxicology, ergonomics and work environment. As I have previously mentioned, the primary task of NOHSC is the development and implementation of a national occupational health and safety strategy. The commission had completed developmental work on this task late last year. Essentially the strategy involved definition of six priority areas which account for a very substantial proportion of occupational injury and disease that occur in Australia. These six areas identified for the implementation of preventive strategies were: occupational back pain; noise induced hearing loss; chemicals in the workplace; occupational skin disorders; mechanical equipment injury; and occupational cancer. The 1984 interim Commission report had recommended to the Government that the work of the Commission should be reviewed after four years to ensure that its operations are in accord with its legislative brief. Accordingly, in September last year I decided to bring forward the review by one year and appointed a former Secretary of the Commonwealth Department of Health, Mr Bernie McKay, to conduct it. The review was requested, among other things, to report on: progress of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission in achieving its objectives and functions; and measures to improve co-ordination of Federal and State governments' activity, including steps to avoid any duplication of effort and inconsistency of standards in the area of occupational health and safety. Mr McKay was also invited to propose any amendments to the Act which he considered would better promote and achieve the Government's policy in this vital area. The review re-affirmed the role of the National Commission as the national body in the area of occupational health and safety. It also made a number of recommendations to streamline the operations of the National Commission and increase its effectiveness. The Bill before the House largely reflects the outcome of action on the recommendations of the review and has the full support of the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the representatives of all State and Territory governments on the National Commission. All other recommendations arising from the review have either been adopted or are the subject of appropriate action by the Commission and my Department. In particular, action has been taken to enhance the role of State and Territory governments in the operations of the Commission. This approach was supported by Ministers of labour of the Commonwealth of Australia at their most recent meeting in May 1988. Ministers reiterated their support for an enhanced cooperative effort between governments leading to a more consistent and uniform approach to occupational health and safety. The meeting also endorsed the six hazards identified by the Commission as requiring priority action by the National Commission in cooperation with the States as appropriate. The Bill gives effect to a key recommendation of the review which is to separate the functions of the chairperson of the National Commission from those of the Chief Executive Officer. I have accepted the view that it is desirable to separate the management and technical function of the Chief Executive from the broader and more public role of the Chairperson. The qualities required of a chairperson in supervising the role of the Commission and managing the tripartite relationship are essentially different from those required of a chief executive. Separation of the two positions is more normal and is in line with the top structures of other Government business enterprises and statutory authorities. The Bill proposes this amendment and consequent changes to the composition of the Commission and its executive to incorporate the Chief Executive Officer as a member. It also makes provision for the duties of Director of the Institute to be performed by the Chief Executive Officer, or for the positions to be separately filled. This will allow maximum flexibility in appointing available and suitably qualified personnel in a field where expertise is scarce and where we must compete for such expertise in an international market. Streamlining amendments are also made to provide greater flexibility in the composition of committees-the working level of the Commission-and to make clear the Commission's functions in the evaluation of hazards arising at the workplace. These amendments to the Act will facilitate and consolidate the significant improvements in the National Commission's operation and reflect in a practical way the Government's continuing commitment to improving the safety and quality of working life in Australia. Financial Impact Statement The proposed amendments have a negligible financial impact. I commend this Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr White) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Punch, and read a first time. Mr PUNCH(Barton-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(5.30) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Purpose of the Bill This Bill is for an act to establish a new Commonwealth statutory authority, to be called the Australian Sports Commission. Essentially the Bill will merge the functions and administrations of the Australian Institute of Sport and the Australian Sports Commission as they are presently constituted. The merger is an integral part of the process of streamlining Commonwealth sports administration being undertaken by this Government. The Commission will be able to operate under the name of the Australian Institute of Sport when performing certain of its functions. The Bill sets out the objectives, functions and powers of the Commission, and those functions that will be performed, in whole or in part, by the Commission under the name of the Australian Institute of Sport. It also covers a wide range of issues relating to the management and operation of the Commission. The Bill also defines the relationship between the Commission and the Government within which the Commission will undertake its tasks. Background Following its election in March 1983 this Government set out to restore direction to the development of sport in Australia after many years of erratic support under the previous coalition Government. One of the first initiatives of the Government was to appoint an interim committee to report on the role, functions and responsibilities of a sports commission foreshadowed in the policy statement on sport published prior to the election. The creation of the Australian Sports Commission in 1985 is now history and it is pleasing to reflect on some of its achievements. Since it commenced operations the Commission has addressed a variety of issues of importance to developing sporting opportunities for all Australians at the community level. A fine example of this has been the development of a major children in sport program-Aussie Sports, which although launched as recently as April 1986 has now been implemented in over 1,700 primary schools and reached over 500,000 children. The Commission has also taken the initiative in the promotion and development of sporting opportunities for other special interest groups in the community such as women through the establishment of a Women's Sport Promotion Unit, and older adults with the release of a discussion paper on veterans' sport. The Commission has been actively involved in the drugs in sport campaign, and has established a national program on drugs in sport which has seen the implementation of a program of drug testing during training and at sporting events, and the production and distribution of information kits warning against the use of drugs in sport throughout Australia and to over 40 countries overseas. Perhaps one of its most noteworthy achievements, however, has been the establishment of an Australian Sports Aid Foundation as a public company to raise money from the corporate sector and the community at large to supplement Government funding for the development of Australian Sport. In order to maximise such support, tax deductibility on donations to the foundation was approved in June 1986. The result of this initiative has been very encouraging with over $2.3m being donated to the Foundation, and paid out through the Commission, for distribution in support of our national sporting organisations and specific sporting events, such as the defence of the America's Cup, during 1986-87. In addition to these activities, the Commission has continued to administer the Government's major programs of sports assistance: the sports development program and the sports talent encouragement plan. In 1987-88 the sports development program provided almost $6.3m to 94 national sporting organisations and other bodies to assist with, amongst other things, administration, junior sports development programs, coaching development, travel to international sporting competition, and the drugs in sport program. The sports talent encouragement plan provides direct financial support to individual athletes and teams to help defray costs and loss of earnings associated with training and participation in sporting competitions. This year in excess of $800,000 will be made available to about 300 athletes, the majority of whom are members of the Australian Olympic team. Following on from this last point, I would like to turn to our elite athletes and the Australian Institute of Sport. When this Government was elected, the Australian Institute of Sport was still in its infancy. There were only 183 scholarship holders in eight residential sports in 1983. Its training and competition facilities had not been completed, it was not fully staffed, and it was still in the process of developing its various coaching and training programs. As the Institute has become increasingly settled, it has been possible to build on the initial base established by the previous Government. A further seven sports have been accepted since 1984. Many of the new sports have been decentralised, and as such the Institute has been able to establish a significant presence in Brisbane with diving and squash, Perth with hockey, and Adelaide with cycling and cricket. The cooperation and assistance of State and local governments and State institutes of sport has been invaluable in this process. Smaller satellite units have also been set up in Melbourne and Sydney. These developments have given the Institute a truly national profile. In addition, the national sports program, which enables national sporting organisations-including the Australian Olympic Federation-to send teams and individual athletes to the Institute for pre-event training and preparation prior to major international sporting competitions, and which only commenced operations on a very small scale in 1982, is now an integral part of the Institute's activities. The program is used by over 50 national sporting organisations and up to 2000 athletes each year. With its world class facilities and a highly qualified and professional administrative and coaching staff, the Institute has worked effectively towards realising its major aim of improved athlete performance. And while the international success of any individual athlete or team can be said to result from a variety of factors, the Institute has played an important role in the improved sporting performances of many Australian athletes and teams over the last few years. Together, the Institute and the Commission have contributed greatly to the development of Australian sport in recent years. The objectives of the two organisations are complementary and are derived from the broader Government objectives of encouraging increased participation in sport by all Australians, promoting equity of opportunity at the community level, and providing opportunities and support for the development of our elite athletes. Beyond the financial support, the facilities, the technical expertise and the leadership they have offered, they have provided for a balanced involvement by government in sport. All Australians-be they high performance athletes, coaches, members of national, state or local sporting bodies, or individuals who have the opportunity to participate in community sports programs or utilise local sports facilities-have benefited from the existence of both organisations. Over the last 5 1/2 years, the activities of the Institute and the Commission have nurtured sport at all levels. The Australian Institute of Sport has been given the time and support necessary to properly establish itself. The personnel and facilities at the Institute are now second to none, and together these factors have contributed to the emergence of the Institute as a world leader in elite athlete development. With the support of the Commission the sporting community has begun to recognise and take on the responsibility for the further development of sport in Australia. To qualify for continued assistance under the sports development program, for instance, national sporting organisations have had to adopt a more professional administrative approach, and to plan for the individual future development of their respective sports. We have come a long way since March 1983. The sporting community has a greater appreciation of the fact that it cannot rely on government to shoulder all the responsibility associated with sports development. To its credit the sporting community is increasingly assuming that responsibility. It is showing great maturity in planning for the future. Similarly, the Australian Institute of Sport and the Australian Sports Commission have made great advances in their relatively brief histories. They, too, have demonstrated a maturity in overseeing the development of Australian sport at all levels. Support and guidance are available to all, but in return a similar commitment to the future is expected, and encouragingly, is being made. It is now necessary to consolidate the achievements to date, and to reassess the Commonwealth's role in the development of sport at the national level. In doing so, this Government will ensure the further improvement of an environment favourable to the continued development of sport in Australia. At the same time it must use its resources as efficiently and effectively as possible. A merging of the functions and administrations of the Commission and the Institute, and some of the sports program functions of the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, to rationalise Government involvement in sport will achieve this end. Government Announcement On 25 September last year, the former Minister responsible for Sport, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), announced the Government's intention to streamline the Commonwealth's sports administration through the establishment of a single national sports body-to be known as the Australian Sports Commission. The new Commission will assume responsibility for the functions of the Institute and the Commission as they are presently constituted. Since that announcement, as an interim arrangement pending passage of this legislation, the Institute and the Commission have, for all intents and purposes, been informally amalgamated. As part of this process the Commission has been relocated at the Institute headquarters at Bruce, and much of the rationalisation of program and service provision by the Institute, the Commission and the Department has already been put in place. For instance, the sports talent encouragement plan, previously administered by the Commission, has been transferred to the control of the elite athlete side of the amalgamated body, while the sport for people with disabilities program and aspects of the cultural relations program concerning sporting exchanges have been transferred from the Department to the Commission. These rationalisations, in addition to producing staffing and servicing savings, will remove the overlap and uncertainty which previously existed in Government sports administration at the national level, and will be confirmed in the structure of the new Commission this legislation seeks to establish. Major Features of the Bill The Bill outlines the objectives of the new Australian Sports Commission, which are to provide leadership in the development of sport in Australia; to encourage increased participation by Australians in sport; to provide support for the development of high performance athletes; to improve the sporting abilities of Australians generally; to foster cooperation in sport between Australia and other countries; and to encourage the private sector to contribute to the funding of sport and so supplement assistance provided by Government. I would draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that the Commission will operate under the name of the Australian Institute of Sport in the performance of those functions associated with the development of high performance athletes. Much has been achieved in Australia and internationally by the Australian Institute of Sport and we want to build on this. As I have said elsewhere, at the same time, there are significant advantages in bringing the previous Institute and the previous Commission together into one administrative unit. The Bill defines the general functions of the Commission, which include program management, the coordination of our national sporting effort, and the requirement to consult widely with the sporting community. It also outlines the functions of the Commission which will be undertaken under the name of the Institute. The Bill also describes the powers that the Commission will have to undertake its activities. These powers are largely a composite of those described in the pieces of legislation that will be repealed with the enactment of this legislation. Honourable members should also note the powers and responsibilities of the Minister in relation to the new Commission. The Government wishes to ensure the Commission will operate within the framework of overall Government objectives and policies, and these provisions make it clear that the Commission will remain directly responsible to the Government. Coupled with the provisions allowing the Minister to issue directions to the Commission and to seek information on its specific activities, they will ensure a proper degree of Ministerial overview and responsibility. As an additional check, the Commission will be required to submit estimates in respect of its proposed budget, and to produce an annual report, an annual operational plan, and a strategic plan tied to the Olympic cycle every four years. Each of these must be approved by the responsible Minister. Its financial affairs will also be subject to scrutiny by the Auditor-General. Financial Impact Statement The strategic and annual operational plan requirements are in line with the Government's commitment to overall financial management improvement within the public sector. In its strategic plan the Commission will be required to develop objectives for its programs and activities, to define performance indicators, and to regularly evaluate performance against these indicators. Ministerial endorsement of the plan will be required. Streamlining of sports administration at the national level can be expected to result in savings in a number of areas. Already, as a result of the interim arrangements, the rationalisation of program administration between the Institute, the Commission and the Department has achieved a saving of five staff years. Relocation of all staff at the Bruce facilities has also generated significant accommodation savings. In addition, under this legislation, membership of the Commission will not exceed twelve. This compares favourably with the membership arrangements this legislation will supersede, which allowed for up to 22 commissioners to be appointed to the Australian Sports Commission, and up to 14 members to be appointed to the Australian Institute of Sport Board of Management. The fewer board appointments will produce savings in terms of total remuneration paid to members, reduced meeting costs, and a reduced requirement for secretariat and other support services. Overall non-staff savings are expected to be in the order of $250,000 per annum. The streamlining process is an acknowledgment of the need to control overall levels of spending. The cost of operating the new Commission will be determined annually in the Budget. For 1988-89, $27.1m has been allocated for the Commission's activities. This compares with allocations of $15.9m and $13.4m made to the Commission and the Institute respectively in 1987-88. Under the legislation, the Commission will continue to receive funds from the private sector donated to the Australian Sports Aid Foundation-which, incidentally, will in future be known as the Australian Sports Foundation-in order to supplement public funding made available for sports development. Priorities I mentioned earlier that, since the interim arrangements came into effect in October last year, the amalgamated organisation had continued to operate existing programs and services. It has also continued to grapple with a number of contentious and challenging issues. Foremost amongst these, perhaps, is related to the need for the sporting community to explain to the Australian community and its political representatives the value of sport to the community and, therefore, why it is necessary to provide continuing financial support. This becomes a particular concern, given the pressures in the corporate and business sectors that, of late, have seen a reduction in the level of private funding being channelled into sport. The Commission, therefore, will work to achieve and sustain the valuable outcomes that can be derived from sport, such as more children playing sport, assistance to coaching to improve the overall standard of sporting performance throughout Australia, the continued fight against drugs in sport, and so on. This, in turn, will mean identifying the resources available, both Government and private, and ensuring that they are directed in ways that will maximise their impact and benefit. But increased funding is not the only requirement of sport, if it is to continue to grow. We also need a sound administrative infrastructure, particularly at the national level. We need efficient and effective management to ensure that what we spend has the most beneficial impact for Australian society as a whole. We need a unified approach to sports administration if we are to undertake the increasingly complex task that is sports development in the late 1980s. If we do not rationalise our structure in the manner envisaged, we face the prospect of failing to realise the goals we have set for sport, and failing to realise what sport can offer to all Australians. The Government is confident that the proposed Australian Sports Commission is a new and improved organisation that will consolidate the considerable gains made by sport over the life of this Government, and allow for the continued and organised development of Australian sport into the 1990s and beyond. I commend this Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum for the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Sharp) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Communications Support and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(5.48) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will give effect to a number of the tax measures announced in the May economic statement and to some measures announced in last week's Budget. The May statement measures relate to income tax deductions for depreciation or special write-off of income producing plant, prepaid expenses and mains electricity connection costs; the treatment of certain dividends; the abolition of section 26aaa; valuation of live stock; and increases in pensioner rebates. Budget measures in the Bill increase rebates for recipients of social security unemployment, sickness or special benefits, or of certain training or Commonwealth educational allowances; exempt from tax the special temporary allowance; and establish the basis for calculation of provisional tax for 1988-89. Other income tax measures to be given effect by the Bill deal with the taxation of non-cash business benefits, debt finance for corporate restructuring, public trading trusts, expenditure substantiation rules and the gift provisions. The Bill will also amend the fringe benefits tax law so that remote area home ownership benefits receive further concessional treatment as announced. Concessional Deductions for Income-producing Plant In accordance with the May economic statement, the Bill will terminate most of the special deductions in the income tax law for income-producing plant. These are the general 5/3 accelerated depreciation allowances; certain 5 year depreciation arrangements for primary production plant and structural improvements; and the special write-offs for expenditure on general mining or petroleum mining plant, other than exploration or prospecting plant. Plant to which these concessions currently apply will in future be written off at effective life rates, increased by a 20 per cent loading for most plant as an incentive to investment. Effective life rates are determined by the Commissioner of Taxation and definition of `effective life' is to be developed for inclusion in a subsequent Bill. The present Bill will also require taxpayers who wish to use the prime cost method of depreciation to elect to do so in the first year in which the relevant plant is used. These changes are estimated to produce revenue savings of $190m in 1989-90, $450m in 1990-91 and $1,030m in 1991-92, rising further for a few years then settling at an annual gain of around $1 1/4 billion in the mid to late 1990's. Expenditure Paid in Advance The general deductions provisions of the income tax law authorise a deduction in the year in which expenditure is incurred even where the services being paid for are provided over several years. On the other hand, the person providing the services may generally bring the income to account in the year in which the services are provided and this imbalance provides tax shelter opportunities. The Bill will change the time of deductions for expenditure paid in advance under agreements entered into after 25 May 1988. Instead of being fully deductible when incurred, deductions for the expenditure will be pro-rated over the period during which the services will be provided, with a maximum period of 10 years. Immediate deductibility will continue to be available if all the services will be provided within 13 months of incurring the expenditure; if the expenditure is less than $1,000; or if it is required by order of a court or by law, or is in respect of salary or wages. Transitional provisions will ensure that the amendments apply prospectively. The revenue savings from this measure are estimated to be $35m in 1989-90 and $20m in subsequent years. Dividends Paid by Tax-exempt Entities Two measures announced in the May economic statement to prevent abuse of the intercorporate dividend rebate provisions will be given effect by this Bill. Under the first, certain tax-exempt entities will be discouraged from using innovative financing techniques by which investors receive a return on their investment in the form of tax free dividends rather than as taxable interest receipts. Denial of the rebate on dividends paid by relevant tax-exempt entities removes the distortion in the tax position of investors who would otherwise obtain unintended financial benefits at the expense of Commonwealth revenue. Dividends Received by Private Companies Other intercorporate dividend rebate changes will deny the rebate on unfranked dividend income received by private companies. These private companies will accrue franking credits that can be used to frank dividends passed on to their shareholders. This removes the tax deferral advantage of receiving unfranked dividends through a private company and leaves the ultimate individual shareholders in the same position as if the dividends had been received directly. Unfranked dividends that pass from one company to another within a wholly-owned company group will not be subject to the measure, nor will dividends paid under the arrangements for the phasing-out of division 7 undistributed profits tax which are required to be unfranked. These changes will apply to unfranked dividends paid after 25 May 1988, unless the dividends were declared on or before that date. Abolition of Section 26aaa The Bill gives effect to the proposal announced on 25 May 1988 to abolish the provision which taxes profits made on the sale of property within 12 months of purchase, leaving those gains to be taxed under the general gains and capital losses provisions. Gains arising from short term property sales will qualify for the five year notional averaging of liabilities under the capital gains provisions and may be offset against allowable capital losses. This amendment will apply to sales of property after 25 May 1988 and is expected to have a revenue cost of $5m in 1988-89 and $30m in 1989-90 Mains Electricity Connections Capital expenditure in connecting mains electricity facilities to a property on which a business is carried on is to be deductible over 10 years instead of in the year in which it is incurred. The amendments will apply to expenditure incurred after 25 May 1988, but will not apply to expenditure incurred under a contract entered into on or before that date. The expected annual revenue saving from the measure in 1989-90 and subsequent years is $5m. Valuation of Natural Increase in Livestock The value of livestock on hand at the end of year of income is generally brought to account, at the option of the taxpayer, at either cost price or market value. Where cost price method is adopted, the law permits the taxpayer to select a cost price for natural increase which, for a class of livestock may not be less than the minimum cost price prescribed in respect of livestock of that class. The minimum values prescribed are substantially outdated, and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced in the May economic statement that the values are to be increased for natural increase occurring after 30 June 1988, but to a level that is still less than any reasonable estimate of the cost of natural increase. A taxpayer who can demonstrate that the actual cost of producing natural increase is less than the relevant new prescribed value will be permitted to value the natural increase at actual cost. This change will have minimal effect on revenue. Pensioner Rebate The Bill will increase the maximum pensioner rebate from $250-or $300 for service pensioners-to $430 for both social security and service pensioners. It will also increase the taxable income level above which the pensioner rebate begins to shade-out from $6,142-or $6,384 for service pensioners-to $6,892 for both classes. These changes, which will have effect for 1988-89 and subsequent years, are estimated to cost $55m in 1988-89 and $210m in 1989-90. Beneficiary Rebate The maximum rebates of tax for other social security beneficiaries and certain recipients of allowances under Commonwealth educational schemes, and the levels at which the rebates begin to shade-out, are to be increased for the 1988-89 and subsequent income years. For married taxpayers the maximum rebate will increase from $430 to $600, with no tax payable on taxable incomes up to $11,059. For other taxpayers the maximum rebate will increase from $180 to $260, with no tax payable on taxable incomes up to $6,184. These measures are estimated to cost $20m in 1988-89 and subsequent years. Special temporary allowances Amendments will also be made by the Bill to give effect to the 1988-89 Budget proposal to exempt from income tax the special temporary allowance payable for a period of 12 weeks to a surviving social security or service pensioner following the death of his or her pensioner spouse. This change will apply for 1988-89 and subsequent years and will have a negligible revenue cost in 1988-89 and cost $5m in 1989-90 and $6m in 1990-91. Provisional tax for 1988-89 Provisional tax is that part of the pay as you earn system designed to collect tax on non-salary or wage income within the year in which the income is derived. As such, it is generally accepted that the amount of provisional tax charged should approximate as closely as practicable the amount of tax actually imposed for the year. This Bill provides for 1988-89 provisional tax to be calculated on the basis of 1987-88 taxable income increased by 12 per cent, and by applying the 1988-89 rates of tax and the Medicare levy, and the increased low income thresholds for the Medicare levy. Generally, rebates and credits will be allowed in the provisional tax calculation at the levels allowed in 1987-88 assessments but rebates of tax allowed on franked dividends will be the 1987-88 rebates increased by 12 per cent. Taxpayers who estimate that their taxable income for 1988-89 will increase by less than 12 per cent, or who consider that their rebates or credits will be at a higher level, will continue to have the right to `self assess' and have the provisional tax for 1988-89 recalculated on the basis of their own estimates. Non-cash business benefits This Bill will also implement, subject to some minor variations, the proposal which was announced on 4 February 1985 to tax non-cash business benefits, but delayed because of the priority given to major tax reform measures. This measure will address practices that became more prevalent following the full Federal Court's decision that the existing law taxes non-cash business benefits only if such benefits are convertible to cash and are in the nature of income according to ordinary concepts. There had also been an increase in the provision of non-cash benefits to induce business taxpayers to purchase items of plant or equipment. It was originally announced that the law would be amended to tax the arm's length value of non-cash business benefits, subject to certain special rules. On review a more satisfactory approach is to provide separate simple rules to deal with both these practices. The Bill will tax non-convertible benefits provided after 5 February 1985 in the same way as benefits that are convertible into cash and which are taxable under the existing law if they are of an income nature. In other words, the existing rules that apply to the taxation of convertible benefits will be extended to non-convertible benefits. To ensure that there can be no element of retrospectivity in this revised approach, the Bill contains transitional provisions that will allow benefits provided on or before today to be taxed on the announced basis. In the case of non-cash benefits provided to induce business taxpayers to purchase items of plant or equipment or to enter into service agreements, the amendments will simply treat the portion of the expenditure that represents the arm's length value of the benefit provided as having been incurred in respect of the benefit. This will ensure that the expenditure relating to the benefit will not be deductible or form part of the cost of a depreciable unit of property. This approach, which varies the announcement, will apply only to benefits provided after today. Corporate Restructure (Debt Creation) Rules The Bill will insert in the income tax law rules foreshadowed by the Treasurer on 30 April 1987 against arrangements under which interest-bearing debt is introduced to finance the restructuring of related foreign controlled companies. The measures will deny interest deductions on debt used to fund the transfer of assets from one related company to another where the buyer and seller are at least 50 per cent controlled by a non-resident or related non-residents, except where there has been an introduction of additional income producing assets. The new rules will replace administrative measures that had previously been imposed as a condition for approval of investments under foreign investment policy. While the amendments will generally apply from 1 July 1987, under transitional arrangements in the Bill, companies that are less than 100 per cent foreign controlled will not be subject to the legislation on restructures carried out between 1 July 1987 and 19 June 1988. As part of its consultative approach to new and complex tax legislation, the Government released a draft of the main operative provisions of this legislation on 20 June 1988 and called for comment from interested persons. This initiative was well received and, in conjunction with the seminars sponsored by the Taxation Institute of Australia, has resulted in constructive submissions being made by members of the accounting and legal professions and by industry. A number of changes recommended in these submissions have been adopted so that the measures will not intrude unnecessarily into the normal trading activities of foreign controlled companies. For example, although the earlier draft legislation was to have a 15 per cent foreign control threshold, the Government has agreed to increase the level to 50 per cent. The legislation is limited to corporate restructures, but the Government will quickly respond if evidence emerges of entities other than companies being used to circumvent the provisions now being introduced. Other Income Tax Measures Other income tax changes being implemented by this Bill will have negligible revenue effect. One extends for the 1987-88 and subsequent income years the range of business activities that may be conducted by a public unit trust, without it being treated as a public trading trust and therefore taxed as a company. Another eases the paperwork burden relating to claims for car expenses, by permitting certain information about car expenses to be specified in records to be retained by taxpayers, rather than in their income tax returns. Remote Area Home Ownership Schemes Effect is also being given to the Treasurer's announcement on 29 October 1986 that the fringe benefits tax law would be amended to allow employers in Australia's remote areas to amortise the taxable value of certain fringe benefits provided under remote area home ownership schemes. Subject to a seven year maximum, the value of the benefit may be spread over the period running from the date the benefit was initially provided until the employee is free to transfer the property on the open market. Other amendments will extend the scope of the existing remote area concessions in certain other respects. The amendments will apply with effect from commencement of the fringe benefits tax legislation on 1 July 1986, and are expected to cost less than $1m per annum. Recovery of Tax Finally, the Bill will amend the Taxation Administration Act. Following the decision of the High Court in the Moorebank case, provisions in the Act that modified limitation periods imposed by the various State and Territory limitation laws are redundant, and are to be repealed by this Bill. I present the explanatory memorandum and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Communications Support and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(6.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will amend the Income Tax Act 1986 to formally impose the rates of income tax payable by individuals and trustees generally for the 1988-89 and 1989-90 financial years. It will also impose for the same period the rates of tax payable by companies, registered organisations and unit trusts treated as companies. In addition, it will impose rates of tax on superannuation funds, ineligible approved deposit funds and certain other trusts. The rates to be imposed by the measures in this Bill are those declared in the Income Tax Rates Act 1986. The personal rates for 1988-89 remain unchanged but, as announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the 1988-89 Budget Speech, reductions will be effected from 1 July 1989. A four-step tax scale currently applies. At the lower end of the scale for resident taxpayers, no tax is payable on taxable incomes up to $5,100. On taxable incomes in the range of $5,101 to $12,600 the rate is 24 per cent. In the range of $12,601 to $19,500 the rate is 29 per cent. For income in the range $19,501 to $35,000 the rate is 40 per cent, and the top marginal rate is 49 per cent for income in excess of $35,000. These general rates also apply to non-residents who receive Australian social security and repatriation pensions that are taxable in Australia, or who were residents at any time during the income year. For all other non-resident taxpayers, the rate of 29 per cent applies to incomes up to $19,500 and the general rates apply to income above that level. For 1988-89 a rate of 49 per cent applies to all unearned income of resident minors, subject to shading-in arrangements for such income just over $416. The rate of tax on trustees assessed under section 99a of the Income Tax Assessment Act, and on other categories of income subject to anti-avoidance provisions of that Act, is 49 per cent in 1988-89. The company tax rate payable in respect of 1987-88 income will remain at 49 per cent. As announced in the May 1988 economic statement, a lower rate of 39 per cent will apply to 1988-89 income. The rates of tax, payable in respect of 1987-88 income, for unit trusts treated as companies and registered organisations will remain at 49 per cent and 20 per cent respectively. Of course, when decisions are taken as to the reduced personal tax rates to apply in 1989-90 and any other tax rate changes, legislation amending the Income Tax Rates Act 1986 which declares the various income tax rates that I have just outlined for 1988-89 will be put before the Parliament. The provisions of the Bill are explained in detail in the explanatory memorandum that accompanied the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1988 I have just introduced. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Communications Support and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(6.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Medicare Levy Amendment Bill 1988 will amend the Medicare Levy Act 1986 to impose the basic rate of Medicare levy for 1988-89 and 1989-90. The basic rate of the levy will remain at 1.25 per cent of taxable income. That has been the rate since 1 December 1986. The Bill also contains increases in the income threshold levels below which people with low incomes will not be called on to pay any levy. For 1988-89 and 1989-90, individuals with taxable incomes of up to $9,560, and married couples and sole parents with family incomes of up to $16,110, will not be required to pay the levy. The income threshold for married couples and sole parents will increase by a further $2,100 for each dependent child or student. For example, a married couple with two dependent children will pay no levy until their combined taxable income exceeds $20,310. The estimated cost of the increased low income thresholds is $11m in 1988-89 and $27m in 1989-90. The new low income thresholds will be reflected in tax instalment schedules from 1 November 1988. The explanatory memorandum on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1988 about which I have just spoken contains an explanation of the provisions of this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Communications Support)(6.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the ANL (Conversion into Public Company) Bill is twofold: first, to establish the Australian Shipping Commission, which trades as the Australian National Line, as a public company; and, secondly, to remove statutory controls over ANL's operations. These are major steps towards implementing the reform package for ANL announced by Senator Gareth Evans on 25 May 1988 in his statement entitled `Reshaping the Transport and Communications Government Enterprises'. A major part of the Government's third term agenda is micro-economic reform. Ensuring that government business enterprises operate as efficiently and effectively as possible is a major element of this reform program. ANL provides an important transport link for Australian industry, both internationally and on the coast. Any improvement in its efficiency will therefore immediately be reflected elsewhere in the economy. But this will only occur if ANL is given greater flexibility and the ability to respond rapidly to changes in the market and to take up business opportunities as they present themselves. In 1983, I introduced amendments to the Australian Shipping Commission Act that went some way in that direction. Those amendments removed bureaucratic restraints and instilled a more commercial approach into the Line. The benefits of this approach are a matter of public record. ANL has been turned around from being a debt ridden loss maker into a profitable enterprise, regularly paying dividends and income tax. That achievement is the result of joint efforts-of the Commission, trade unions, the employees and the management. This Bill completes the commercialisation of ANL started by this Government five years ago. The Line has long been required to operate in highly competitive markets, subject to the same taxes and charges as other operators. Incorporation will now give it the same business structure as most of its competitors. Removal of residual government controls over its day to day operations will complete the process of giving it the flexibility to compete on truly equal terms with private shipping operators. Removal of day today controls will not, however, mean any lessening of accountability. The new company will be required to: provide regularly to the Minister for Transport and Communications strategic corporate plans for consideration and response; work towards an overall financial target agreed in advance by the Minister; ensure appropriate revaluation of its assets at least every five years, the first such revaluation to be settled before ANL's conversion to a company; and recommend a dividend annually, after consultation with the Minister. And of course ANL will continue to report on its financial performance through an annual report prepared on the same basis as any company. In summary, ANL is being given the freedom to manage itself on a day to day basis without any second guessing from Canberra. But it will remain fully accountable to its shareholders, the Australian taxpayers, through their representative, the Minister for Transport and Communications. I now turn to the provisions of the Bill itself. The Bill will establish ANL as a company by providing for the Commission to be registered as a company incorporated in the Australian Capital Territory under the Companies Act 1981 on a day to be proclaimed. It is expected that the commencing day of the company; that is, the transition day, will be 1 July 1989, although it may be earlier than this if the memorandum and articles of association and the other elements of the reform package can be completed earlier. The approach embodied in the Bill is basically a refinement of that adopted for the establishment of Australian Airlines as a company; that is, the Bill provides for the continuity of ANL's corporate entity by deeming it to be incorporated under the Companies Act. The main changes to the earlier approach reflect machinery refinements to ensure that ANL fully complies with public disclosure requirements of registration. These were requested by the Corporate Affairs Commission to avoid administrative problems encountered following Australian Airlines' registration as a company. The Bill provides for there to be no change in ANL's corporate entity. The Commission will change its name-to ANL Ltd-and its form immediately before registration. This will facilitate its registration as an ongoing business enterprise while conforming, as far as possible, to the registration requirements of the Companies Act. Continuity of the corporate entity dispenses with the need to transfer assets and liabilities from the Commission to a new body corporate. It ensures that all contracts, agreements and arrangements entered into by or on behalf of the Commission and which are in force immediately before transition will apply to the new company. There should be no ambiguity about this point. ANL will change its form because of this legislation. But ANL Ltd retains the full obligations and responsibilities of the Australian Shipping Commission, and before that, the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission. Its heritage is clear. ANL remains Australia's national shipping line. The Bill provides for the Commission's capital-totalling $196,391,000-to be converted to $1 shares and for all shares in the new company to be held directly by the Commonwealth. The Bill provides that on transition, each staff member of the Commission will become an employee of the company on the same terms and conditions as applied to his or her employment by the Commission. Entitlements such as long service and recreation leave, and eligibility for sick leave, applying at transition date will be preserved. Those staff who have rights under part IV of the Public Service Act 1922 will retain those rights. The Bill provides for the repeal of the day to day controls over ANL contained in the Australian Shipping Commission Act, effective from the time of registering the Commission as a company. This is done in the context of the other elements of the reform package which ensure proper and full accountability. Any minimum levels of control which the Government decides should remain over ANL will be specified in either the memorandum and articles of association of the new company or in the guidelines to directors. Finally, the legislation we are proposing will make no calls on the revenues of the Commonwealth or, of itself, immediately provide additional revenue to the Commonwealth. The Bill has been drafted to ensure that the transition from body corporate to company status will be `tax neutral'. However, improvements in the performance of ANL Ltd that result from the implementation of the reform package, of which this Bill is a part, will benefit the shareholders and all users of the Commission's services. I commend this Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 30 August, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MILES(Braddon)(6.20) —I rise to continue the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1988-89 which is commonly referred to as the Budget debate. This is a very interesting Budget because it shows up some of the Government's priorities in regard to running the nation. I was just reading one of the letters to a local newspaper this morning and I think that letter summed up the Budget very well. The letter said that the Budget can be summed up in the words `tax the students and reduce the beer prices'. That is a summary of the Budget. It says something about the priorities of this Government. On the one hand the Government says that in order to enable education to expand in this nation it is prepared to tax those young people who go on to higher education and on the other it is prepared to reduce revenue by $400m by reducing beer excises. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) is the highest taxing Treasurer this nation has known in peacetime history. The taxation imposed by this Government has been absolutely enormous. This Government plundered taxpayers over the period 1983 to 1987, and we will see that continue during this year. To give honourable members some idea of the extent of the taxation that has been imposed over that period, I will refer to some calculations derived from Australian Bureau of Statistics figures. The consumer price index increased during the period 1983 to 1987 by 31 per cent; enterprise taxes in this nation went up by 50 per cent; personal income tax went up by 66 per cent; and sales tax went up by 81 per cent. Well may we refer to the Treasurer of the Keating-Hawke Government-I think that is the correct terminology these days-as `Pickpocket Paul', because when we look at the amount of the tax increase this year we find that it is equivalent to $660 for each man, woman and child. That is the level of the increase. That is the impost on Australian people this year. It will cost every man, woman and child in Australia $660 in taxation of one form or another, either personal income tax or consumer taxes. It is no wonder that people say, even those within the Australian Labor Party, that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have lost touch with ordinary Australians. It is no wonder that people are saying that living standards are dropping. It is no wonder that poverty has marched ahead under this regime. Since 1983 the number of people in poverty has increased from 1.9 million to 2.6 million. Is it any wonder, given the taxation policies on which this Government has embarked? The Government is creating in large part and in large measure the poverty that so many Australians are now faced with. I now turn to comment on the overseas debt. In the period of 82 years from 1901 to 1983 Australia's overseas debt rose to $33 billion. Over the last five years it has gone up to $114 billion-an increase in five years of $81 billion. This Budget tells us that the overseas debt will increase by another $9.5 billion this year. Mr Beale —And the rest. Mr MILES —And the rest, as the honourable member says. Certainly there is every indication that that figure will be way out. In the first month of this year the overseas debt went up by $1.7 billion. In 1983 the overseas debt amounted to $2,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia. They now owe $7,600. Those people who work in the rural sector and the mining sector of this great nation of ours spend four days out of five earning the money just to pay off the overseas debt. Last month the overseas debt increased at a rate of $2.25m and hour. We ought, as a nation, to dwell on that figure. Never in our history have we had that sort of level of overseas debt. It is interesting to reflect on just where the Government spends its money. I was particularly interested in looking at where the Government spends its money in Tasmania. I thought I would look at the capital works program in particular. Honourable members might think that the Government would spend its money in the poorest electorates-those electorates where people receive the lowest incomes-so that that money can generate jobs and more income for people in those poorer electorates. When I went through the Government's capital works program I found that, on average, it spends $1.3m in the 20 poorest electorates throughout Australia. I thought it would be a good comparison to look at how much the Government spends in the coalition-held seats around Australia. I found that, on average, the Government spends $1.92m. I then thought that I should compare this with spending in Labor electorates. In those electorates the Government spends an average of $3.1m-66 per cent more than it spends in coalition electorates. One might think that the Labor seats would be in the poorest areas of Australia. However, when one looks, one sees that that is certainly not the case. We have been told that we are to receive tax cuts in the future. We have not been told when, who will receive them, and how much they will receive. Will this Government be able to meet its committment to restore to people the real income levels they had five years ago? If the Government is, it will have to give a tax cut of $56 a week to the average income earner throughout this nation. One of the themes of this Government since coming to office in 1983 has been the centralisation of power in Canberra. I will illustrate how the Government has done that in financial terms. The Commonwealth's own purpose outlays have increased by 19 per cent in the period since the Labor Government came to power, whereas payments to the States have actually decreased by 19 per cent. What we find is a shift in the economic power base of this nation, away from the States and into the centralised bureaucracy in Canberra. When we look at the Commonwealth's taxation increases we find that they have gone up by almost 75 per cent over the last five years. However, the State average for general revenue grants has gone up by only 55 per cent. When we look at my State of Tasmania we see that general revenue grants have gone up by only 45 per cent. What a disgrace it is to have in power a government which wants to take control of the money available to people; it wants to centralise that control in Canberra. Let us look at local government. What has been happening with local government is quite topical at the moment because of the referendum issue. Let us see how this Government really gives recognition to local government. In 1982-83 two per cent of personal income tax collections were returned to local government. Under this Government that percentage has now been reduced to 1.7 per cent. Road funding moneys peaked in dollar terms in 1983-84. They have remained the same ever since. In this Budget the Government has cut the budget for local government by $50m-this is the recognition it gives to local government. On the one hand the Government wants to write in recognition of local government in the Federal Constitution and on the other hand the Federal Government wants to cut the money it gives to local government. If we continue the theme of centralising power we find exactly the same thing occurring in regard to referendum questions No. 1 and No. 2 in particular. These questions involve giving more power to the Prime Minister and reducing the power of the Senate. In my State of Tasmania there is another issue which is of great concern to us. I refer to the taking over of State powers in regard to land use matters. The Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests has dragged on for almost two years. What is going on is that this Government is locking up much of the valuable resources of the State of Tasmania and preventing the State from actually generating revenue. Maybe there needs to be developed the concept that as the percentage of land locked up by the Federal Government decisions increases there should be a reduction in the taxes paid to the Federal Government because of the revenue forgone from that land being locked up. Not only do we see this Government centralising power in financial terms and constitutional ways and takeover of States' powers but we see it weakening the poor and the lower middle income earners in this nation. Pay as you earn tax receipts have risen by 13.8 per cent. As I mentioned before, these people are being driven below the poverty line. Under this Government 700,000 people have moved under that line. Unemployment, for many people, now extends for over one year. Child poverty has been on the increase. With the Treasurer offering to give us tax cuts in the future we might well refer to him as the person who has taxed the shirt of all Australians and is now promising to give back the buttons in 12 months time. I say to the Government that those lower middle income earners will not see that as fair or just. I now want to make a few comments in regard to the Aboriginal affairs portfolio. Firstly, I make a few comments in reference to what the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) raised in the other House not so long ago. He referred to bipartisanship in regard to Aboriginal affairs, and indicated that it went out the door last Tuesday. I want to say to the people of Australia and to the people listening to this debate tonight that bipartisanship went out in 1982-83 when the Labor Party broke bipartisanship and pursued a course on national land rights. Ever since then the coalition has been interested in a bipartisanship approach to the matters faced by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this nation, but it has not been possible to achieve that. The Government ought not to promote the idea that it was the coalition that broke bipartisanship. It was not. We welcome the Government's moves in adopting the coalition's long-held view that health, housing, education and, in particular, employment opportunities should be increased for Aboriginal people. We believe that there is a great need for Aboriginal people to be secure in their identity and their self-esteem and to be strong in their family heritage. We believe that only if Aboriginal people are strong in their identity and their family heritage will their culture, which has a special place in Australia's heritage because of its uniqueness, also have a special history and status as our indigenous culture. We welcome the Government's change of heart to focus on those very basic needs which are so important to the Aboriginal people. We also welcome the expansion of the community development employment projects scheme. This scheme was started by the coalition in the late 1970s. It is a scheme which actually sets a trend in Australia. May I advocate for the second year that it would do well for the rest of Australia to look at that scheme, under which Aboriginal people forgo their unemployment benefits, have them paid in the general community and then work to receive payment of those benefits. The Aboriginal elders and leaders in these communities have set a standard for the rest of Australia. It would be an excellent idea if the Government would turn its attention to implementing that scheme throughout Australia for those people who are unemployed. Finally in regard to the Aboriginal affairs area, I wish to refer to the $2.6m which has been allocated to a public awareness campaign-up from $700,000. In the past all it was used for was to propagate the propaganda on whatever the Government wanted. What we see coming up in the near future is a treaty with the Aboriginal people. There is no doubt in my mind that this money will not be used for the benefit of the Aboriginal people. It will be used for the benefit of the Labor Party to promote its own idea of a treaty. This Budget is not a Budget to be proud of. As this year unfolds I believe that many Australian families will realise that this Government is the highest taxing government in Australia's peacetime history. Mr LEE(Dobell)(6.35) —I support the comments made by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) when he welcomed the Government's decision to increase funding for a number of Aboriginal welfare programs. It is pleasing to see that the honourable member for Braddon, as the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, agrees that under the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) we are making some worthwhile improvements in the areas in which Budget funding is being provided to Aboriginal people. I am sure the Minister will appreciate the honourable member's supportive comments on that particular matter. Perhaps he may not be so appreciative of some of the comments the honourable member made later in his speech. I would also like to comment on a number of remarks made by the honourable member concerning his opposition to the reduction in beer prices and the introduction of a levy on university students. I simply make the point that the reduction in beer excise is part of the government's accelerated anti-inflation strategy. It will reduce the price of beer, particularly low alcohol beer. I think that the Government is to be commended for introducing a greater price differential between low alcohol beer and full strength beer. However, the Government's main reason for reducing beer excise is to seek to lower the inflation rate, which hopefully will result in a lower rate of increase in wages and will have additional spin-offs in the years ahead. As to the Opposition's statements that it is against the Government's proposal to introduce a levy on university students, I remind people who are listening to this debate that the Opposition's policy is to introduce full cost recovery for the additional places which are required for the tertiary sector. The Opposition says it will provide some sort of scholarship system for the number of students now at university but for any additional places people will have to pay the full 100 per cent cost of courses. I know that that means that people from privileged backgrounds who go to the top GPS schools, which charge the highest fees, will be most likely to win the scholarships, as happened in the 1960s and 1970s when the Commonwealth tertiary scholarship scheme existed. That means that the Opposition would be saying to people from the western suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne and people from the poorer areas of Perth that they would have to pay 100 per cent of the cost of tertiary study. It is simply impossible to expect people from poorer backgrounds to pay out $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 for a university degree, which is what the Opposition is proposing. On the other hand, the Government has said that people, not while they are students but after they have graduated and if their income levels are in the upper brackets, should start to make a contribution back to the Government. This would be a maximum contribution not of 100 per cent, as the Opposition proposes, but a maximum of 20 per cent. I find it hard to understand the comments of the honourable member for Braddon when he said that he was against the Government's proposal to levy university students when his own Party's policy is to bring in a charge of full cost recovery. As for the honourable member's other remarks about this Government being the highest taxing government in Australia's peacetime history, I make the point that, given the fact that we have positive inflation in Australia, every Budget brought down provides for the highest amount of taxation in Australia's history. That is because of the simple way that inflation reduces the purchasing power of the dollar. I make the point that this year outlays as a proportion of gross national product will be only 25.6 per cent. If we look at the best year of the Howard years when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was Treasurer of this country and the people opposite formed the government and decided what outlays should be, we see that outlays were 26 per cent as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP). That was the best they ever did. In fact, the last Budget Mr Howard brought down had outlays as a proportion of GDP of 29 per cent-a massive blow-out. Yet members of the Opposition have the hide to come in here and suggest that this Government has been reckless in its spending, when their performance certainly does not come anywhere close to the achievements of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). I suppose the other interesting comparison is the Budget outcome. This year we have a surplus of $5.5 billion, compared to the prospective deficit which Mr Howard left in 1983 of $9.6 billion. How can members of the Opposition keep a straight face when they claim that we have not cut back expenditure enough? I find it very hard to understand their logic. Mr Langmore —That is absolute hypocrisy. Mr LEE —As the honourable member for Fraser interjects, it is absolute hypocrisy for members of the Opposition to suggest that outlays should be cut back further when they always avoid having to explain to this House or the people of Australia where they would make the additional cutbacks which they claim are necessary. I would like in this debate to highlight several aspects of the Budget. The first point is that the Government has increased the family allowance supplement (FAS) by 10 per cent. That will provide real benefits to people who are less well off, particularly those in my electorate, which has the fourth lowest median income level of any of the 148 electorates represented in this Parliament. That will mean that people with children of 12 years or under will receive a maximum FAS payment of an additional $2 a week, bringing that payment up to $24 a week-a substantial increase. Low income pensioners and people who are working and receiving low incomes will receive an additional $3 a week, bringing the maximum payment to $31 a week for those with children between 13 and 15 years of age. The Government has also introduced the New Start program, which will provide 25,000 places for the training of long term unemployed adults who are definitely in need of that re-skilling. I am sure that program will be a great success. In addition, the Government is introducing the jobs education and training program, which will provide 12,000 employment and training places to sole parents and will be providing increased child-care to help lone parents get back into the work force. One other measure which will be very popular in my electorate is the Government's decision to exempt from taxation the special temporary allowance which is paid to the surviving spouse of a married pensioner couple. I am sure honourable members will be aware of that, if one partner of a married pensioner couple dies early in the financial year, at the moment the surviving partner receives the combined married pensioner rate for 12 weeks and then receives the single rate for the rest of the financial year. After receiving the benefit of the pensioner tax rebate, pensioners still find themselves exceeding the tax free threshold and are being caught in a one-off situation of having to pay tax even if they have no income except their pension. That anomaly has existed for many years. I have attended meetings of local combined pensioners associations in places such as Gorokan, Toukley and Mannering Park. There is always at least one person in the crowd who has been caught by this anomaly whereby a surviving spouse member has had to pay tax despite having no other non-pension income. I am pleased that the Treasurer has responded to the representations of Labor members to have this special temporary allowance made exempt from tax so that these people will not be forced to pay income tax, because quite naturally they have not earned any income apart from their pension. That is certainly something which I believe is worth while. I wish to bring to the attention of the House a matter which has been successfully negotiated by the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans); that is, the new agreement on Australia-United States air services. I wish to give credit not only to Senator Evans, but also to the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris). He was the former Minister for Transport and Aviation. In that role he was the Minister who started the intense negotiations with the Americans and who took action when some of the American airlines sought to dump seats on the Pacific route. I give credit to the Minister for initiating action and renegotiating this agreement. He and Senator Gareth Evans have now achieved quite a number of things with Qantas Airways Ltd, Australia's international airline. Qantas will now be able to serve 15 cities in the United States-an increase of 11 cities on the previous number which Qantas could serve. As part of that package, I expect, Qantas will be flying to cities such as Chicago, Dallas and Atlanta, which are the growth areas in the United States market. If Qantas is flying from Los Angeles or San Francisco to London it will no longer be required to make a forced stopover in New York which makes the flights quite uncompetitive. I hope that Qantas takes every possible advantage from this new agreement between Australia and the United States. It will, hopefully, bring to an end the problems which were caused by the American airlines dumping surplus capacity on the Pacific route. In conclusion, once again this Labor Government has brought in an excellent Budget which has won the endorsement not only of the community at large but of Australia's financial experts. It is my hope that a similar Budget outcome will be provided next year with the added bonus of some long awaited income tax cuts which I am sure people in my electorate will welcome with open arms. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(6.48) —I do not know whether the financial experts that the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) has referred to agree as wholeheartedly with this Budget as he would like to think. Many commentators have observed that the Budget will depend for its success on the performances of other national economies. Domestic demand in Australia is increasing strongly and the problem which we have is to prevent that demand from being met from greatly increased imports. We must obviously meet domestic demand from our own industries as much as we can. There is very little encouragement in this Budget for Australian manufacturers or even for service industries to do that. Moreover, we need more export income to balance our economy. The Government appears to be not so much encouraging or helping that, but crossing its fingers and hoping that it will occur. The distinguished and conscientious Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, has done more than any other person to hold that portfolio to try to stimulate innovation, research and development, and invention, and to get government expenditure involvement. He has not been as successful as he or I or anyone else who has the interests of Australian industry at heart would wish. I had three years in a corresponding portfolio myself and I know his problems. All I can say to him is, `Keep trying. You did not succeed this time, nor indeed for the last five Budgets, but you are indefatigable'. I hope that the Treasurer (Mr Keating), who thinks he is bringing home the bacon, will realise that we cannot succeed by resting on the performance of other economies. It is like a team called Essendon in Melbourne-which is followed by another Government Minister-trying to get into the top five on the performance of other teams. That is not the way to do it. It seems to me that our economy has a similar parallel in that this Budget seems to be relying unduly on the performance of other economies. Much has been said in this debate about that. I turn to some specific items. Interestingly enough, the first of them is one that the honourable member for Dobell spent some time on at the end of his speech-and that is the question of employment and training programs. We have had a major report from the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs. The Government has had that report for several years now and it has commissioned several reviews of the report. It has agonised over that report and particularly the problems of long term unemployed. We have had reviews of reviews, paper after paper, evaluations of evaluations. We have also had name change after name change. There has been a massive waste of taxpayers' funds. We know the notorious example of Priority One-Young Australia, but there have been others in this area and in the end there has been no real help to the long term unemployed in gaining skills and jobs. The shadow Minister for employment, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), has observed that the average duration of unemployment under the Hawke Government has leapt from 33.3 weeks when it took office in March 1983 to 51.6 weeks in July 1988. The Treasurer says that this Budget brings home the bacon, but it certainly does not do so for almost one in five young Australians who cannot find work. Also, we have a situation now in which there are 127,000 adults aged between 21 and 54 who have been unemployed for longer than a year and 90,000 young Australians under 21 who also have been unemployed for longer than a year. There is not very much bacon for them in this Budget or, indeed, in any other aspect of the Government's performance. In this Budget we have a new name for what looks like, and I am sure is, a combination of old programs. New Start is aimed at the 21-to 54-year-olds who are long term unemployed. However, each component of New Start already exists. The Budget does not introduce any new programs-it alters the mix a bit and puts a new name on the totality of programs applying to this particular group of unemployed. New Start is the name used to cover that totality. I ask the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) when he responds, whether in this debate or during consideration of his Department's Estimates, to tell us why the Government has done this. Why has it coined a new name for old programs? Is it just to make people think that the Government is doing something? Has the Government evaluated these programs? They are well enough known and they have been in existence long enough to be evaluated adequately. The Kirby report and all the other reviews to which I have referred could have made that evaluation. The Bureau of Labour Market Research, which this Government abolished, had done some evaluation and would have done more if it had not been abolished. What are the results of the evaluations that have been done? More than half the extra places that have been funded in this Budget will be of a wage subsidy kind. The evaluations that I have seen are quite positive and I am not for one moment arguing against wage subsidy programs. However, I am interested to know why the Government has given them preference. I want to know what evaluations led the Government to this preference because in recent years the Government has been redirecting support away from wage subsidy programs towards training programs. Why has there been a change? There may be a good reason but those of us who are interested in these programs-and I see the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) is in the chamber; he has had an interest in this matter for as long as I have, which is many years indeed-would like to see the evidence. Then perhaps we could evaluate why the Government has made this change. It may be right, but on the face of it, it is not obvious that it is. What the Government has done certainly represents a change of direction and I suppose the Government is not prepared to admit that it might be wrong. I would like to think that we were a bit bigger than that in our concern for the unemployed. We are moving into relatively unchartered waters for Australia and we should have all the information on the table to enable us to examine the effectiveness of publicly funded programs. The Government also seems to have changed its mind about compulsory work for the unemployment benefit. We all remember the condemnation by Government Ministers, particularly by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), when this concept was raised in the House by the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) on 1 April 1987. Now the Minister for Employment, Education and Training speaks of `a reciprocal obligation' in the New Start program. The Minister's news release says: Attendance at intensive DSS/CES interviews and follow-up sessions will be obligatory, unless a reason is provided; any suitable labour market assistance offered should be accepted, unless there is a good reason for not doing so, or an acceptable alternative course of action is suggested by the jobseeker. This statement does not describe any sanctions that would be employed. When one talks of something being obligatory, one imagines that there will be some sanctions to ensure that it is carried out. The obvious sanction is deregistration with the Commonwealth Employment Service and the consequent loss of unemployment benefit. If the Government intends that, it is not saying so. If it does not intend that, how will it enforce the obligation? If the Government does enforce the obligation, in what way is this different from the concept of compulsory work or training for the unemployment benefit? Again, I am not saying that the Government would be wrong to do that, but certainly it would be a major change and again, the Government is fudging if it is making that change and not telling us the truth. I can see some huge administrative problems and some inequities resulting from the way in which this might be handled. It is difficult to see how the elements of compulsion in this new program can be reconciled with the basic principles propounded by the Government about fairness and equity because the program would not apply equally to all of the long term unemployed. As I said, there are 127,000 unemployed in the 21 to 54 age group who have been unemployed for a year or more and who qualify for the scheme. But there are only 50,000 labour market program places for this group, of which the old programs, now renamed New Start, will provide 25,000 places. How are these 25,000 to be chosen? What happens if more than 25,000 comply with the new requirements? Does interviewing cease? Or can the Minister offer the long term unemployed some hope? The Government now seems to have a pattern of mini-Budgets or May statements every year. Once the level of 25,000 has been reached, if the long term unemployed cooperate, will that cooperation be rewarded by the preparation of other programs or the funding of more places under this program in the May statement next year? Related to this area is the question of the allocation of child care. The Government is talking of a new program for 30,000 new places over the next four years. Of course, 30,000 new places over four years is not very many. It is certainly better than none-in fact, it is 30,000 better than none-but it is not very many considering the timeframe. The Government is allocating 20,000 of those places for outside school hours and I believe that that is the right direction in which to go. This particular commitment will help a lot of the unmet demand for child care for people who are sole parents and who are otherwise unable to find employment. If one looks at the statistics one finds that at the end of this year there should be some 110,000 child care places in existence. By the end of the financial year 1991-92 there should be some 140,000 places. Despite this expansion, the most recent survey of persons not in the labour force-looking at the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) catalogue number 6220.0, March 1988-indicates that the inability to find suitable child care was the major reason for not actively looking for work for some 81,000 people. So the Government's contribution is a very modest one. Sure, it has got some accolades from the financial community for its surplus, but I would be surprised, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you or the honourable member for Fraser took comfort from that. It is nice to have a Budget surplus, but still, even on the Government's own ABS figures, there are 81,000 people for whom it is a waste of time looking for work because the kind of work available is full time and the out of school hours care facilities are not there. So, while I commend the Government for moving in this direction-and I think that it and the previous Government should have moved in this direction earlier-the simple fact is that it is not moving fast enough. I remember very well the competition, the bidding, that went on for child care places between the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the previous Prime Minister in the 1983 election campaign. This Government has let the side down, in my view. I think the Fraser Government provided more in the way of child care than any other government had done. We in fact have not seen the Hawke Government perform as well as it promised and as well as most of its supporters expected it to perform. The composition of the 30,000 places mentioned in these Budget Papers also marks a shift in the emphasis in the type of child care provided by the Commonwealth. Whereas the emphasis of the 20,000 places commitment was on providing additional centre-based and family day care places, this new commitment concentrates more on the provision of outside school hours places, which represent 67 per cent of the places allocated in this Budget. So in fact the emphasis on child care for the children of school age dovetails very well with the commitment for the new scheme called jobs, education and training, which inevitably becomes JET, aimed at increasing the work force participation of sole parents with school age children. All of this represents a step in the right direction, but one cannot help thinking that even more could have been done to allocate more child care places. We heard references by several people to the reduction in the price of beer. One of the reasons tax on low alcohol beer was reduced was to induce people to drink that rather than full strength beer. I think we all recognise the social importance of that. But to reduce the tax on full strength beer as well appears to be a nonsense in terms of motivating people to drink low alcohol beer. Really, the reason it was reduced was to ensure that the Treasurer's prediction of an inflation outcome would be met, because it impacts favourably from that point of view on the consumer price index because of the weighting that is given to beer. I would have thought that if the Government were absolutely committed to the symbolism of its surplus-that particular figure that it has chosen-it would have been better to have allocated more child care places or to have spent money in some other area of social need rather than to have reduced the price of full strength beer. But these are the sorts of commitments that the Government felt it had to make symbolically. I want now to come to some comments made about the Budget with which I agree. The first of those was by Julian Disney, who is the President of the Australian Council of Social Service. In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 24 August he is reported as having welcomed some aspects of the Budget and he is quoted as saying: At a time when there are so many low-income Australians, there should have been a great commitment of funds in the areas of employment, training programs. He said: Expenditure will still be cut and housing assistance will still be lower. The article then went on to say: Mr Disney said the creation of 30,000 extra child-care places was a substantial improvement but the funding for that was partly made up for by a lower commitment in the employment and training programs area. The same newspaper article reports the views of Mrs Ann Young, the President of the Child Care Association of Australia. She said that children had missed out in this Budget. The article said: She said family day-care funding had been indiscriminate and not regulated, which had led to an appalling safety record and that the 30,000 extra child-care places to be phased in over the next four years had to be quality places. Mrs Young said all funds should have been directed in to the family assistance package increase, unless quality day care could be ensured. I am sure most of us would agree about the importance of quality day care; yet I cannot see in the Budget documents assurances that that will indeed be striven for. I hope that the Minister responsible will give attention to that matter. Otherwise the child care places themselves are of no value. My last comment relates to the question of a national language policy. There is some commitment by the Government to this area, but it is inadequate. We recall that $28m was removed from the general English as a second language program in the 1986-87 Budget. It has never been restored. Any of the funding that has been channelled back through Commonwealth or State sources is subject to ad hoc annual decisions. This affects children born in Australia who are not fully competent in English. I commend the Government for the fact that it now provides proper programs for teaching English as a second language for new arrivals, but many of the children of those who arrived as adults are still suffering. In the light of the immigration debate it should be obvious that this is a matter that requires major attention. When we come to the estimates for the appropriate department. I will say more about this question of a national language policy. I believe it is one of the most important things for us socially, culturally and in terms of trade. We must have a program in which Australians can acquire a second language and in some cases a third language. There are at least six which can be identified as major world trading languages and there are many others which are of great importance to us diplomatically and in terms of trade. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(7.08) —The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) has made a number of very well-informed and thoughtful points, and I hope that the relevant Ministers, particularly the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) and the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), will take note of what he said and take into account in their policy development. Many papers are tabled with the Budget, some of which are very important. Yet they tend to be neglected because of the volume of material included in the Budget itself and the importance of the many policy announcements that are made with the Budget. A new paper was published this year, Budget Related Paper No. 9, entitled Labour Market Reform: Industrial Relations Agenda. That is the subject I want to address in this speech. It is particularly appropriate to be talking about this paper because it encapsulates many of the initiatives and achievements of the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who will complete his term in that portfolio on Friday. Ralph Willis has been the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations or Minister for Industrial Relations ever since the Government was elected in March 1983. That portfolio must be one of the most difficult and demanding in the Government because it combines difficult policy issues and a constant stream of utterly complex industrial relations conflicts and crises which demand immediate attention. It is an extremely difficult task to combine crisis management with steady policy initiative; yet Ralph Willis has succeeded outstandingly in combining these two roles and in achieving great results in both areas. There can be no Minister in the Government more directly responsible for the decline in time lost through industrial disputes during the last 5 1/2 years than Mr Willis. The figures speak for themselves. In 1982, the time lost per 1,000 workers throughout Australia was 2,200 days. That was the year before the Labor Government took office, and a year in which the Australian economy went into severe recession. In the year before that, the time lost per 1,000 workers was 4,200 days. Yet during the years of recovery, when the economy has been growing strongly, time lost through industrial disputes has been low and has remained low. For example, the number of working days lost in the last full financial year for which figures are available, that is, 1986-87, was 1,100 per 1,000 workers-only just over half the level of 1982. Many factors have contributed to this nationally important achievement, but much of the personal credit must go to the Minister for Industrial Relations for he has been centrally responsible for the administration of the prices and incomes accord between the Government and the union movement, which has set the framework for industrial relations throughout the past 5 1/2 years. The Minister for Industrial Relations has extraordinary skill in negotiation which is widely recognised and acknowledged by both unions and employers. He also has a fine capacity for rigorous and thorough analysis, for careful evaluation of alternatives, and for taking decisions after thorough consideration. The accord has provided the framework within which there has been wage moderation, and which, therefore, has provided one of the fundamental requirements for growth in employment. The Government's most important achievement since winning office has been the growth in the employment of well over one million people, and wage moderation has been the most important factor in facilitating that growth. The Minister for Industrial Relations, in conjunction with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and other colleagues, deserves much credit for that vitally important employment growth. The paper on labour market reform outlines both achievements and plans for the labour market and industrial relations in Australia. The hallmark of the Government's industrial relations reforms has been consensus. The characteristic of every aspect of industrial relations since the Hawke Government was elected has been tripartite consultation and negotiation. Broadly, the Government's goals have been to increase economic security, freedom and justice-and they remain the Government's goals. Every individual and group seeks security. Economic growth, full employment, price stability and the improvement of living standards are essential elements in the achievement of personal and collective security. Labour market policies are important for all these goals. Wages provide the essential income for economic security, and wage settlements are used to ensure a fairer distribution of income. The paper on labour market reform takes up the themes of promoting industrial harmony through the industrial relations system, the promotion of increasing skills in the work force through educational and training arrangements, the restructuring of awards to provide incentives for training and productivity growth, and the value of encouraging widespread participation in decision making. The Government's main instrument for labour market reform has, of course, been the prices and incomes accord, the value of which has been demonstrated in practice and clearly recognised by commentators and scholars who have examined the performance of the Australian economy during the past half dozen years. There can be no doubt that the accord has contributed to the rate of economic and employment growth, to increased competitiveness, to the drop in the level of industrial disputes, and to improvements in the social wage. The first stage of the accord involved uniform wage changes throughout the work force. Now the emphasis is on labour market flexibility, aimed at trying to remove rigidities and archaic practices which reduce efficiency and opportunities for improvement or application of skills. For example, many traditional forms of work organisation rigidly define job and trade roles. Many of these rigid distinctions are no longer appropriate. They prevent the most directly effective linkage of skilled people and new equipment. They do not make full use of workers' talents, skills and potential and therefore they reduce job satisfaction. Some of these traditional forms of work organisation are embedded in awards, so it is important to restructure awards to reflect the new technological and organisational realities. One of the central elements of the labour market reform package is the emphasis on award restructuring. It includes, for example reducing the number of job classifications, thus reducing the potential for demarcation disputes. For example, there are over 700 separate job classifications in the three awards covering the textile, clothing and footwear industries. Many of those classifications are obsolete and some even relate to production methods used in the nineteenth century. Similarly, the metal industry award has 348 separate job classifications, many of which have simply been added to the existing award over its 70-year life. Award restructuring must include the removal of obsolete classifications, a reduction in the number of classifications, the broadbanding of a range of jobs under appropriate single classifications, and the establishment of links between training, skills and wages which enable employees to have a career path through to more highly paid jobs. Ideally, a comprehensive award restructuring process involves preparing an entirely new award based on contemporary and clear language and including statements on the employees' rights and obligations, on the type of skills required at each pay level, and on progression from one level to the next, based on specified standards of competence. Of course, there is likely to be some resistance to some of these changes, because many of the work structures have been in existence for a long time and people are used to them. Nevertheless, relinquishing traditional craft-based attitudes and jealousies and replacing them with structures which reflect contemporary technological and organisational arrangements is obviously important to maximise both the effectiveness with which people are able to work and their satisfaction on the job. Another element of labour market change that is well advanced is the introduction of reforms to the industrial relations system. The Industrial Relations Bill was passed in this House at the end of the last session and is about to be debated in the Senate. The Bill establishes the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, to replace the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The new Australian Industrial Relations Commission will have wider scope and greater powers for carrying out dispute prevention and settlement activities. There is particular emphasis on the place of non-legalistic dispute settling procedures. The new Commission will be required to consider the interests of the parties as well as the Australian community, including the state of the economy. Grievance procedures will be recognised and encouraged. The new Commission will have powers to settle demarcation disputes and it will have discretion to allow the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) to attempt to settle such disputes. The place of negotiation of wages and conditions in individual workplaces is recognised, and closer coordination between Federal and State industrial relations systems is encouraged. Another feature of the Industrial Relations Bill is that it will encourage union amalgamation. With over 300 registered trade unions, many of them very small and predominantly craft-based, there is a great potential not only for demarcation disputes but for inefficiency and delay in processing wage claims. The Bill facilitates speedier amalgamation by allowing simply a majority of members voting in an amalgamation ballot to decide the issue and removing the requirement for a minimum number of votes before a ballot can be settled. These changes will also encourage the move which the ACTU is aiming for-larger industry-based unions. The existing Conciliation and Arbitration Commission already embodies policies for improving productivity through the wage system in its national wage case decisions. For example, the new structural efficiency principle requires that wage increases be conditional on a formal commitment to cooperate positively in a review of award structures, and this will enable a concerted attack on outdated structures. To assist with the preparation of the environment for award restructuring, the Department of Industrial Relations is involved in a stocktake of current industry arrangements, including award structures, existing work and management practices, and training requirements. As a result of that research, areas that are most in need of reform are being identified and ways for making those reforms are being proposed. For example, a national conference is being organised for clothing union officials to examine award restructuring. The Government is also helping timber unions to hold a similar national conference. This approach emphasises the value of both education and consultation. In the vehicle industry, the Government is assisting both management and unions to conduct plant by plant joint seminars for shop delegates and middle management to introduce the concepts of award restructuring. The Trade Union Training Authority has also allocated officers to assist in these kinds of educational programs. The Government is managing and part-funding overseas study missions by both employer and trade union representatives from the metal and vehicle manufacturing industries to study occupational classifications, work organisation and training and accreditation arrangements with other countries. A particular problem in the area of education training is the wide differences in training systems and curricula in the various States and Territories. Of course, there have been many Commonwealth initiatives aimed at reform of the education and training system. These include the introduction of a traineeship system which flowed directly from the report of the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs-the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) referred to this in his speech-that was established by the Minister for Industrial Relations. There are now 20,000 traineeship positions bridging the gap between school and apprenticeship in the training system. Youth training and adult training programs have also been introduced. There has been a shift from employment creation to training programs. The number of higher education places has been increased by 67,000 since 1983. There have been substantial capital works at technical and further education institutes, one of which I am very glad to see being built in Canberra with the strong support of both the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) and me. The system of unemployment support and educational allowances has been rationalised to reduce the incentive to drop out of school and to increase the incentive for training and education. Labour market reform also includes the stimulus given to industrial democracy at the workplace. One concrete achievement was the joint statement on participative practices agreed to between the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Australian Council of Trade Unions and published earlier this year. Agreement in an area like this, where controversy is involved, is a significant and important achievement and another example of the Minister's capacity for sustained conciliatory work leading to an important outcome. Another paper, which deals with encouraging industrial democracy and the sharing of profits and growth, was published in March. This paper addresses such matters as supporting schemes to enable employees to share in the benefits of improved productivity and higher profits and encouraging incentives has been the establishment of the national occupational health and safety system. The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, which was established in 1985, is a landmark in providing the structure for steady improvements in workplace safety and health. Recently that Commission and the labour Ministers' conference identified six national priorities for occupational health and safety. These six are the prevention of occupational back pain; noise induced hearing loss; chemicals in the workplace; occupational skin disorders; prevention of mechanical equipment injury; and occupational cancer. Those six forms of injury or sickness are amongst the most damaging in Australian workplaces. For instance, three out of four people suffer from work related back pain at least once in their lifetime, and about $225m a year is paid in back pain-related compensation payments. It is also estimated that up to 500,000 workers suffer from noise induced hearing loss. These are shocking figures and it is therefore particularly important that attention be paid to the prevention and treatment of those forms of injury and ill health. A major initiative relating to the assessment and control of chemicals in the workplace is the national industrial chemicals notification and assessment scheme. The steady reduction in repetition strain injury in the last three years is one concrete example of what can be achieved when concerted attention is placed on every aspect of a common occupational injury. These initiatives are in sharp contrast to the simplistic stance of the Opposition, which advocates only and solely labour market deregulation. Such a doctrinaire approach is a recipe for disorder and exploitation. The removal of minimum standards would eliminate one of the major forces for conflict resolution, orderly wage settlement and improvement in training opportunities and the work environment. The approach of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia is simply silly and ignorant. No unions agree with it and many employers oppose it. These examples in no way comprehensively describe the past or planned proposals for reform of the labour market which are outlined in Budget Related Paper No. 9, nor do they adequately illustrate the Minister's achievements. But they give a clear indication of the range of issues which the Minister has taken up on behalf of the Government during his term as Minister, and the extent of improvements which have occurred and which are planned. The outcome of all these changes and processes is already greater security, more freedom and improved social justice for everyone in the Australian work force. The proposed reforms will contribute ever more towards those goals of security, freedom and social justice. Debate (on motion by Mr McGauran) adjourned. Motion (by Mrs Kelly) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Dr WOOLDRIDGE(Chisholm)(7.27) —I wish to speak tonight about the activities of the Whipstick Gold Mining and Development Company Ltd. Whipstick is a family company with three directors and a company secretary, all of whom are related to each other. It has a paid up capital of $12 and undertakes gold mining. It has two leases near Dunolly in Victoria, one of one hectare and one of 5 hectares. That in itself is not all that remarkable. What is remarkable is that the company secretary has a long and extensive criminal record dating back to 1956. In 1984 he was sentenced to a four-year gaol term for the production of amphetamines. Perhaps that in itself is not all that remarkable, except for the fact that this $12 company, with a secretary with a criminal record, has received a half a million dollar loan from the Victorian Economic Development Corporation. So we have a situation where a man with a $12 company and a long and extensive criminal record, walks out of gaol, goes to the Victorian Economic Development Corporation and gets half a million dollars to set up a gold mining business. The amphetamine production, which this man was charged for, was very extensive. The Age of 22 March 1984 stated: Chemicals seized from the Campbellfield property in 1981 were sufficient to produce 8 million doses of amphetamine sulphate. It is not all that difficult to produce amphetamine. What is difficult is getting hold of the reagents necessary in the production. One of the reagents that is particularly difficult to get hold of is cyanide. Today I rang two chemical production companies and asked about the availability of cyanide. I was told in both cases that there was no way an individual would be able to procure cyanide; it would have to be a company with a valid reason and an authority from the Poisons Advisory Committee. That is where this grubby activity of the Victorian Government is most disturbing. Because of the cover and the credibility given to it by the Victorian Economic Development Corporation loan, the Whipstick Gold Mining and Development Company Ltd has now applied to the Poisons Advisory Committee to procure and hold cyanide. Cyanide is an essential part of gold production. However, this type of cyanide is not the same as that used in amphetamine production. I spoke to an inorganic chemist today and asked whether it would be possible to convert the two. I was told that any person with a reasonable knowledge of chemistry would have no difficulty in doing that. The Sun of 22 October 1981 reported on the chemical amphetamine factory of the person who is now the company secretary of Whipstick. It stated: The workmanship and the professionalism in setting up the operation is completely different to what has been experienced by the drug bureau in the past. So said the prosecuting policeman. We now have a situation in which a man can walk out of gaol after a four-year gaol term and, already possessing a long criminal record, can procure a half a million dollar loan from the Victorian Economic Development Corporation with no investigation into his background whatsoever. He is able to use a $12 company and six hectares of pegged out mining leases to make application for a reagent necessary in the production of amphetamines. I find this whole thing extremely disturbing. Given the possibility that cyanide could be made available to a man with this record, given the involvement of the former company secretary in the clandestine drug manufacturing activities, I call on the Victorian Premier to order an extensive investigation into how this happened, the nature of the Government's involvement in such an enterprise and how, conceivably, management practices by the Victorian Government would be so sloppy as to allow such a thing to happen. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(7.32) —Last year, I raised in the House a matter regarding the Family Heritage Book Co. In a skilfully worded letter, the company attempts to portray the fact that it has some unique facts about a person's family heritage. After raising this matter, my office received many telephone calls from people who had ordered the books for their relatives. The sad fact is that the elderly or widows fall easy victim to this marketing. Indeed, the cases brought to my office confirmed this general trend. I wrote to the company on numerous occasions and received no written reply and, in many instances, I mailed books back for people in the hope that they would receive their money back. The number of complaints then declined. This year, the company is at it again. A constituent has received a copy of a letter from Family Heritage Australia Pty Ltd, 23-27 Marquet Street, Rhodes in New South Wales. The lady was informed that she would receive a new `world registry' of her family name using a highly sophisticated network of computer sources in Canada, the United States of America and Australia. Honourable members will be amazed to learn that the company has also sent a letter to me offering the same information about my family. The fact is that the company new appears to have gone international. The letters sent to the Bundaberg area have a return address in Sydney. However, I have been informed that in New South Wales some of the returned envelopes are to be sent to a William Foreman of 3699 Ira Road, Bath, Ohio 44210, United States of America. I said before that the letter is skilfully written because it attempts to convey that people will receive more than they actually do. The book itself contains some very general information which could apply to any family. It does, however, using either a telephone book or the electoral roll, compile a list of people with, using my case, the name `Courtice'. It is dishonest to the extent that not all of these people are family related. In the case of women particularly, it is a ham-fisted and clumsy attempt at establishing a family tree. There is a great deal of interest these days, particularly this year in our Bicentennial, in tracing our family histories. This company preys on that curiosity by providing nothing more than a generalised account. In view of the fact that this company is now international, I intend to refer the documentation to the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Senator Bolkus, to see whether the material contravenes any Federal laws in respect of advertising. Certainly, the Queensland Minister, Mr Lester, is aware of it and has issued a number of warnings to consumers. The Bundaberg branch of his Department was very co-operative last time there was a general disquiet about this book. I call on people in Bundaberg who feel they have been misled to contact my office or the Consumer Affairs Department in Bundaberg to provide assistance in getting back moneys outlaid. There is another consumer issue related to this type of matter. It refers to the small claims tribunals in each State. There appears to be growing evidence that once decisions are made against a person or company, there is a tendency towards non-compliance. As a result, the consumer is still no better off and the offending company is able arrogantly to ignore the ruling. I believe that the next meeting of Federal and State attorneys-general might care to re-examine this whole question. This matter is of increasing concern given the expansion of firms like Family Heritage into international agencies. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(7.35) —As a result of the Budget and recent changes introduced by the Government to the pension income test, there are many thousands of Australian pensioners who are desperately concerned about their capacity to maintain some semblance of financial independence in their retirement. I must emphasise that the Opposition is not against stopping exploitation of the pension system but the unfortunate fact is that the Government's proposed changes will in effect create two classes of pensioners-those who have been sensible and have gone into managed market linked investments as distinct from those who are rich and wealthy, who can stand alone and whose investments may be in real estate or the stock market. The effects of the Government's changes are quite straightforward. The changes are retrospective. They will affect those who have been in schemes for up to the last 10 years and who thought that they were entering into schemes which had the support of government. They were advised by management consultants who in turn had been advised by government that these schemes were appropriate. They are now told that the basis upon which they entered those schemes is no longer the position and that there will be significant changes to the income test in respect of the income which those people may generate from market linked investments. Therefore, the effect is that those who are smart enough to go outside the system and do their own thing will be subject only to the existing income test. They will not lose their pension and their fringe benefits, whereas those who have gone into market linked schemes and have taken the advice of management consultants will be the real losers. On a number of occasions the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) has said that he is out to get the fat cats. He is out to get those whom he says are unfairly living off the system. Let us look at the reality and take as an example a female aged 63 who has worked for 16 years for a large company. Upon retirement she receives a superannuation pension of $2,040 a year or $39 a week. She also has a lump sum superannuation payment of $22,834 or $55 a week. Under the new rules she will now be denied the ability to protect herself against inflation through any type of reasonably stable investment. In fact, she will lose $27 a week of her pension plus all her fringe benefits which are estimated, depending on which State she happens to live in, at between $20 and $50 a week. The only way this so-called rich lady can avoid the draconian measures of this so-called working class Government is to put her precious superannuation savings into more speculative areas or through self-investment in real estate or the stock market. The simple fact is that hundreds of thousands of Australian pensioners are too old and not able to make those decisions for their long term investments, and rightly so. Why should they be forced by this so-called working class Government to take risks with their nest eggs, the funds they have contributed to through superannuation-the savings they have made over their entire time in the work force. All they ask for in retirement is to be left alone by government. All they ask is to have stability of the regulations against which they will make the decisions. In this case thousands of Australians will be affected. The Minister claims 33,000 but I believe the figure will be substantially higher. Many of these people have sums as low as $15,000 invested. The Minister claims that the limit will be $40,000. So what! The existing income test and the assets test covers people up to $82,000. Why should these people be the subject of attack at this time of their lives, in the twilight of their years, when all they ask for is financial security and independence? These people are not botting on the system. These are the people who have worked Australia through the Depression and the Second World War. All they ask of this nation is a fair go which has been denied to them by this Government which is claiming once again that a saving of $18m made in this way is the way to financial probity. In fact, all it is doing it ensuring that hundreds of thousands of Australian pensioners reach the stage where they no longer accept the word of this Government on anything relating to their financial independence. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(7.30) —I wish to inform the House that an award has been given to a newspaper called Land Rights News. Land Rights News is a publication of the three Northern Territory land councils and has won a special citation from the United Nations Media Peace Awards which will be presented by the Governor-General in Brisbane on Saturday night. I congratulate the editors of Land Rights News-Pat Dodson, the Director of the Central Land Council and John Ah Kit, the Director of the Northern Land Council-on their excellent work in producing this newspaper. Land Rights News started in the 1970s as two separate newsletters for the Northern Land Council and the Central Land Council. As you will know, Madam Speaker, the Northern Land Council is based in Darwin and the Central Land Council is based in Alice Springs. Since 1985 Land Rights News has been in its present format-a tabloid newspaper put out jointly by the Central and Northern Land Councils with contributions from the Tiwi Land Council. The Tiwi Land Council is the land council which takes responsibility for Bathurst and Melville Islands. It now averages 32 to 36 pages per edition with the most recent being 48 pages. From earlier irregular releases Land Rights News now comes out every two months and has a print run of 22,000. The special January issue which was released to coincide with the 26 January march and activities in Sydney had 100,000 copies. This tabloid has broad reach into the Aboriginal community across Australia and is also widely read overseas-throughout the Pacific region as well as in Europe and North and South America. Land Rights News is an essential part of setting the record straight and educating and informing non-Aboriginal Australia about its indigenous population. It is used as a reference source by non-Aboriginal people and has been adopted by the National Unions Coalition with the Aboriginal Movement as a means of educating union members about the Aboriginal struggle. The front covers are designed by Aboriginal artists as a means of promoting Aboriginal art and advertising revenue is helping increasingly to cover the production costs. It is good to see that a number of government departments now take the opportunity of advertising in Land Rights News. I have a regular advertisement in it. Many government departments are finding that Land Rights News is a positive way to reach Aboriginal communities and, interestingly, advertisements for tobacco and alcohol are not accepted. I recommend Land Rights News to all honourable members. I am happy to provide them with subscription forms if they do not already receive it. I should point out that between 1985 and 1987 I was employed by the Central Land Council. Having had experience in working with that organisation, I commend the professionalism of the staff who have often been derided in the past because they happen to work for an Aboriginal organisation. It was my experience that they undertook their roles professionally and appropriately. It is to the credit of the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory that they are able to put out such a professional journal and run such a professional organisation. I refer briefly to the appointment of Ms Barbara Shaw to the National Women's Consultative Council. Barbara Shaw is Aboriginal, a Kaiditj woman from around Alice Springs. It gives me great pleasure to inform the House of her appointment to the Council. She is a very forthright and forceful woman. She is a very capable person who has demonstrated her capacity for work and her interest not only in women's issues and those of her people-the Aboriginal people-but also those of the wider community. I congratulate her on her appointment to the Council. Mr SMITH(Bass)(7.44) —There have been several newspaper editorials today, notably in the Age and the Hobart Mercury, and in the Australian in recent days and other newspapers, about the rapid decline in support from the Federal Government for the flagship of science in this country-the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). Those honourable members who take an interest in science will know that the CSIRO has again taken a major drop in support from the Government. It is an accumulative effect over a five-year period of 32 per cent. The interesting point I want to raise tonight concerns an article that appeared in this evening's Melbourne Herald. It is an article by Barry Jones whom I debated at the National Science Forum earlier in the week. Yet again, Barry has stepped forward-somewhat bravely, I might suggest-and criticised the Government. The article commences: The Science Minister, Mr Jones, today strongly attacked the Hawke Government's record on science funding. One could not get a more explicit statement from a Minister. In the article he went on to blame the senior bureaucrats in this country for the state of science. I think it would be true to say that once a Minister starts blaming bureaucrats for his own failings it marks the beginning of the end of that Minister. I suggest to the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business that the very best thing that he can do for science, if he is so concerned about it-I know that he is-is to say to his financial colleagues in Cabinet that if they are not prepared to stand up and take a longer term view about the importance of science in this country he will resign. Only in that way will he bring home the seriousness of the plight of science, and particularly the CSIRO. Another interesting piece of information that came my way this evening is an unprecedented letter which went this afternoon to Neville Wran, the Chairman of the CSIRO. It is a letter sent by the Chairman of the Committee of Chiefs of CSIRO responding to Mr Wran's exclusive interview in the Australian at the weekend where in effect he blamed the chiefs for their inability to change and their inability to manage. The letter will be distributed later this evening. I hope that honourable members will take the opportunity to look at it because it is an indictment of Neville Wran but, more particularly, of this Government and its treatment of science. The best and brightest members of our community are up in arms and are acting in an unprecedented fashion in writing such a letter. I will read a few paragraphs of the letter into the record: The commonly held view of all chiefs is that the continuing cutback of government support for CSIRO is arbitrary and is done without well-informed consideration of the damage done to the effectiveness of the research it sponsors. CSIRO research has over the last few years been subjected to incessant and exhaustive review. The organisation has submitted itself to reconstruction from top to bottom with the willing cooperation of chiefs, in the belief that it would ultimately result in a fitter and more efficient whole. While there is of course a priority order on the programs remaining it is the conscientious belief of all chiefs, backed up by the reviewers, that all the programs are directed to real and important needs for the competent and effective strategic development of our country. There is very little dead wood or private indulgence, and what little remains in the province of `blue sky' research is preserved to maintain a semblance of commitment to excellence and a promise of serendipitous scientific advance. Mr Hollis —What was that word? Mr SMITH —I will spell it for you later; you ignorant fool. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr SMITH —The letter continues: Thus the chiefs' criticisms are not motivated by laziness or self-interest but by a genuine concern that CSIRO is being weakened to a degree where it is unable to meet its responsibilities for the strategic research necessary to maintain some capacity for self reliance into the next century. Certainly we do not need to be told to become better `managers'. The letter calls on the Board and the Executive Management Committee to stand up for science and the CSIRO. It is an indictment of the Government for such a letter to be made available or to even have to be written. I hope that all honourable members who have some view about the future needs of this country in the very important area of science will put what pressure they can, regardless of where they sit in this House, on having a reconsideration of and far greater support for science. Anyone who thinks about the future-and I apologise to the honourable member for Throsby-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(7.48) —The 8 September each year is designated Literacy Day. As the House will not be sitting on that day I take this opportunity of making a few comments about it. Honourable members may wonder why this is an important day. It is important because it is a day when we all realise what a world of difference literacy makes in people's lives. How many times a day do most of us use literacy skills without realising it-street signs, advertisements, notes, letters, newspapers, even television programs. I was first made aware of the problem of illiteracy in our community when, before I became a member of this Parliament, I was the regional organiser for the Workers Educational Association of New South Wales in the Illawarra. Often people came to me because their children had approached them to help them with their homework, bringing home to them the fact that they themselves could not read or write. We conducted some courses in that area. A study conducted in metropolitan Sydney in 1976 found that almost 4 per cent of people whose native language was English did not have functional literacy skills. This means that those people are not able to read simple instructions. The illiteracy rate for people with a non-English speaking background was much higher. The personal, political and economic implications of this are enormous as the full potential of this considerable number of people is not being realised. We all need to be aware of the incidence of illiteracy and the associated problems and to work towards a more literate community. Although, I suppose, Australia does not have a great number of illiterate people on a world scale, nevertheless it is a problem throughout the world. Recently, I led a parliamentary delegation to four countries in Africa. The problem of illiteracy there was brought home to us very strongly. For example, in Ethiopia, one of the countries we visited, at the time of the revolution over 90 per cent of the population was illiterate. When the Portuguese left Mozambique, as well as pulling out much of the infrastructure, they left a great problem of illiteracy. Illiteracy is so serious a problem in Ethiopia that every literate member of the society from the President down is engaged in training in literacy. Indeed, the President himself conducts literacy classes. As a delegation we were very privileged to visit one of the literacy training centres. I must say that as someone who for many years has been associated with adult education it was a most interesting experience. In my own area of the Illawarra we also conduct literacy classes. Indeed, most technical and further education (TAFE) colleges in New South Wales have an adult basic education section in which a variety of courses are offered to help the adult illiterate improve literacy skills, and thus increase self-esteem and potential. In the Illawarra region there are adult basic education programs at Wollongong, Shellharbour, Dapto, Nowra, Milton, and the Eurobodalla and Bega colleges. I commend the people associated with this program, especially Margrit Stocker, who incidentally happens to be a constituent of mine. Mrs Kelly —Oh! Mr HOLLIS —Yes, she is, I am very pleased to say. She is head of the adult basic education course at Wollongong TAFE. In fact, I am very proud of the work that these colleges are doing. I recommend to my colleagues here that, if possible, on Literacy Day on 8 September, they visit their local TAFE colleges. I also make an appeal to every honourable member to recognise the problem of illiteracy in the community and to do all we can to help these people reach their full potential as participating members of our democracy. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(7.53) —Madam Speaker, you, as an avid and, dare I say, partisan supporter of the Hawthorn Football Club, will not, I am sure, mind me detaining you a few more minutes in the chair this evening. I refer to the fact that the West Coast Eagles in their second year in the Victorian Football League (VFL) competition have made the finals and will be participating in the elimination game at VFL Park on Saturday. Madam Speaker, I see you shaking your head. We are talking only about next Saturday. I realise your commitment and your loyalty over many years to Hawthorn will prevent you from giving me any encouragement as to the outcome of the Grand Final. I might also mention, Madam Speaker, that I bear you no ill will, your club having pinched Gary Buckenara from Subiaco Football Club-- Madam SPEAKER —We bought him. Mr ROCHER —I prefer `pinched', but I accept the fact that you may be right, Madam Speaker. My club suffered and your club, Madam Speaker, undoubtedly gained as a result of that. As someone from Western Australia I, as do others from Western Australia, sometimes get to feel sorry for myself and reckon that Western Australians are outnumbered when we come across to this part of the world. I am no exception to that sentiment at times. Therefore, I make this plea from the centre of national government tonight. I simply ask that the many thousands of Victorian Australian Rules football supporters whose sides have unfortunately been unable to make the football finals, unlike the Eagles, will turn up to Waverley Park on Saturday. Knowing as I do that Australian sportswomen and sportsmen have always been known for their sense of sportsmanship and fair play, I hope that they will extend some of their applause to the team that we will field. We will have a team of 20 young men who, along with their colleagues who cannot be picked for Saturday, have overcome tremendous odds of time, distance, travel and unfamiliarity with other ovals to reach the finals. Because of the geography of the competition, their fans on Saturday will be 3,500 kilometres away. I would like strongly to urge all those football followers who have not any allegiances to go along on Saturday to VFL Park and to cheer the Eagles for the day. In fact, I know that I am supported in that by the Melbourne manager for the West Coast Eagles, Mr Ross Nicholas, who has had this to say: Of the 35,000 expected to attend the match, we can only account for about 500 West Australians and it would be great for the team to have encouragement from uncommitted Victorians. I agree with Mr Nicholas's sentiments, despite my obvious keen interest in the future of the Eagles. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(7.56) —Today I sent out an invitation to all senators and all members of this House to join a new organisation called Parliamentarians for East Timor. There has been in existence in the Australian Labor Party Caucus an organisation called East Timor Forum, of which I am the convenor, and we have about 20 or 25 members. Following a visit to Portugal about four or five weeks ago, I met up with the Chairman of the United Kingdom human rights group, Lord Avebury, and the Japanese convenor in the Diet of the East Timor Forum. It was decided that it was time to form an international network of parliamentarians for East Timor. The basis for our belief that such an international network was possible was the declaration signed by some 450 members of parliaments around the world three years ago calling upon the United Nations to carry out its obligation to find a peaceful, political, legal and internationally acceptable solution to the crisis in East Timor. In our visit to Portugal we were greatly encouraged by statements made at that time by the Governor of East Timor, Mario Carrascalao, and the Indonesian Minister for the Interior, General Rudini, that East Timor should be opened up to the world. This is the first concrete sign that the Indonesians may be prepared to come to the negotiating table to bring about a peaceful and legal solution to the East Timor issue. Parliamentarians for East Timor, the new group, will support efforts by the Portuguese and the United Nations Secretary-General and will pressure all governments to support self-determination for East Timor. We are also heartened by the decision taken by the European Parliament to support the resolve of its new member, Portugal, to negotiate an acceptable solution through the United Nations. This could change votes in the United Nations in favour of retaining the East Timor question on the international agenda. We believe that it is very much in Indonesia's interests to open up East Timor and to concede to the United Nations request for a negotiated settlement. Indonesia very much wants to chair the non-aligned group of nations but other member nations will not support its claim while human rights continue to be violated in that territory. Parliamentarians for East Timor will lobby members of the non-aligned nations to fill the chair only from countries with an acceptable human rights record. I cannot comment on reports recently in the Australian Financial Review-leaked documents from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade-which indicate that the former Minister, Mr Bill Hayden, in 1983, had found the Indonesians to be erratic, hostile people to deal with. This may well have been his personal experience but I want to make it quite clear that our group is not anti-Indonesian; it is pro self-determination for East Timor. An acceptable solution requires United Nations auspice discussions between Indonesia and Portugal and an opening up of East Timor to members of parliament and Amnesty International. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Chynoweth to move- That this House- (1) recognises the serious environmental threat posed by the greenhouse effect, and (2) believes that urgent steps should be taken to implement and maintain research into the greenhouse effect and that such research should be funded by means of a levy on polluters and pollutants. Mr N.A. Brown to move- That this House- (1) condemns the Government for terminating the employment of two chefs in Parliament House, on the ground that they refused to join a trade union; (2) calls on the Government to re-employ the chefs without requiring them to join a trade union; and (3) calls on the Government to cease any arrangements or practice it has which require an employee to be a member of a trade union or which militate in any way against the employment of non-unionists. Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act to amend certain Acts providing for the payment of bounty or subsidy, and for related purposes. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Expansion of international terminal complex, Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 31 August 1988: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals for collection of information-1988- No. 5-New topic to be included as a supplement to the labour force survey: Attendance at educational institutions. No. 6-Agricultural Finance Survey. No. 7-Survey of new capital expenditure, 1987-88. No. 8-Survey of Motor Vehicle Use. No. 9-Research and Development Statistics. Defence Act-Determinations-1988- Nos 39, 40, 41, and 42-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. Seat of Government Act- Ordinances-1988- No. 44-Crimes (Amendment). No. 45-Magistrates Court (Amendment). No. 46-Co-operative Societies (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 47-Agents (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 48-Education (Amendment). No. 49-Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 50-Remuneration (Amendment). No. 51-Remand Centres (Amendment). No. 52-Legal Practitioners (Amendment). Rules-Regulations, 1988-No. 15 (Magistrates Court (Amendment) Ordinance).