Tuesday, 18 October 1988 Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Leo McLeay) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I inform the House that, with the consent of the party leaders, approval has been given to the media to film Question Time today in order to update their file footage. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a matter of courtesy, I inform the House that the Minister for Transport and Communications, Mr Willis, will be absent from Question Time today on Government business. Questions on aviation, communications and telecommunications issues should be directed to the Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support, Mr Punch. Questions on transport and shipping matters should be directed to the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support, Mr Brown. I also inform the House that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Kerin, is unwell and will be absent from Question Time today. Questions normally directed to Mr Kerin should be addressed to the Minister for Trade Negotiations, Mr Duffy. Mr HOWARD —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I ask: In view of the Government's failure to date to ensure fully the effectiveness of its invitation to United Kingdom and United States ships to participate in Australia's Bicentennial Naval Salute, will the Government reintroduce the Fraser Government's 1982 Defence (Visiting Warships) Bill, a Bill which received the public support of the current Defence Minister? Will the Government immediately reintroduce this legislation, which would give the Federal Government effective control over such visits and thus ensure that there was no repetition of last weekend's Melbourne situation, where Australia's defence policy was hijacked by the union movement with the passive support of the Socialist Left-controlled Victorian Cain Government? Mr HAWKE —I make the point with regard to the superfluous ending of that question that the people of Victoria made a clear judgment as to whom they wanted to govern them. It is a pity that in what is a serious issue, which I concede, this nonsense has been appended to the end of the question. Let me put this issue in its appropriate context before going directly to the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I remind him that the access that has effectively been provided so far in this matter is quite remarkable. There have been 30-plus ships in 12 ports in Australia in the last three to four weeks. On some five occasions there were refusals to cooperate but in those cases the ships were docked with the provision of assistance from the Royal Navy. Mr White —Are you saying that it is all right if five do not dock? Mr HAWKE —I intend to answer the question. If members of the Opposition will contain themselves they will get a full answer to the question. Those are the facts as to the extensive way in which a large number of ships have been able to participate in response to the invitation from the Commonwealth Government. The Government deeply regrets the union action which has prevented certain ships from entering Australian ports, particularly in Melbourne. The action that has been taken is clearly contrary to Government policy. Mr Connolly —What are you going to do about it? Mr HAWKE —If the honourable member will contain himself he will get an answer which I know will not satisfy him. The ships will very likely be going into Adelaide. I know that upsets him but that is what is going to happen. We do not want to see this situation in the future and action will be taken to ensure that the Royal Australian Navy will have the capacity to deal with it should there be such a refusal in the future. Now let me go to the specific question of Adelaide. What had looked like the refusal of the Seamen's Union of Australia to cooperate in Adelaide posed difficulties not only in regard to the visits of the ships themselves but also in terms of the added objectionable complication that Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York were on the Edinburgh and it looked as though, if the ship could not go in, the arrangements that had been made for the proposed royal visit to Adelaide would be aborted. In addition to our objection to the ships not being able to get in, that would have caused very considerable disappointment-to put it at the lowest-to tens of thousands of people in South Australia. In those circumstances, because we have been concerned with this matter, contact has been made with the Seamen's Union. What has been put to us is that in Adelaide there has been some-as the union put it-misunderstanding regarding the arrangements. Opposition members-Ha, ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —I know that honourable members opposite are disappointed that the visit will go ahead, causing them to make inane gurglings. I repeat that currently meetings are taking place and it is my firm hope and my expectation that the vessels will be able to go into Adelaide. I repeat that this must come as a very considerable disappointment to those on the other side of the House who would have hoped that the vessels could not go in there. Mr Tuckey —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order concerning relevance. The question asked the Prime Minister whether he would put some legislation in place so that he did not have to get permission from the trade unions. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Mr HAWKE —The point that I am making, in leading up to the final answer to the Leader of the Opposition, is that it has been indicated in this case that, by appropriate consultation and an indication of what issues are involved, we will be able to get the vessels into Adelaide. We believe-not just on this issue but in the industrial relations area generally-that one can test the philosophy of the Opposition against the practice and the philosophy of this side of the House. The Opposition was in government for some seven years between 1975 and 1983. It embraced its philosophy of confrontation. It solved nothing. It solved no industrial dispute by its confrontation; on the contrary, it created disputation. One can test the philosophy and the practice of those opposite against the philosophy and the practice of this Government because in fact-- Mr Spender —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked a perfectly specific question. He still has not answered it. It had nothing to do with general union practice and ancient history, and he should answer it. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for North Sydney will resume his seat. Mr Spender —You should rule that-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for North Sydney. Mr HAWKE —It is always the same: when one gets under the skin of Opposition members they try to hide behind spurious points of order. What I am saying is totally relevant to the honourable member's question because I am pointing out why we will not move to the sort of legislation about which he is talking. Honourable members opposite had the opportunity, in seven years of government, to try their approach. Did they bring in the legislation? No, they did not. They tried other sorts of confrontation and did not proceed with it. They had the support here and they did not proceed with it in the upper House. They had the opportunity of going ahead with legislation and they did not do so. On that occasion they showed some sense, as against their general approach whereby they always followed the proposition that, if they spoke loudly, wielded a big stick and threatened legislation, they would get results. I will put my record of 5 1/2 years against the Opposition's seven years. Mr Goodluck —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am a member from Tasmania. I came up here to look after the people of Tasmania. I am sick of mucking around, so let us get on with Question Time. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Franklin will resume his seat. If the honourable member takes another frivolous point of order, I will name him. Mr HAWKE —Good on you, Brucie; I love you. And I love your smile, too. The fact is that we have eschewed that confrontationist approach. What is the result? The result is a 60 per cent reduction in industrial disputes in this country under this Government compared with the seven-year period in office of honourable members opposite. The confrontationist approach which says, `We will hit you with a big stick', has not worked in the past. It would not have worked here. However, what has worked is the sensible process of consultation. Therefore, I believe that the ships will go in. Mr CHARLES —My question is to the Minister for Defence and is in fact supplementary to the question and answer just given. Can the Minister for Defence inform the House what steps are being taken to prevent in future the disruption to ship visits by union bans, as occurred in Melbourne last week? Mr Tim Fischer —Mr Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 146, which says that a question fully answered cannot be renewed. In the context of that standing order I suggest that the honourable member's question be ruled out of order. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I call the Minister. Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable member for his question. Of course, many of the matters my answer would have gone to were covered by the Prime Minister in his answer to the previous question. I might say that the question of proposed action by legislative process was supported not only by me but also by all members of the Opposition at the stage at which it came before the House. I think, from recollection, that legislation was introduced into the Senate at the beginning of September, having passed through the House of Representatives with our support. That legislation lay before the Senate for about two or three months of sittings without being debated. Therefore, this notion that the legislation came in immediately prior to the election is nonsense. Of course, once the then Government, now the Opposition, found that the Australian Labor Party was prepared to support it in that legislation it did not proceed with it. The then Government was not interested. That was clearly the attitude of the Government at that time. It was not concerned about the issue of whether the ships would come in; it introduced the legislation for opportunistic reasons. The point about that exercise, if we really get down to seriously looking at it, is that short of wartime conditions that sort of proposition simply involves absurd confrontation everywhere. In every port in which there has been protests by the unions or anyone else associated with the visits of these warships-there have been many of them in many ports over the last few months-the protests have in fact not prevented a nuclear capable warship going into the ports. All of those ports, including Melbourne which has hosted the Ingersoll for the last week, have had nuclear capable ships in them. The second point is that nuclear capable ships, according to the policy of this Government, will continue to visit those ports. We will ensure that there is the means for those ships to be able to do so. In fact, where there has been a union objection, a combination of good seamanship and the activities of the Royal Australian Navy has ensured that berthing has taken place-- Mr Tuckey —Not in Melbourne. Mr BEAZLEY —Except where there has been an additional extraneous factor. In the case of Melbourne the additional extraneous factor happened to be the weather. At some points during that weekend, even with the assistance of tugs it would not have been possible to berth the Ark Royal. What subsequently happened is something that we regret. Mr Sinclair —Why didn't you say something. Mr BEAZLEY —I will get on to a few other things about the attitude of the right honourable member to port visits in a minute. The view of the Leader of the National Party of Australia, when he was in office, was that we should have a west coast ANZUS and an east coast Finland. I will say a thing or two about that when I get round to it. We all know what the right honourable member used to do in east coast ports. He might one day stand up in this House and explain why the entire Royal Australian Navy was on the east coast but the only Navy tugs were on the west coast. Why, when the entire Royal Australian Navy was on the east coast, were Australian Navy tugs only on the west coast? The answer from the government of the day was, `We will not put American warships into the east coast if we can possibly avoid it. They can all go to Western Australia'. I have had a bit on my liver about this for quite a while, because it was this Government that introduced the policy that we will not have a west coast ANZUS and an east coast Finland. We will have an Australian participation in ANZUS, as far as warship visits are concerned. The reason why we do not have Royal Australian Navy tugs on the east coast is basically the reason I have outlined here: there are in fact Royal Australian Navy tugs on the west coast and visits can take place there as previously. So the Government has decided that the appropriate way to address this is not to go around trying to foment goodwill for Australian port ship visits by arresting and gaoling as many people as we possibly can. We will go through the process of ensuring that those ship visits can take place by the means which we have chosen to use in the past, which in this one instance-- Opposition members-Failed. Mr BEAZLEY —Failed. In this instance, in one instance, they failed. What we will do is bring forward-- Mr N.A. Brown interjecting- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Menzies will cease interjecting. Mr BEAZLEY —We will bring forward what were plans already in place. Mr N.A. Brown interjecting- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Menzies. Mr BEAZLEY —We will bring forward plans already in place inside the Royal Australian Navy to bring into service with the Royal Australian Navy ocean-going tugs. In this instance it is planned to introduce those in connection with the trials of a research ship which is necessary to test certain equipment of the submarines. We will bring that forward. If we are to proceed in Jervis Bay-and that is, of course, dependent on an environmental impact study-there is going to be a requirement for tugs associated with the move to Jervis Bay. So we will ultimately reverse the policy of the Opposition, which was: tugs on the west coast, no tugs on the east; port visits on the west coast and limited port visits on the east coast. We will have Australia altogether in ANZUS. Mr White having addressed a question to the Minister for Defence-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Before the Minister answers the question the honourable member will be aware that he cannot ask a Minister a question about Government policy. He might wish to rephrase the question. Mr Howard-Yes, he can. You allow them every day. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I make a point to the Leader of the Opposition. He sometimes complains about this. We might try to get it straight. Mr WHITE —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Is it not a fact that, in view of the Prime Minister's earlier answer, Government defence policy is now based on a matter of industrial relations and not Government authority? Mr BEAZLEY —I shall interpret that, to conform with your ruling, Mr Acting Speaker, as relating to Government defence administration. I would have thought that if the honourable member had been listening to my answer and to that of the Prime Minister, he would have had a complete explanation of what we intended in that regard. I note on this not the comments of the honourable member, who is yet to get a defence policy together in about a year and a half of holding that shadow job, who has come into this place with a farrago of nonsense, and who is constantly subject to criticisms from senior military figures on the ground that he is constantly trying to lower their morale, but that he might have actually got into his thick head some of the things we were talking about in the answers that we gave here. The fact is that if he sat down and read through the comments that have come from people such as Admiral Hayes and the relevant Secretaries for Defense and State in the United States of America about the nature of relationships with us, he would appreciate that there is no requirement, as far as this Government is concerned, to give any explanation as to whether we give our full and forthcoming support to ANZUS and to the United States alliance. We do. We argue that in public and we will continue to do so throughout our period of office. I would also have thought that the honourable member would have picked up, from the answer that I just gave, that where there have been industrial problems in the past we have usually been able to overcome them without gaoling the bulk of the people involved, simply by going through a sensible process of providing Royal Australian Navy alternatives for berthing the ships, as we did when we berthed the USS Brewton in Wollongong and as we did when we berthed the USS Ingersoll, I think, in Newcastle. Fundamentally, we have not had a problem with doing that. We have done it persistently since we have been in office for the last five years. We are upgrading our capability to ensure that, in all circumstances, that will take place. As I have had occasion to remark before in this place, we will not proceed with sleight of hand in our defence policy; we will not leave those nice little anomalies where there are tugs and no ships in Western Australia and all ships and no tugs on the east coast. On both sides we will provide ourselves with the capacity. Ms CRAWFORD —My question is to the Minister for Social Security and concerns maintenance payments for children. Can the Minister inform the House of progress in ending one of the most shameful episodes in social policy history in Australia, that is, the difficulties for custodial parents in enforcing maintenance? Mr HOWE —I think all honourable members will recall the situation of the late 1970s when we had very low levels of maintenance being paid after marriage separation. There was no effective enforcement and less than 30 per cent of sole parents received any regular maintenance. During the period of the previous Government there was virtually no action. The only action of the conservatives was in fact to reactivate provisions to cancel pensions if action was not taken to initiate proceedings for maintenance. Of course, that action was futile. It was classic blame the victim stuff that put the sole parent through the hoops rather than putting responsibility where it really lay. As honourable members will recall, ex-nuptial children and step-children were not covered by a national law, thus creating immense difficulty in getting and enforcing orders and for the family law system. The High Court of Australia ruled in 1976 that the Federal law only covered children of marriages. The Fraser Government commenced negotiations with the States in 1977 to try to sort out the situation. Of course, it is not irrelevant to the remarks of previous Ministers, including the Prime Minister, that while there was a great deal of talk during that period of cooperative federalism, there was no agreement with the States. Indeed, apart from huff and puff, effectively nothing happened during the seven years in which the current Opposition was in government. The present Government, operating not on the basis of seeking to blame the victims, not on the basis of seeking to put non-custodial parents in gaol as was suggested by Senator Durack, but on the basis of sensible discussion with the States, has now achieved a national approach. The Attorney-General got New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Queensland to refer the relevant powers. Last week Mr Berinson, the Attorney-General of Western Australia, introduced legislation to adopt the Child Support Act. Tomorrow I will introduce legislation to enable Queensland and Western Australia to adopt the Child Support Act. We will have a true national scheme for all children. The area of child support is an extraordinarily sensitive area. It is a delicate area that needs some care. We now have a national scheme in place and we are beginning to see the value of a great deal of work done between the Commonwealth and the States and tremendous cooperation between the various departments of government. There is nothing more difficult in government, when one takes a complex and sensitive area such as child support, than trying to achieve a situation where the Attorney-General's Department, Treasury, particularly the Taxation Office and the Department of Social Security, work together to produce an integrated national child support scheme. The Child Support Agency is in place and is collecting thousands of orders not honoured for years. We have a real national scheme for all children with regular, monthly, secure maintenance. As I said, there is cooperation between the departments. I think that is a tribute to an approach to government based on consultation rather confrontation, on working together and on recognising that government involves essentially very hard work. That is the difference between the Government and the Opposition. The Opposition had seven years to sort out a problem. Admittedly it was a complex and sensitive problem. When it got to the end of the seven years, it did not have the problem sorted out. We have been in government for five years and we have a national scheme in place. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I ask him whether tax cuts of $25 to $30 a week are affordable next year. Mr KEATING —As part of the Government's macro-economic management of the economy, we said in the Budget that we would look at the prospect of a wage-tax trade-off which could accelerate our economic progress and diminish our inflation rate and, at the same time, lift real disposable incomes and which could only be accommodated and accomplished within the context of a prices and incomes policy within an accord. No such policy, of course, would be available to members of the Opposition and, hence, no such tax cut could be contemplated by them without destroying the demand management position of the economy. I said in the Budget Speech-I will repeat it-that in considering the magnitude and quality of such a tax trade-off we would need to see what wage outcomes were in this financial year and also look at the quality of such a trade-off in demand terms for the economy over the ensuing year. Those judgments will best be made some months away. On the basis of the Government's expressed view about this in the Budget, there is no point now, and one cannot possibly assess the macro-economic conditions which will obtain at the time such a tax cut would be negotiated. Mr HOLLIS —Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to statements made by the South African Ambassador to a recent National Party of Australia conference? Can the Prime Minister inform the House of Australia's action on sanctions against South Africa? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. The Ambassador for South Africa has been reported as saying: The effect of the Australian sanctions on South African whites can be likened to an assault by a mosquito on an elephant. If he wants to refer to South Africa as an elephant, that is all right by me. But let me say on this matter of sanctions that it is not a question of one mosquito. I will have something to say quickly about the degree of cooperation that there has been and the effect of these sanctions. I want to preface this brief answer by reminding the House of the position of the Government on sanctions. As far as this Government is concerned, it would rather not have a situation in which one had to talk about sanctions. It has been put before that the concept of sanctions is not to bring South Africa to its knees, but to bring it to its senses. We would infinitely prefer a situation-I think the overwhelming majority of people in Australia would-where the regime in South Africa would come to the bargaining table, come to the negotiating table, because there is no virtue in sanctions as such. Sanctions have been contemplated by the world only in a situation in which there has been an intransigent refusal by the regime in South Africa to negotiate. I remind the honourable member and the House, therefore, that it is not a question of Australia acting alone, but that Australia's actions in this regard have been associated with actions, as I think most honourable members would know, by other members of the Commonwealth, by the United States of America, by members of the European Community, and by others. Seen in this context, I believe that the actions have been effective. But more important than my belief that the sanctions have been effective are the statements that have been made from within South Africa itself. Statements by the South African Government and important actions by sections of the white South African community confirm the impression that I have had that the sanctions have been effective. In October 1987 the South African Minister for Finance, Du Plessis, said: The negative effect that boycotts and sanctions have on the economy should not be under estimated. Subsequently, South Africa's gold and foreign reserves have reportedly fallen by 28 per cent in United States dollar terms since December of 1987. I ask the honourable member and other members of the House to take note of these three statements from authorities within South Africa. The Executive Director of the Anglo-American Corporation has said that real growth in South Africa has ceased, investment has fallen, inflation has become endemic and capital cannot be obtained from abroad. Secondly, the Chairman of the Standard Bank, one of the largest banks in South Africa, has urged the South African Government and business leaders to push for an end to apartheid and to avoid increased sanctions thirdly, the Director-General of Finance has said that South African foreign currency levels have fallen to a `worrisome level'. In recent days we have seen President Botha visiting Switzerland on a mission specifically to raise capital in the light of South Africa's urgent need for foreign currency. Mr Ian Cameron —What about the wheat? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —I believe that the Australian initiative in the Commonwealth in investigating this question of international financial links and support for South Africa has been effective. I ask this simple question: Does any serious person believe that white South African business leaders or the South African Rugby Union authorities would now be talking directly to the African National Council without the pressure that international sanctions have put upon South Africa? There would have been no such approach by leaders within South Africa to talk with the African National Congress unless there had been this pressure of sanctions, the effect of which has been acknowledged by the spokesmen to whom I have referred. I note finally that, as the honourable gentleman has said, the comments of the new South African Ambassador were made to a meeting of the Young Nationals, a group of Australians whose concern for the facts about South Africa is well and truly known. Mr Ian Cameron —What about the $100m worth of wheat that has been knocked off? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Maranoa. Mr BLUNT —My question is directed to the Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support. Mr Scholes —Mr Acting Speaker-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member for Corio will cease interjecting as well. Mr BLUNT —He probably knows the answer. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member for Richmond will get to his question. Mr BLUNT —Did the contract won by Southern Cross Advertising Pty Ltd for airport advertising contain as a specific condition in the tender documents a prohibition on the sale or assignment or any rights or obligations under the licences and authority agreement? Further, will the Minister advise the House how this contract came to be taken over by another company? Mr PUNCH —I think a number of things have to be said here. First of all, the Government now has two outside bodies, if you like, governing aviation matters. We have the Civil Aviation Authority, whose rules and so forth would be well known, and we have the Federal Airports Corporation, which runs the airports and is charged with the responsibility of running them on a commercial basis. I am not aware of that contract. Mr Tuckey —What are you aware of? It is another serialised answer. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. Mr PUNCH —I am not going to be aware of every contract that those authorities go through. That is not what the new structure is supposed to be about. Mr Blunt —Mr Acting Speaker, on a point of order: the Minister is mistaken. It is actually done by the Department. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Tuckey —He doesn't even know that, Charles. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting or I will deal with him. Mr PUNCH —I am not going to be across every tender document that goes through any of the aviation bodies. I will get the details for the honourable member. I will get back to him as soon as I have sufficient details. Mr O'KEEFE —My question is directed to the Minister for Trade Negotiations. The Minister has recently participated in a meeting of trade Ministers at Islamabad in Pakistan. I ask him how the outcome of this meeting will influence the Government's approach to the multilateral trade discussions due to be held in Montreal in December. Mr DUFFY —The meeting referred to by the honourable member was the most successful of the meetings of trade Ministers in the last 18 months because at that meeting the United States trade representative, Mr Clayton Yeutter, acknowledged that the Cairns Group proposal-a group that Australia has the honour of chairing-for reform in agriculture was now, as he said, in the ball park for agricultural reform. It should be said, for the benefit of honourable members, that the Government's trade policy has two fronts. Firstly, we continue to pursue all the important bilateral trade opportunities. There have been some great successes in that area. In particular, the Japan beef market opening was one of the most successful agreements concluded by any government in Australia-in stark contrast to the one which was negotiated by those opposite, who returned with an agreement for beef sales to Japan which discriminated against Australia. We had a good deal of success in removing from the United States Trade Bill those elements which directly affected Australia most adversely. Although the Trade Bill is still one which causes difficulties in trade, it is certainly a great deal better than the initial version. With New Zealand we have concluded a comprehensive agreement on closer economic relations-again, probably the most far-reaching trade agreement that any government in this country has concluded. The second front, however, is the one referred to specifically by the honourable member for Burke-that is, the multilateral area. The Cairns Group is now recognised as a third force in the world agricultural debate. It is a group which has gained respect in the whole range of negotiations. We have also pursued all other areas in the round-not just agriculture, but areas such as services, the functioning of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade system, intellectual property rights and all the various areas across the range. Nothing came out of the meeting in Islamabad to change the view that the primary objective of the Government should be to reform the multilateral system, because it is essential for small and medium sized countries such as Australia to have that system reformed. This Government has coordinated that approach across the board. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have used various international fora to put forward very strong views on the need to reform the trade system. Other senior Ministers, such as the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, have put forward these views at every opportunity. In fact, it has been a very coordinated approach, which is in stark contrast to that of the Opposition. We have been waiting a long while to know what its attitude to trade is. In fact, I notice that on 11 May the Leader of the Opposition said that he would produce clear policy positions on all important issues by August-September this year. We are still waiting for the policies to which he referred. The former Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, did call for formal trading blocs in the Asia-Pacific area. That received some support from Opposition members, from the honourable member for North Sydney and the honourable member for Mayo. They obviously supported him in some way, as they called for a formal Asia-Pacific trade association to be established, whatever that may mean. The Leader of the Opposition, however, in his address to the Australian Investment Conference in New York, seemed to disagree with them. He said that when the Opposition finally produced this policy-and we still do not know what it is-it would call for the establishment of an informal trading association-again, whatever that may mean. The right honourable member for New England, the Leader of the National Party, is the official trade spokesman for the coalition. He has not clarified his position. Unusually, he is not a great supporter of our multilateral endeavours, because I recall that in this House he said that we should not blow out the candle on the multilateral negotiations; he said that it would take only a puff to do so. Mr Tuckey —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. If the Melbourne Cup was about to start, the Minister would not have taken all that time. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member will get to the point of order. Mr Tuckey —The point of order is to complain to you, sir, that we have had about four questions from each side today-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —And that was blatant time wasting. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr Tuckey —I have not concluded my point of order and I ask you to hear further. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —What is your point of order? Mr Tuckey —Speaker Cope, that much maligned gentleman of previous times, said on 20 February 1975, as reported on page 530 of Hansard: It is my duty to see that the backbenchers on both sides of the House are able to ask as many questions as possible. And your own people might talk about it. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr PROSSER —Can the Minister for Employment, Education and Training confirm that in January this year he rejected the advice of his Department and overruled the decision by the then Minister for Employment Services, Mr Holding, in order to prevent the release of Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) data showing unemployment levels on a town by town basis? Can the honourable gentleman confirm that he overruled that decision because of pressure from the Premier of Western Australia, then Minister for Employment, who is on record as expressing concern about the use of this data in politically sensitive State electorates? Mr DAWKINS —I recall that this matter came up at a meeting of State and Federal Ministers for labour-in Sydney, as I remember. It is a matter that had apparently been raised at earlier meetings that I had not attended. Their concern was that obviously there was some confusion with two series of employment statistics, one being based on the Bureau of Statistics and the other being based on information held by the Commonwealth Employment Service. The fact of the matter is that it is widely accepted that the information collected by the CES is not a reliable indication of the state of the labour market on a regional basis. It measures vacancies and registrations, and movements are not an accurate reflection of the strength of the labour market. It is true that there had been some people-I am not sure whether the honourable member was one of them-who had delighted in misusing this information; I am not sure whether that was for political reasons. But it was the view of the State Ministers, and put very strongly to us, from all political parties represented there, that it would be better if this information was not published as it had been. The information is still available and is still published in an aggregated form. Mr SAUNDERSON —Can the Minister for Social Security advise the House as to the current status of the social security review? What is its role and what are its achievements to date? Mr HOWE —The social security review was established in February 1986 for the purpose of reviewing aspects of the social security system. They were very central aspects dealing with the issue of assistance to families, the question of income security and the labour market, and the area of retirement income. The review is headed up by Professor Cass from Sydney University. It is a review which has had a profound effect on government policy. It has now published five papers in the Issues Paper series and more than 40 background papers. Those papers have been very widely read. The social security review has received more than 580 submissions from people interested in the various recommendations. The Government-this was not the case with previous reviews such as the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty of the early 1970s-has sought to address as far as possible within a quite difficult fiscal environment the recommendations that have come out of that review more or less within a year of those recommendations being received. Honourable members will know that many of the recommendations made in the first paper in relation to families have been adopted, with the result that very significant assistance has been given to low income families. It is also true that the Government has adopted many of the recommendations made in Issues Paper No. 3, which dealt with sole parent families, including recommendations with respect to the establishment of the child support scheme I referred to earlier. As a result of the adoption of those policies, tens of thousands of sole parents who were many dollars below the poverty line have been raised out of poverty by the Government's action in response to that part of the social security review. This year the Government has announced two new programs-jobs, education and training and New-Start-which arose out of consideration of the Cass paper on sole parents, and Issues Paper No. 4, which dealt with unemployment benefit. Currently consultations are talking place nationally with respect to Issues Paper No. 5, which goes to the question of disability, particularly sickness benefit and invalid pension. It means that the Government might assist people who are suffering from various disabilities to get access to greater income, particularly through greater participation within the labour market. As honourable members will know, the social security review is about to publish a paper on retirement incomes. As a result of this very rational policy process-- Mr Howard —This is a statement, not an answer. Mr HOWE —Of the 585 submissions received in response to five issues papers, there was not a single response to any issues paper on behalf of the Opposition. Mr Connolly —I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. This is a clear misuse of Question Time. If the Minister wishes to table the statement on the Cass report he knows he can do it. He should not use Question Time like this. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The Minister is answering the question. Mr HOWE —It is interesting that, despite the fact that in social security we spend one in every four dollars of government expenditure, the shadow spokesperson could not make the Cabinet. That is how seriously the Opposition regards social policy. Mr Sinclair —I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. You will recall that while in Opposition on many occasions the honourable member for Reid canvassed with successive Speakers his concern at the practice that has been pursued by Government Ministers today, that is, using questions without notice as a device by which they are able to announce and debate government policy. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Does the right honourable member have a point of order? Mr Sinclair —I do; that is, within the practice of rulings given by the Chair, successive Speakers accepted the intervention by the honourable member for Reid that Ministers were not permitted to use questions without notice as a device for making statements in the way the Minister is currently doing. I suggest you call on him to cease. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HOWE —I would have thought that it was of considerable interest to all members of the Parliament to be aware of the answer to the question regarding the contribution made-- Mr Sinclair —Why won't you debate it? Mr HOWE —We will debate it. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will answer the question or he will resume his seat. Mr HOWE —I would have thought that it was of considerable interest to all members of the Parliament. We have had a process of policy review in which every paper of major policy interest has been published and in which there has been an opportunity for all members of the Parliament to contribute by way of submission. There has been not one single submission from the other side of the Parliament. The review is reaching the stage of publishing on retirement incomes. The contribution to policy has been unprecedented. I put on record the appreciation I have for Professor Cass for the considerable amount of information that has been published and her contribution to public policy. Mr HUNT —In the absence of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I draw his attention to the go-slow tactics of the Commonwealth meat inspectors which are being orchestrated by the Commonwealth Meat Inspectors Association and are deliberately disrupting meat productivity at Gunnedah abattoirs. Is the Prime Minister aware that these tactics have already resulted in the abattoir turning down the slaughter of 1,000 sheep per day to fill an export order? Will the Prime Minister ask his Ministers-those responsible for Commonwealth meat inspectors and industrial relations-to intervene to restore the previous responsible inspection levels? Does the Prime Minister recognise that failure to resolve this issue could result in a damages claim against the Commonwealth and a successful prosecution? Mr HAWKE —I think that the honourable member for Gwydir has scored a first because, for the first time in 5 1/2 years, I have to confess that I am not across the details of the question. I know that when the honourable member for Gwydir asks a question, as distinct from many of his colleagues, he seeks information. Immediately on returning to my office I will have this matter raised with the office of my colleague and seek to have an answer to the honourable member before the end of the day. Mr PRICE —I preface my question to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel by saying that the Minister will be aware of my interest in ensuring that those young people from the western suburbs of Sydney wishing to join the defence forces are given the opportunity to do so. Can the Minister advise the House of progress being made to establish a pre-apprenticeship type short course that will confer educational entry status to the general ranks for those who successfully complete such a course? Mrs KELLY —I thank the honourable member for Chifley for his question and also for his interest in his constituents. I have instituted some discussions to follow through the points that he has raised, but I should let the honourable member and this House know how successful we have been in getting recruitment interest from the western suburbs of Sydney. Western Sydney contains 18 per cent of the recruitable population of New South Wales, but western Sydney produced 27 per cent of the total applications to join the Australian Defence Force in New South Wales last year. That indicates the great support that we get for the Defence Force from the western suburbs of Sydney. The Defence Force is aware of the importance of the western suburbs in recruiting, so we have 28 per cent of recruiting manpower concentrated in the western suburbs. We have a tri-service recruiting centre in Parramatta and Army careers information centres at Blacktown and Belmore. We are also actively visiting all the schools. Of the 138 secondary schools in west Sydney, 133 will have been visited by recruiting teams in 1988. The remaining five schools have chosen not to accept such visits. Maybe I should discuss that with the honourable member for Chifley to see whether he can help us out. All 20 Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) offices in Sydney's west are provided with literature on the three Services. All three Services provide direct counselling at those CES offices when required. I will follow up the points raised by the honourable member because there is no doubt that the aim is to provide a defence force which is truly representative of all Australia. I thank the honourable member for Chifley for his interest in this. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Pursuant to section 9b of the Public Service Act 1922 I present the annual report of the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff for 1987-88. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The growing concern among Australia's aged pensioners at their declining living standards. 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 CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(2.57) —In February this year the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) met hundreds of pensioners at the front of the old Parliament House. On that occasion he was hissed and booed by the very same people who, over the last 5 1/2 years, have been told by this Government of compassion and concern that it intends to protect them. One may well ask why, if the Government has done such a wonderful job, the Prime Minister was hissed and booed. Why were these people anything but friendly to this southern gentleman who imagines that he can solve the problems of the world? The simple facts of the matter are that the Australian Labor Party's 1986 Budget decision to defer the consumer price index (CPI) adjustment to the pension by six weeks cost the average Australian taxpaying pensioner $70 per year. That decision was not the last in any respect. It is the basis upon which, ever since then, the pensioners of Australia have looked askance at the decisions, promises and commitments of this Administration. As I said, the cost to the average pensioner was $70 per year as a result of that decision. The Prime Minister said that it was the Government's intention ultimately to restore the previous arrangements but not until it was economically responsible to do so. What the pensioners of Australia-over two million of them-are saying is simply this: `If you now have a $5.5 billion surplus, how much patience do you expect us to have? How much longer do you expect us to wait to get back to what we see as the deal entered into many years ago by which we were to receive full indexation?'. That was a commitment made by the previous Fraser Government. It is a commitment that has been fundamentally breached by this Hawke Labor Government. The six-monthly delay in pension increases after the publication of the CPI has now gone from bad to worse. Not only has there been an erosion of pensioners' standards of living but also Labor's originally promised CPI adjustments have been delayed as long as two months. I am talking about people who are totally dependent on the pension. They are not rich people. They are not part pensioners. We are talking about people who have no other source of income except what they receive every fortnight. They simply cannot miss CPI increases for two months of the year and be told by this Government that somehow or other they are better off. What an absurdity! How could anybody make that suggestion? The other day I received a letter, which I want to read to the House. It is a sad letter, but it demonstrates the heart-rending concern which millions of Australians feel about the pensioner situation in this society. It states: Dear Sir, I am appealing to you to try and do something to make life easier for myself and pensioners. You already know, I hope, that we are forced to live below the poverty line. Clothes have gone up 30%-50% and shoes likewise. Food, as you must know, doesn't go up 2c but 20c and other household commodities the same. I am a widow pensioner and have had to work hard full time to help my late husband make ends meet, and here I am in an affluent country having to plead my case . . . I live in a bed-sitter and all I have in the world is what is in this one room, no car, no property to fall back on. Sir, would you like to live on a pension such as ours? (I doubt it). So please make your voice heard, and raise the pension to a livable wage and the ceiling rate. She concluded: Am I proud to be an Australian? No, sir; rather ashamed. Yours, with disgust. That is a sad letter. But I think those of us who were involved in a major meeting in Sydney a few weeks ago, which some 4,000 pensioners attended, received a more than clear message of the circumstances facing pensioners today. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) was, of course, not present. He was represented by the Acting Speaker, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), on that occasion. The bottom line is this: pensioners are no longer prepared to provide support for a government which puts out publications such as Towards a Fairer Australia: Social Justice Budget Statement 1988-89. I draw this paper to the attention of the House. It states in the overview: A cornerstone of the Government's philosophy is the achievement of a fair and just society . . . Then it states: In this year's Budget, the Government is building on its social justice achievements . . . Tell that to the people of Australia! Tell that to the people of Oxley! Ask why they voted against the Government to an almost unprecedented extent recently. Ask the people of Port Adelaide or of any Federal electorate who have had the opportunity to cast their judgment on the Government why that judgment has been thumbs down every time. Today we are facing a situation of critical importance. Older Australians have two fundamental fears. The first is for their health and the second is for their capacity to protect their income in retirement. Why do they have those fears? They do not trust this Government, they do not trust the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and they do not trust any Labor member on that side of the House, because they know that in the final analysis they will not live up to their word. In the last Budget we were told how the Treasurer (Mr Keating) was going to cut the price of beer. In that cynical effort he very effectively reduced the CPI. But we know that the CPI is the basis for the trigger for increases in the pension-those increases which pensioners have not been receiving under this Labor Government. Why did the Government not reduce the price of fuel? Why did it not do something to help the pensioners, by enabling those who have vehicles to pay for their petrol and transport themselves cheaply? Instead of that, in this cynical effort, the Government simply reduced the price of beer. It did not help the pensioners and it certainly did not help the economy. We were told by the Treasurer in his historic Budget Speech-honourable members will recall the words `bringing home the bacon'-that, `By setting better priorities, the groups deserving of greatest financial support are receiving it'. It is more than clear that over two million Australian pensioners do not believe that they are receiving very much at all from this Government. I have no doubt that every member on the Government side, and certainly my colleagues, would agree with me when I say that none of them would have met one pensioner who has said he is better off today than he was five years ago. Opposition members-None. Mr CONNOLLY —Precisely, none; not one. The amazing thing is that in February of this year the Prime Minister, in front of Parliament House, said to the people, `Do not worry. I get letters from pensioners telling me how good I am. I get letters saying what a wonderful government I have and I get letters saying, ``Thank you Bob for what you have done for us pensioners''.' Heavens sake! Whom does he believe-himself? Quite obviously he does because clearly nobody else believes him. We have a critical problem throughout our society. In the last Budget we were told, with much fanfare, that next year, 1989, those who cannot find a house to live in-those who are dependent on renting, who are at the very bottom of the socio-economic table and who are looking for somewhere to live and in places such as Sydney and Melbourne are required to pay massive rents-will get a grand increase of $5 a week. This will not happen in this financial year, not next month, but next year-but that is not what the Government told the pensioners. The implication of its marvellous advertising was that the pensioners would get help from this munificent Government and that they would get it now. What rubbish! Thousands upon thousands of pensioners simply do not believe this Government any more. This Hawke Government is a cracked vessel waiting to be smashed by the wrath of the Australian people. It will go down in history as the greatest `might have been' government of this century because that is all it is-a might have been government which might be able to produce the great tax cuts that were promised for the middle of next year. We have already seen Minister after Minister standing back from what was obviously a commitment that should never have been made 12 months in advance. But those hundreds of thousands of pensioners, many of whom are taxpayers and many of whom desperately want reduced taxes so that they can live on their slender incomes, are now wondering what the future holds for 1989. Well may they ask and well may we, in response, say, `It is your duty to deliver the commitments that you have made and it is quite clear that you will not do so'. This situation has been reached because, for too long, we have had a Prime Minister who honestly believes in his omnipotence. He believe that the sun, the moon and the stars stand still because Bob Hawke passes by or, may I say, floats by on his cloud of make believe. What do we see today: constant changes to the income test-the most important key of all for people to have access to the pension. There have been seven changes in four years-March 1985, April 1985, September 1987, January 1988, May 1988, August 1988, and September 1988. Not being satisfied with that, the Government has also made sure that it has ripped the very last cent out of people who are trying to maintain independence prior to their retirement so that when they are retired they will have some money to be able to say, `We don't need a socialist Labor government to tell us how we are going to live'. What has the Government done to them? It has introduced 20 changes in superannuation; it has not created a viable retirement incomes policy; it has milked the superannuation system for all it can get. It wants revenue, revenue and more revenue. Is it any wonder that the other day in the Melbourne Herald we saw a whole page advertisement with a heading `Wanted', followed by photographs of Mr Keating and Mr Hawke, the men who break their promises to the Australian people; the men who will never keep the commitments on which they were elected in the first place. They are the tax cheats of Australia as that article so aptly pointed out. The simple fact is that pensioners with as little as $15,000 in managed securities have also been the subject of the attacks of this Government in the last Budget and we wonder why they are concerned about their financial security. We wonder why pensioners across Australia are in revolt. The time has come when many members of this Government, in marginal seats across the nation, will lose their seats at the next election. No longer will the hundreds of thousands of Australian pensioners be prepared to support the commitments and the broken promises of this Government. This was a cynical and ill-conceived Budget decision. It demonstrated Labor's growing contempt for pensioners who have tried to provide for themselves in retirement. At the eleventh hour the Minister for Social Security changed his mind because he was scared of what would happen in the Victorian election, and rightly so. If the Government had got the same reaction from the pensioners of Victoria as we saw in Sydney, it would have been swept out bag and baggage and the pensioners would not have wanted to see it again. Week after week we see more and more changes to the retirement arrangements of Australians, both those in the work force and those who have left the work force. But the saddest part of all is that those who are out of the work force should be encouraged to be as independent as they possibly can in their retirement. The Government has ripped that independence from them. It has put in place systems which are impossible to administer and which people no longer believe in, because they know that this is not a government of compassion and concern or a government that is caring about their welfare. This Government has grown arrogant, slothful and tired, and it is time that it went. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(3.11) —A matter of public importance is no substitute for reason; attitudes are no substitute for policy. What we have had from the Opposition simply reflects its absolute bankruptcy when it comes to developing a constructive thought about policy. When the Opposition was in government it could not achieve decent income standards for aged pensioners, for two quite fundamental reasons; firstly, it was not prepared to make the kinds of decisions to enable it to ration scarce social security dollars-it wasted those scarce dollars on millionaires-and, secondly, it had economic policies which deliberately created mass unemployment. A quarter of a million people were put out of work and forced to share the social security dollar with aged pensioners. Our policies have reversed that. It is important to recognise that in 1983 there were 44 social security recipients for every 100 people in employment. We have reduced that by almost 20 per cent, to 36 per cent, and the number is still falling. That is the real measure of the standards society is able to provide for its aged pensioners. How dare the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) come into this House and talk about fear. Who has done more to create fear recently than the honourable member for Bradfield, in association with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard)? They have gone around this country scaremongering, trying to excite and frighten people who never at any time were likely to be impacted by the measure to which the honourable member referred. Again, without any thought and without any access to reasonable estimates, figures were pulled out of the air specifically for the purpose of frightening people. For example, on 28 August the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), asserted that tens of thousands of people would be affected. He cited a figure of 50,000. On 6 September he told Australian pensioners that possibly hundreds of thousands of pensioners stood to lose by that change. Again, on the same day, the honourable member for Kooyong asserted that up to 500,000 pensioners may be affected by some cut in their pensions or loss of their fringe benefits. That kind of scaremongering, that kind of appeal to fear and to emotion rather than to logic, has no basis in terms of attempting to develop a coherent retirement income policy. Honourable members should recall that when we came to office aged pensioners with no other incomes were amongst the poorest groups in our society. In March 1983 a single pensioner was $6.55 per week below the Henderson poverty line. That compares with $14.25 above it now for a person in private rental accommodation. Married pensioner couples with no private incomes are now $44 above the Henderson poverty line. Since the Government came to office in March 1983 it has added to the age pension by $43 per week for single pensioners and $71 per week for couples-an increase in real terms of 8.2 per cent. This contrasts with a drop in real terms under the Liberal Government of 2.4 per cent-an increase of 8.2 per cent in real terms under this Government, as against a fall of 2.4 per cent in real terms under the previous Government. The reason we need to develop a rational retirement income policy at this point in the history of this country is that people are looking for certainty in terms of that policy. People who are approaching old age are concerned that there be in place a policy which is properly balanced and which enables them to look forward with some security. As a nation we need to develop a policy which is not simply a short term and immediate response to current circumstances. We need to develop a policy which takes account of the fact that the Australian population is ageing. Whereas 10 per cent of the population is currently over the age of 65, when we get to the year 2011 something like 16 per cent of the population will be in that age group. So we need to manage a policy which provides adequate incomes for an ageing population. Of course, policy has to take account to some extent of current economic circumstances, although the fact of the matter is that this Government has achieved its goal of 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. We have maintained indexation despite all of the difficult circumstances that we face and we have sought at the same time to provide massive investment of funds in services for the aged through programs such as the home and community care program and through the restructuring of nursing homes. Generally, we have tried to provide a basis of long term planning for health care for the aged within this country. We have fought long in terms of our policy but at the same time we have sought to maintain in real value and improve where possible the incomes of the aged. That has involved some difficult decisions from time to time, and when we have made those decisions the Opposition has been no help at all. I have to ask myself, because I certainly do not know the answer: What is the fundamental principle of the retirement income policy for the aged? It was good enough for the Leader of the Opposition to run down to Sydney and attend a meeting of Greypower for an opportunist whack at the Government over market-linked investment. It was good enough at that meeting to say, `Within a month I will be back announcing a retirement income policy'. Of course, that policy has not been delivered, but I ask: Is it the Opposition's policy that there should be no means test in relation to pensions? Is the Opposition going to find the $3 billion a year that would be necessary to provide a universal age pension? Is that the Opposition's policy, or is the Opposition, like the Government, recognising the reason for targeting? If the Opposition recognises the need for targeting, is the Opposition-and this is still unresolved-going to disregard assets? Are we to go back to the situation prior to our return to government in 1983 when a millionaire or a person with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of assets could get the full pension? Indeed, people were encouraged over the Opposition's seven years in government to invest their money in stock or in accounts that would produce no income at all, even though they were worth a million dollars. Is that the Opposition's policy? Has it a policy in relation to assets? It is good enough for those opposite to yabber away on the front bench, but I am asking a question to which I think the Australian people have a right to an answer. The Opposition has gone to two elections opportunistically refusing to acknowledge that issue. This Government's policies in relation to retirement incomes have been clear. We have on the one hand sought to maintain the real value of pensions while reviewing the social security system through Professor Cass. On the other hand, we have recognised that much greater private provision will be needed in the future. This Government has taken the necessary steps to ensure that occupational superannuation is much more widely available than ever before in this country. Indeed, half of the work force now has access to occupational superannuation and it is estimated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions that under the Government's policy up to 80 per cent of the population will have access to superannuation by 1990. Our retirement income policy will not walk on one leg, but on two legs. On the one hand, it will provide support for occupational superannuation and for people to make self-provision and, on the other hand, there will be a recognition of the need to maintain and sustain the age pension. When we have approached previous issues that have been addressed by the Government in the social security review, we have sought to address our policy in terms of several quite fundamental principles. We have certainly been concerned about the question of adequacy. I just wonder how concerned the honourable member for Bradfield is about adequacy, not for the minority, but for the vast majority of pensioners-perhaps two-thirds of pensioners-whose incomes are below the allowable threshold. How concerned is the Opposition about that? How much space will be given to that in the Opposition's retirement income policy? When the honourable member for Bradfield talks about the problems associated with rent, to what extent can we expect that the Opposition, if it ever came to government, would do anything substantial to improve the incomes of aged people living alone or in private rental accommodation? One does not need to think for very long about its record to be very dubious about that. After all, when we came to government the level of rent assistance had reached only $10. That is the best that the previous Government could do. During its seven years in government the figure had reached $10. I ask the honourable member: What were the rents in Sydney in 1983? They were certainly pretty high then, and there were aged people then living in poverty. As I stated at the beginning of my remarks, people's incomes were $20 to $30 below the poverty line when we came to government. Mr Connolly —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. We got to $7 in 10 years. This Government has got to only $5 in 5 1/2 years. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —There is no point of order. Mr HOWE —The Opposition's record on the pension was built on the great achievements of the Whitlam Government. Historically, which government was it that raised the pension to an amount approaching the current levels and introduced indexation according to the consumer price index? Of course, it was the Whitlam Government that achieved that. During the term of the previous Government, what did we see? We saw a fall in real terms in the value of the pension and no substantial assistance provided to renters. In terms of this Government's record in relation to social security, we have had to do a number of things. First, we have had to tackle the massive and unbelievable problem of child poverty that exists in this country. Eight hundred thousand children-one child in every five children-live in poverty. That point is conceded by the honourable member for Bradfield. Secondly, we have had to tackle the problem of unemployment. We have sought to ensure that there are jobs. More than a million jobs have been created and there has been a reduction of about one-third in the number of people in receipt of the unemployment benefit. We have tackled the question of the dependency ratio of people of work force age. Who were the poor in the early 1970s? The poor were the aged. The government of the day addressed that problem. In the 1980s the problem of poverty has been essentially concentrated amongst people of work force age who were thrown out of work by the policies of the Fraser Government. In regard to the social security review, we have now reached the point of considering retirement incomes. We recognise that amongst the aged there are some very real needs which were not elaborated at all by the honourable member for Bradfield. There is, for example, the problem of very old people living alone. With a growing proportion of the population living to their 70s, 80s and 90s, we need to think about what that means for income security. That is one of the reasons why I am concerned about early retirement. We have to think of people who are living alone and the special needs of such people. Mr Connolly —What did the ACTU do? Mr HOWE —I did not interrupt the honourable member. We need to look after people who have no other income; people who have simply not had the opportunity to save or to pick up occupational superannuation; and ask ourselves about the relationship between the single and the married rate of pension. I would be the first to concede that it is not easy for a single age pensioner to live on $120 a week. That raises the question of the adequacy of the single rate. What is the Opposition's policy on the single rate? One can go on and talk about the needs of people who have made some self-provision and what interaction there should be between the income test and the treatment of taxation, and the question of effective marginal tax rates, in which we invested $200m following the Tax Summit of 1985 to try to address that problem. The Opposition can make its choice. It can run around the country scaremongering at the few meetings it is ever invited to, or it can join in a much more responsible course of building a long term retirement income policy for this country. I hope it chooses the latter course, because I think the first course is not in the interests not just of this Government but of an ageing Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(3.26) —I second and support the matter of public importance before the House. I do not suppose that there would be a more important issue in the minds of such a majority of the people of Australia as the concern by the aged pensioners as to their future, their present situation and, basically, their concern as to where this Government will take them. It was not very long ago that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said in the by-election campaign for Oxley that the standard of living of all Australians has been reduced. The standard of living of our aged pensioner folk and pensioners generally has been reduced by this Government. This is the same Prime Minister who said to the people of Australia that there would be no poverty in Australia within a couple of years. That was some months ago, if not a year ago. But the Prime Minister says to the same people, in a by-election, that the standard of living of Australians has fallen. He contradicts himself. Repeatedly this Prime Minister and the Government contradict themselves on important personal issues affecting a great majority of Australian people. This has not been mentioned within this debate, but the thing I find concerning to the aged today is the fact that they have to worry that somebody will tinker with their returns or their concessions, their pharmaceutical goods, their hospitalisations and their housing-little things that to them are so very important. I, at my age, do not want to face the time when I reach retirement and feel that somebody will play about with my superannuation or my pension or something else, to take it away. There are certain things that aged people require. Housing is one of them; health is another; financial stability is another; but the fourth and most important issue is less stress. I am talking about stress upon aged people. If they do not have stress, they will predictably have reasonably good health. It concerns them that they have to go along and talk to their members of parliament about it and say that they wonder what this Budget will contain so far as aged pensioners are concerned. There is no predictability so far as this Government is concerned on this matter because the promises it makes are not maintained, and this, in turn, actually affects the aged. I stress that my concern for the people I represent and every honourable member of this House represents is the great strain and stress that the aged pensioner has today. Whether sick or in good health, they have this stress that the government, whether a Labor or coalition government, will do something to affect their actual stability throughout the rest of their lives. Inflation has been a factor. There are approximately 1.322 million aged pensioners within Australia. The inflationary trend and other factors generally have not been updated to cope with their increased cost of living. Honourable members should go into the K-Marts and the market stores nowadays and see weekly the increases in the price of basic foods that the aged pensioners have to buy. They should look at the jam and the bread and the vegetables. No matter what it is, pensioners have to fork out more money to live. That is the important thing. They are very conscious of all these additional costs they have to bear. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has said that by the end of this financial year the inflationary trend will be reduced to 4.5 per cent. How can he say that when our balance of trade has reached a situation where the Government may not be able to deliver the tax concessions it promised? That is already becoming apparent. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and the Treasurer are making public statements contradicting each other, saying that they may not be able to meet this great concession in taxation that the Australian people have waited for. We talk about housing for the aged. At the moment 60,000 Australians are waiting for public housing. Let us consider the deeds of the Government. What about the capital gains tax? The Government says, `That is a wonderful thing; that does not affect the average working man and the pensioner folk'. That is why people are paying bigger rentals, I say to the Minister. If he puts on a capital gains tax, the person who invests in a unit or a home for the aged is going to pass it on. It is business to pass it on. If they could not do that, people would not be prepared to invest in projects such as housing for aged people. The Minister woke up when the Government abolished negative gearing. The Treasurer woke up to it. We repeatedly warned the Treasurer and the Government that if negative gearing was not abolished it would force up rentals for aged pensioners and young families in the community. I was talking to the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) a while ago about nursing homes. For three years after 1983 I doubt whether there was a nursing home or hostel bed approved by the Government. Now there is a backlog in the provision of nursing home beds. Every community that we represent is ready to provide nursing home accommodation through Lions and Rotary clubs and the churches. They have the money in hand to go ahead and say to the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), `Look here, we are ready to make a contribution'. Talking about capital gains, as the honourable member for Gwydir said, `If you purchase a unit in a retirement complex and then sell it you are up for capital gains tax'. The family home is not subject to capital gains tax. Why should a poor old person be up for that in the senior part of his life? The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who is at the table, and the Government have imposed a capital gains tax on the person who has had the initiative to cater for his old age and has purchased a unit. Mr Howe —Are you advocating it? Mr COWAN —I ask the Minister to promise this House that he will do something about it. I ask him to talk to his Treasurer about it. The Treasurer says that he is fixing up the loopholes. He is fixing them all right-on these types of people. Mr Howe —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On the question of relevance, is it National Party policy to have a capital gains tax on a family home? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr COWAN —Because my time is nearly up the Minister is trying to prevent me telling him a few facts about the way the Government is treating the aged people of Australia. Talking about nursing homes, I ask: What about the maintenance agreements? This Minister should ask the Minister for Community Services and Health whether the Government has arranged with the existing nursing homes what the maintenance subsidies are going to be. These people are waiting to find out, as are those who are waiting to build new ones. I have spoken already about health and I shall refer quickly to the need for a national superannuation scheme. What did the Treasurer do for the average Australian? I am not talking only about the disadvantaged pensioners, the 500,000 people who are solely dependent-- Mr Howe —Ha, ha! Mr COWAN —The Minister may laugh about this but it is no joke. He is having a cackle about it. Beyond the 550,000 who are directly dependent upon the pension, we have people who have paid taxes all their lives and have made an effort to put some money aside to help themselves. This is market invested money. As from 1 December the Government is going to take away any concessions that were given to them to invest and hold the value of their capital. This is absolutely scandalous. The Treasurer did not wake up to it. He was going to make it retrospective, but there was such a hue and cry from the community that he suddenly changed that requirement. But for the by-election in Oxley, it would never have been changed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LEE(Dobell)(3.36) —In reply to the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan), knowing his generous nature, I thought he would have considered congratulating the Government on spending more money on programs such as the home and community care program or on the provision of hostel accommodation for the aged. I do not doubt that the honourable member for Lyne visits pensioners in his electorate. However, I doubt whether the same can be said for the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), who represents the St Ives and north shore area of Sydney. I doubt whether he would mix with very many pensioners from working class backgrounds. Mr Martin —He needs a street directory. Mr LEE —As the honourable member for Macarthur interjects, he still needs a street directory because he continues to get Mount Druitt and Campbelltown mixed up. Mr Shipton —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to ask the honourable member to withdraw his comments about the honourable member for Bradfield. They were unnecessary. They were also outside Standing Orders and should be put only in a substantive motion. You should ask him to get on with debating the issue before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr LEE —I remind the House that the members of the Opposition who have brought on this debate today are the people who in 1972 under the McMahon Government gave Australian pensioners a 50c a week increase in their pension. These are the same people who in the Fraser years brought about a decline in pensioners' spending power. At the start of the Fraser years, when some honourable members opposite were in the Government, pensions stood at 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. What was the level of pensions when they left government in 1983? Pensions had fallen from 25 per cent of average weekly earnings under the Whitlam Government to only 22.7 per cent. I am sure that some people say, `Well, anyone can do anything with statistics', but they should ask pensioners what happened to them in the Fraser years. Their spending power declined from 25 per cent of average weekly earnings to 22.7 per cent. What did honourable members opposite do when they were on the Government benches and pensioners were screaming out for an increase in their pensions, because they were going backwards? Honourable members opposite sat on their hands and did nothing. Yet they have the hide to come into this chamber and say that we have done nothing for pensioners. This Government and the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) have raised pensions from the 22.7 per cent of average weekly earnings the Opposition left pensioners with to 24.8 per cent today. Honourable members opposite have the hide to say that pensioners are worse off then they were under the Fraser years! I was interested in a statement by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who said that Australians had a fairly egalitarian society in the Fraser years: a fairly egalitarian society when pensioners had only 22.7 per cent of average weekly earnings; a fairly egalitarian society when the Fraser Government was driving our economy into a recession, when the number of people who were unemployed was going through the roof. Honourable members opposite thought that was a fairly egalitarian society. I have news for them: the pensioners in my electorate do not think those opposite created a very egalitarian society at all. When I visit the combined pensioners associations in my electorate-in Toukley, Mannering Park, Gorokan and other areas-they do not tell me that they are worried about the assets test and the pensioners on the north shore who want to rort the incomes test. When I see pensioners in my electorate-a poor area-they tell me that what they are concerned about is that they start to pay tax after earning a very small amount of money. They are happy that this Government announced in the August Budget that it was increasing the pensioner tax rebate from $250 to $430. This Government does things while honourable members opposite just talk. Pensioners also tell me that they are disturbed by the increasing number of pensioners who have to pay provisional tax. This Government did something about that in August. We ensured that any pensioner earning less than $10,000 a year will be exempt from provisional tax. What did those opposite do? Nothing. The provisional tax threshold did not change from 1966. Yet they come in here and say that this Government does not do anything about pensioners' concerns. They tell us that the big issue with pensioners is the assets test because they want their millionaire mates to get the pension again. That is what those opposite are concerned about. Pensioners in my electorate are not complaining about those with substantial assets no longer receiving a pension, because they know that if those people no longer receive a pension there will be more money for those in real need. Honourable members opposite also tell us that they are against this Government's attempts to make the incomes test fairer. They think it is right that someone can invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into deferred annuities and different schemes to avoid the incomes test, yet pensioners who live in Long Jetty in my electorate start to lose part of their pension if they earn more than $40 a week interest on a bank account. How can that be fair? I accept that we must make sure that we do not make retrospective changes to the incomes test, but those opposite would rather have no incomes test at all. They want to give every person over the age of 65 a full pension. That would divert resources away from the poor pensioners who are really battling to those who do not need it-those who have hundreds of thousands of dollars in investments. I disagree totally with the Opposition's attitude. Opposition members also complain that this Government has been too tough on the poor companies that are avoiding tax! They say that it is wrong for the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to say that he will come down like a ton of bricks on tax avoiding companies. I can tell honourable members opposite that the pensioners I see at the combined pensioners associations in my electorate are right behind the Government in making sure that companies pay their fair share of tax. They are right behind the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Boucher, in making sure that companies cannot use rorts and loopholes. It is interesting to look closely at the Opposition's policy on pensioners and government spending. It tells us that it wants to spend more on defence, that it wants to build more roads in National Party electorates, give more subsidies to farmers, cut petrol tax, slash income tax, scrap the assets test and abolish the fringe benefits tax. But the Opposition promises that pensioners will not be hit by a future Liberal Budget. It promises that pensioners will not lose automatic indexation, it promises that no pensioner will lose his or her fringe benefits: it crosses its heart and hopes to die that no pensioner will be badly affected by a future incoming Liberal government. There was a similar promise from another Leader of the Opposition-Mr Nick Greiner in New South Wales. He gave a promise in the New South Wales election campaign earlier this year that, cross his heart and hope to die, no pensioner would be hit by increases in State charges and tax. State charges and taxes would not go up by more than the consumer price index rate, Mr Greiner said, crossing his heart and hoping to die. What has happened to New South Wales pensioners since the Liberal Government came to power? Suddenly the promises have been scrapped. Electricity charges have gone through the roof and pensioners pay 100 per cent more for their concession tickets to use the rail and bus networks. There have been increases in the cost of motor vehicle registration and drivers licences. Also in New South Wales the automatic right of veterans to legal aid has been totally abolished. It is good to see the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) in the House. He knows that New South Wales veterans used to have the automatic right to obtain legal aid on matters affecting the Repatriation Commission. Those veterans no longer have the right to obtain that legal aid because Mr Dowd, the Liberal Attorney-General of New South Wales, sits on his hands while his State Legal Aid Commission imposes a new means test on veterans' rights to legal aid. Mr Humphreys —Keeping the half million dollars. Mr LEE —Keeping the Federal Government's half a million dollars to provide that service, as the Minister suggests. New South Wales veterans are also pensioners. They find it difficult to make ends meet; yet the Liberal Government of New South Wales feels quite happy to scrap all its promises that veterans and pensioners will not be affected by Liberal spending cuts. As a result, in New South Wales promises are scrapped and thrown up like confetti. The other matter which might affect pensioners and which was mentioned by the honourable member for Lyne is the Liberal Party's health policy. The former Opposition spokesman on health, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), wanted to bring in a system whereby pensioners were charged more for private health insurance than were healthy people such as those in the chamber at the moment. The Liberal policy is that pensioners and elderly people should pay more for private health insurance than do people of middle age. Honourable members opposite do not deny it. Sure, they have moved the honourable member for O'Connor on because they thought that there could have been a bit of community reaction to such a policy. Yet it still stands on the books. The Liberal Party's policy is that pensioners should pay more for private health insurance than middle aged Australians. It is hard enough for pensioners these days to obtain private hospital treatment, thanks to the efforts of the doctors and the specialists, which the Opposition support, in their attempts to sabotage Medicare. These people want pensioners who take out private health insurance to pay more than middle aged people. The pensioners of Australia can see through the Opposition's arguments. I am sure that they will continue to support this Government at every opportunity. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The discussion is concluded. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Social Security (Review of Decisions) Bill 1988. Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1988. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(3.46) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Stage 2 development of RAAF Base, Tindal, NT. The proposed work now before the House is for additional facilities at Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Base, Tindal, as the second stage of a multistage plan to enhance the operation and support capabilities of the base. Tindal, 15 kilometres south-east of Katherine, is being developed as the major tactical fighter base in northern Australia and will be the main link in a chain of airfields across Australia's north which will be capable of supporting operations by Australian defence forces. Tindal will provide a home base for a squadron of the tactical fighter force equipped with the Hornet FA18 fighter aircraft. Construction of stage 1 of the base is nearing completion. From later this year the base will have the minimum essential facilities to become operational for a squadron of Hornet aircraft. This stage 2 proposal involves the replacement of some interim stage 1 facilities and the provision of new technical and support facilities to augment those provided in the stage 1 development. Some additional on-base housing will be provided by the Defence Housing Authority to accommodate additional RAAF personnel associated with the stage 2 development. Subsequent stages of development of RAAF Base, Tindal, are proposed and planning is already under way. These further developments will allow the deployment to Tindal of other RAAF elements to supplement the Hornet squadron and enhance the operational and support capabilities of the base. The proposed work in the stage 2 development includes extension of aircraft pavements; technical and support facilities, such as a general engineering workshop and an equipment warehouse; individual facilities with special requirements, such as ordinance preparation and storage facilities and an aviation fuel storage installation; community facilities, such as a chapel and additional recreation facilities; and the provision of 20 on-base married quarters by the Defence Housing Authority. The estimated cost of this proposal as recommended by the Public Works Committee to the Parliament is $37.65m at December 1987 prices. This estimate comprises $34.9m for the base facilities and $2.75m for the on-base married quarters. This figure equates to $39.05m at September 1988 prices. Subject to parliamentary approval, it is intended that construction will commence in mid-1989 and be completed by early 1992. The on-site work force during construction is anticipated to peak at around 110 in mid-1990. I thank the Public Works Committee for its prompt consideration of and support for this proposal. I commend the motion to the House. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(3.50) —I think the first thing to do when talking about Tindal is to remind the House and the people of Australia that the decision to establish a fighter base at Tindal was made by the Fraser Government-- Mr West —You will be supporting this motion then. Mr WHITE —Of course we will be supporting it. That decision was made by the Fraser Government when the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) was the Minister for Defence. It is not without interest that the current Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) keeps going around the place blowing his trumpet about how much he has moved to the north of Australia and about the fighter base at Tindal when he had absolutely nothing to do with the decision at all. It is also interesting to note that the present Government says that the abandonment of the aircraft carrier and the carrier force was a decision of the Fraser Government. That decision had nothing to do with the Fraser Government; it was made by this Government. I think it is worth putting those facts on the record to get them straight before we start. The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) base at Tindal is a very important initiative in the north of Australia. Of course, we support stage 2 of the base. I was in Tindal recently and there is no doubt that the camp is being developed quite quickly and quite magnificently for that part of the world. It is a harsh environment which makes living conditions difficult. The RAAF should take pride in the spirit, morale and effort it is putting into developing that new base. One would like to say the same about the spirit of the Royal Australian Navy at the moment after that disgraceful and absolutely shameful episode in Melbourne in the last three days. The Government of this country turned its back on the allies that had come 12,000 miles at its invitation. The honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) is laughing. What did the Navy say about it? Mr Hollis —What's this got to do with Tindal? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! We are dealing with a matter before the House which relates to the provision of works at Tindal. I ask the honourable member for McPherson to focus on that matter. Mr WHITE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge the correction. The RAAF deserves every congratulation for the effort it is putting into Tindal; it is quite magnificent. I say that because the RAAF-this is not a criticism of it-is more used to fairly comfortable bases. Members of the RAAF usually live in large static bases. For them to have gone bush, so to speak, I think has been something of a traumatic experience; but they have handled it very well. The houses that have been built, and some more that will be built, under this proposal for Tindal are good. However, it is a great pity that for the want of, say, a couple more feet in the bedroom they are not made excellent. While the houses are good-service housing has been a disaster area for some years-here was a chance to do the right thing. The living room and kitchen are very good but if one tries to put two beds in the bedroom one can hardly move. It is a great pity that for want of just a couple of extra feet good houses have not been made excellent. It is pleasing to see that some air-conditioning has been installed in these houses at Tindal. It is about time. I have said to the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) before that the housing of service men and women in Darwin needs to be looked at critically because while some air-conditioning is slowly being put into some quarters-this is long overdue-there is no allowance for the very high cost of electricity in Darwin and a lot of service people simply cannot afford to turn the air conditioners on. Tindal has become the home of 75 Squadron of the RAAF. The question that I wish to raise-it is raised in the Minister's brief-is this: Does he mean that 75 Squadron is now an operational squadron or does he mean that the Government is providing the facilities for an operational base? The Minister said in his speech: From later this year the base will have the minimum essential facilities to become operational for a squadron of the Hornet aircraft. I ask the Minister: Exactly what does that mean? Does it mean that later this year, at some unspecified time, we will have an operational squadron at Tindal? Is 75 Squadron operational or is the Minister providing an operational base for a squadron that one day may become operational? There is a world of difference. If the Minister is saying that 75 Squadron is now an operational squadron he is talking about a squadron with something like five aircraft and five pilots. The proper establishment for that squadron should be nearer to 20 aircraft and 16 to 20 pilots. I think that the Minister has tried in his speech-no doubt, written for him by someone else-to be very clever. Mr Downer —That is true, because he read it. Mr WHITE —He read it, but I doubt whether he wrote it. The Minister is being very clever. I think he is being too clever. Perhaps he would like to clarify at some stage whether 75 Squadron is operational or whether the Government is providing just an operational base. Mr Reith —He could get up now to give us a clarification. Mr WHITE —Cut it out, he would need a couple of days at least to sort that one out. We welcome the approval of this work. We want to see it go ahead. The base at Tindal is in a very harsh environment. The service people there deserve good conditions. One day the Government, no matter which government it might be, will have to provide facilities to keep people at Tindal. Those facilities will have to be good. I suggest to the Minister that while the physical facilities are now adequate consideration will have to be given, when the Government runs out of the first batch of volunteers who go there and starts posting people in the normal course of their duties, to better conditions of service, extra leave and all that goes with living in a difficult environment. Certainly, we support the motion. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(3.57) —I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on this motion for approval of the stage 2 development of Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Base, Tindal. I am very pleased at the efficiency of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works in being able to go through this expenditure item. I pay particular tribute to the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) for the expeditious way in which the matter was handled by his Committee. I will just make a remark about the contribution of the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). I am a little surprised at the way in which he spoke about the FA18 Hornets. It seemed to me that in the first instance he was not quite sure whether he needed to dry dock them in Katherine or to fly them out of HMAS Coonawarra. Obviously, he has no clear understanding of the nature of defence facilities in the Northern Territory. That is clearly indicated by the ill-informed comments he recently made about the existence of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment and the proposal by the Federal Government to remove it to the Northern Territory by 1992. It is important that the proposed expenditure on Tindal be seen in the context of the Government's overall defence strategy which includes, in part, as a result of the recommendations of the White Paper, the removal of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment to Darwin. Unfortunately, as the honourable member for McPherson will now realise, his ill-founded and ill-informed remarks about the Government's position on this question have been condemned by all people who have any knowledge about defence matters in Australia and anyone with any credibility in looking at Australia's strategic policy. This proposal, I might add, is the result of a significant amount of work by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) in forging a new link between the Federal Government and our defence forces and the way in which we treat them. It is understood by all in the defence forces that the work that is being done by the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) is unprecedented. This is demonstrated by the work they have done at Tindal. We have completed $240m worth of work. For the information of the honourable member, I understand that the cost of the removal of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment to Darwin will be about $60m. Unfortunately, as I indicated previously, the honourable member for McPherson does not think there is a need to remove the 2nd Cavalry Regiment to Darwin, although everyone with any credibility-- Mr White —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It does not worry me if the honourable member wants to go wandering all over the map on a subject on which you brought me to order, but he keeps repeating the point that I am opposed to the movement of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment to Darwin. The Opposition has never said that it is opposed to the movement of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment. That is the correction I want to make. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —The honourable member has clarified the position. I call the honourable member for the Northern Territory, who I know will stay within the subject under discussion. Mr SNOWDON —I certainly will. I was relating to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the removal of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment in the context of the Government's overall expenditure on defence matters in northern Australia. It is worth pointing out that on present predictions it is likely that by 1992 the Government will have spent more than $400m on Defence Force infrastructure in the Top End of Australia. That is to be applauded, as is the decision of the Government to proceed with stage 2 of Tindal. I am sure honourable members opposite know, this expenditure is for the construction of a further 20 on-base married quarters to add to the 379 already provided for Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) personnel on base and at Katherine under the stage 1 development. There will be new community and recreation facilities, such as a chapel, extended medical and dental facilities and new tennis courts. These are important for a number of reasons, one of which was alluded to by the honourable member for McPherson, and that is because they provide adequate terms and conditions for the deployment of service personnel in northern Australia. It is important that the facilities that are available to them when they make that move are adequate and appropriate for their needs. It is also important in the context of the construction and other industries in northern Australia. Many direct benefits have flowed from the expenditure, and will flow from the proposed expenditure, by the Government in the area of Defence Force infrastructure in the Top End to the Northern Territory community. It should not take too much to work out the multiplier effects in terms of the construction industry in the Tindal area and in Katherine. By 1990 there will be a peak work force of about 110 involved in this expenditure, on top of the increase in employment as a result of the use of the initial expenditure of $240m for stage 1. These benefits have been felt throughout the Katherine community which, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, is only a short distance from the Tindal base. Many of the Tindal personnel live in the Katherine community, and they are very fortunate to do so. I am gratified by the response of the Katherine community and its receptiveness to the defence forces' move to Tindal. They have demonstrated their desire not only to make the defence forces welcome but also to put pressure on this Government and the Northern Territory Government to ensure that the standard of services available in their town is commensurate with the demands on the community by a doubling of the population since the Tindal base was commenced. I commend the motion to the House. Despite what the honourable member for McPherson has said and despite his views about defence strategy, it is extremely important that we maximise our defence presence in northern Australia. It is very important that we instil confidence in our Defence Force personnel, that we provide them with facilities that are commensurate to their needs and to the standards they expect. I once again thank the honourable member for Throsby and the Public Works Committee for the expeditious way in which they have handled this matter. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(4.05) —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: Fitout works at 110 Goulburn Street, Sydney for the northern command and eastern region headquarters of the Australian Federal Police. The proposal is to relocate various elements of the Northern Command and Eastern Region Headquarters of the Australian Federal Police into a single building. My Department, the Department of Administrative Services, has pre-committed a lease of a building under construction at 110 Goulburn Street, Sydney, for a period of 15 years with a further five-year option. The building is being constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Australian Federal Police and will provide 13,600 square metres of office space and 150 car parking spaces. The fit-out of the building will provide: general office space to accommodate the various investigation units and support staff; general office space to accommodate the Northern Command and Eastern Region Administration; scientific/forensic examination facilities, and photographic processing areas; secure storage facilities; workshops; staff training facilities; pistol range; and staff amenities such as locker rooms, showers, exercise rooms and cafeteria. The base building is expected to be completed by January 1990, and the fit-out is $7.6m at August 1988 prices. I table drawings of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(4.08) —The Opposition does not oppose this motion, but we would like to make a number of points about this project. I note that the fit-out costs for 110 Goulburn Street are to be $7.6m at August 1988 prices. I hope that inflation, particularly the inflation we now see in building costs in States such as New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, will not add too drastically to that figure of $7.6m. It is a high figure and it is to the fact that it is to be spent on things such as providing general office space for the different categories of staff, workshops, a pistol range and staff amenities, that my attention is really drawn. One of the considerations with government buildings-this does not relate so much to the fit-out costs-is the question of their location. I notice that the location of this building is in Goulburn Street, Sydney. It is a leased building in an area of extraordinary high rentals. I hope that in the years ahead the Government will concentrate on trying to find cheaper areas in which to lease or rent buildings than has been the practice. I am not saying that is a practice that only Labor governments have indulged in, but I hope that as a matter of government policy, this Government will be concentrating on other parts of the city which will be cheaper than the central business district. Goulburn Street is in the central business district. No details are given as to the cost of the lease, but I do not doubt that it is extraordinarily high. As I have said, $7.6m is very high, and one of the reasons why this figure is so high is the extraordinary restrictive work practices operating in the building and construction industry, particularly on government projects. It is estimated that restrictive work practices add about 20 per cent to the cost of government construction projects. If that is true in this case, the additional and unnecessary costs borne by taxpayers for the fit-out of this building will be in the vicinity of $1.5m. We really cannot continue to waste taxpayers' money on those sorts of restrictive work practices. The trouble with these Government projects-and I am making this speech in the greatest of all the Government's projects, the new Parliament House-as far as industrial relations is concerned is that they are pacesetters. The deals that were done with the building unions in this building of the new Parliament House spread right throughout the construction industry in the Australian Capital Territory. My concern is that the Government is turning a blind eye to the same sorts of work practices in other States of Australia; it is spending taxpayers' money to support those restrictive work practices. It is my submission and the submission of this side of the Committee that that simply is not good enough. The Government ought to be using subcontractors much more extensively to do this sort of work. That is why construction costs for domestic housing in Australia are relatively low by international standards, yet it is the lack of subcontractors in the construction industry and the restrictive work practices that go with that, that explains why building costs are so enormously high. To demonstrate my argument I only have to refer to the Ireland report on Improving Work Practices in the Australian Building Industry which was completed, I think, earlier this year. The Ireland report pointed out that construction costs in Australia were amongst the highest in the developed world. The Ireland report went on to say that there were two basic explanations for that: one, the restrictive work practices I have spoken about, and the other a series of strikes and stoppages. The stoppages, of course, still go on in the construction industry. We have stoppages when the wind rises beyond a certain level. The construction sites close down. We had a wonderful example of that in South Australia recently where a submarine construction site-at the moment the workers are constructing the site, not the submarines-was closed down for two days because it was windy. Union rules said that if the wind blew beyond a certain level the site should be closed whether the workers were protected from the wind or not. Honourable members on the other side know about these sorts of restrictive work practices. They know it is true and they know it is outrageous but they also know that even if employees are working under cover on construction sites, the job stops for the rest of the day if it rains for half an hour or an hour. We, as a nation, cannot afford that and we cannot afford the tax bill. This is fit-out, of course, and rain, with a bit of luck, will not affect the fit-out work done on this site. But there is no doubt at all that it is these sorts of practices that make a project such as this-which, on the face of it is not a very grand project; as the diagram shows it is quite impressive but it is not a very grand building-incur a fit out cost of $7.6m. It is an enormous amount of money. I have not had time to calculate how many public houses, housing commission houses or housing department houses, could be built with that $7.6m but certainly quite a few. We will continue to monitor the costs of these sorts of building projects and we, on this side of the house, want the Government to do the same. We want it to take some action in the industrial relations area to ensure that those restrictive work practices that the Ireland report, I and so many people in Australia have referred to, are taken care of. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 17 October. Schedule 3. Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Proposed expenditure, $210,576,000. Mr COHEN(Robertson)(4.14) —In the speech I made on the immigration debate a couple of weeks ago I made the point that very few people who are opposed to discrimination understand why people are prejudiced. They assume that people made rational decisions about whom they like and whom they dislike. They assume that the answer to eliminating prejudice is to point out to people the error of their ways and that if they ask them to stop being prejudiced they will do so. They appeal to reason and if that fails they try to legislate to make it illegal to dislike people for no other reason than that they are different from them through their racial, national, religious or ethnic origin. If it were that easy there would be no such thing as prejudice or discrimination in our society today. The problem with prejudice is that it is not rational and that, while we should legislate to curb the worse excesses of prejudice and racial discrimination, we are not tackling the problem at its source. We are trying to find a cure by applying ointment after the disease has broken out. What we need is inoculation against prejudice and racism. We need first of all to understand that prejudice initially starts with human beings' basic fear of anything or anyone that is different. People feel uncomfortable, nervous, apprehensive, even frightened when they come across other people who are different to them. That difference may be merely in the way people dress, their accent, the food they eat, or their cultural or sporting interests. One only has to look at the brawls that break out at sporting contests to understand how easy differences can lead to emotional and often tragic outcomes. Often, one only has to look at differences that exist within our own society between people of the same ethnic background, such as city and country people. People from the city who go to live in a country town are regarded with suspicion for a long time because they are different. They dress differently, they speak differently and they do not understand the mores of rural society. I am not saying that that necessarily breaks out in violence but we are all aware of the suspicion that the stranger is often greeted with. Those differences are much more marked when they are religious differences, when they are racial differences, when people are of a different coloured skin and when there are national differences. Then the degree of antagonism based mainly on a fear of the unknown can create quite extraordinary tensions which build into dislike, hatred and violence. We do not only have to look at our own society for God's sake: we can look at almost any society. Look at what is happening today in Yugoslavia between the different ethnic groups. Look at the hatreds that exist between the Kurds and the Turks; between the Iraqis and Syrians; between the Sunni and the Shiite Moslems; and between the north and south of Ireland. One can go on for hours about these irrational and very often illogical deep-seated prejudices. I do not believe these differences and the tensions that flow from them are inherent in any of us. The evidence is that when children are placed together-people with different backgrounds; a different way of life-they are quite unaware of those differences. They mix beautifully together. What happens is that the parents pass on to their children their own deep-seated fears which they in turn inherited from their parents. I am not saying that that cycle is not and cannot be broken. Of course it is broken often. That is why I think we have a less prejudiced society today than we had 20 or 30 years ago. It is still there and it is still quite deep-seated in many of us. We do not even understand why we are prejudiced. We do not understand the basic fears that we have of other people with different lifestyles. As I said, prejudice and discriminatory practices are passed on with the mother's milk. Attitudes towards an outsider, be he a person of a different religion, different nationality, different ethnic group or different coloured skin, are something one attains at the dinner table or at least among one's peer group. We will not change that pattern only by introducing legislation to ban it. I am strongly in favour of having legislation which restricts the worst excesses of racism. I think it is right to make it illegal for people to disseminate literature that foments racial hatred and can lead to racial violence. I take the view that we need a long term approach to eliminating prejudice from our society. By long term I mean 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. I have been saying this since I have been a member of this Parliament-nearly 20 years. It is a source of great disappointment to me that no government-the Whitlam Government, the Fraser Government or the Hawke Government-has understood what I am talking about. I hate to talk about forming new commissions or new committees, but I do think we need to establish either a committee of the Parliament or a committee of the nation to look at developing a program of combating prejudice and discrimination over the long term. I do not have a program, a format or a description with me as to precisely how it would work. That would develop if such a committee were formed. I have written to governments, I have asked questions in the House about it and I have been answered politely by Ministers and Prime Ministers. They have said, `Yes, fine; we understand the problem', but nothing really has been done about it. It will cost money-all these things cost money-but it would not be a lot of money. I believe that we need to look at the question earnestly if we are really serious about it. I will concentrate on two areas. The first is schools. At the moment enthusiasm is waning because the heat has gone out of the debate of a few weeks ago-thank God!-but it will come again. We need to develop a program, starting in the schools, based on explaining to young school children the differences between people, why they are different and why we should understand, respect and cherish those differences. We need to look at the production of television films, help to break down barriers, concentrate on the things that unite us rather than divide us and pay particular attention to programs for the young. Members of the media, who are often the first to take up the cudgels against those whom they accuse of racism-quite rightly-are often the most irresponsible in fostering and fomenting racism. Why is it that whenever a problem comes up they go and get Bruce Ruxton and Ron Casey to be the commentators? It is as if they somehow represent the only view in Australia on this question. Bruce Ruxton is Australia's answer to Alf Garnett. I do not think the British would consider that Alf Garnett was the spokesman on race relations in the United Kingdom. I recall not so long ago looking at a huge article in the Sydney Sun, which is extinct. It had a map of Sydney showing, marked in black, the ownership of property by Asians-not by the British or by Americans; only by Asians. We see headlines such as `Asians run amuck' and `Yugoslav runs amuck', but we do not see `White Anglo-Saxon Protestant kills a family of five'. That is the sort of thing we need to talk about to our media. I suppose I am wasting my breath on this matter, but I hope that something will come out of a positive nature that we can develop over the next few years so that a real program to combat racism and racial discrimination exists in this country. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(4.25) —I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen). I commend him on the remarks that he has made. I believe that the sentiments he has expressed would be largely, if not entirely, echoed on this side of the Parliament. I am very grateful to him for the very reasoned contribution that he has made to the debate this afternoon and for the way in which he has both wisely and responsibly avoided being in any way partisan in his comments. I find myself caught this afternoon rather like a rose between two thorns. I am bold enough to presume that the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), who will follow me, is also going to address the immigration question. I am aware that the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) is going to address the immigration question. As I have indicated in my remarks, the honourable member for Robertson has already addressed the immigration question. I draw to the House's attention the fact that Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1988-89 covers not only immigration but also local government and ethnic affairs. It is, in fact, on the subject of local government that I would like to address the House in the minutes allotted to me this afternoon. For that reason, I have to ask those who are listening to this address to draw their attention away temporarily-temporarily, I reassure the honourable member for Calwell-from the immigration debate and focus, if they will, on the local government debate. The last time the question of local government was addressed under this Bill was by the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright). He was anxious to reassure all the local governing authorities that the enthusiastic support by the Australian Labor Party for the recognition of local government in the referenda was an indication of a particular commitment that the ALP had to local government that was lacking on this side of the House. Mr Braithwaite —What commitment? Mr ANDREW —Picking up the comment made by the honourable member for Dawson, I make the fundamental point that there is no lack of commitment on this side of the House to the recognition of local government. Mr Hollis —Did you vote for them? Mr ANDREW —As one may expect, the honourable member for Throsby has entered into the debate, as he inevitably does. The reason that there was not a commitment here to a yes vote in the referendum was that we felt that the recognition offered in the referendum, frankly, belittled local government. It did not give local government the very recognition it sought because the recognition was nothing more than a repetition of the recognition that already existed at State level. I rose, not to enter into some sort of banter with the honourable member for Throsby, but to make the point that there are some basic differences between the way the coalition regards local government and the way the ALP regards it. I refer, once again, to the speech by the honourable member for Capricornia. In his concluding remarks-he was cut short by the clock-he referred to the number of local governing authorities within his electorate which represented but a few hundred people and for that reason ought to be amalgamated. My point is that local government recognition and representation on this side of the House, and the commitment of the Opposition to local government, has no resemblance to the size of a particular local government authority. There is a general air about the ALP that all wisdom in governing matters rests with the Federal Parliament. We happen to believe that no unique authority is endowed on this chamber. We think that local government should be just that-local government. If a particular region-for example, the District Council of Minlaton in central Yorke Peninsula or the Corporation of Peterborough, to name two in my own electorate-has a particular characteristic that it wants to continue, a particular emphasis that it wants to cultivate, and if that is what the people of the region have democratically expressed as their wish, it should be free to do so. We think that local government should reflect the needs, the demands, the creativity of a particular local government area. The responsibility of this chamber is to so redistribute funds that local communities have a chance to take advantage of the opportunities they wish to have. In reality, rates that are charged and paid to local government authorities are nothing more than a tax on productivity. We should be ensuring that we return to people as much of the tax that we have collected from them as is reasonably possible, to allow them to do the things they want to do in their own local area. Let me illustrate some of the current responsibility that the local government is expected to pick up and for which it is frequently quite unremunerated. Mr Deputy Chairman, you yourself, in debating the matter of public importance this afternoon, referred to the health responsibility. Consider the health burden that is placed on country communities. A country community has a responsibility to maintain a hospital that can serve the needs of that community. But, more than maintain that hospital, in many instances that same community has been responsible for its establishment in the first place. Ratepayers have been the people to make the funds available. Yet currently under the Australian Labor Party, both federally and particularly in the State of South Australia, country hospitals-in my own electorate, the country hospitals in Blyth and Laura-are threatened with closure, not because local people are not prepared to pull their weight but because the Government has not been prepared to recognise the responsibility it has to rural communities. I heard as you did, Mr Deputy Chairman, the cry of the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) during the discussion of the matter of public importance for some form of equity. `My pensioners', said the honourable member for Dobell, `welcome what this Government has done'. I tell honourable members that my pensioners in the electorate of Wakefield find themselves decidedly disadvantaged by what this Government has done in the area of health care and in the area of local government funding. Let us look at some specific allocations of funds to local government under the Coalition Government and under the present Hawke Government. Total Commonwealth grants to local government in 1983-84 increased in real terms by 1.4 per cent and since then have decreased-in 1984-85 by 0.3 per cent, in 1985-86 by 7.1 per cent, and in 1987-88 by 0.7 per cent. Compare that with the fact that under the Fraser Government the total Commonwealth grants to local government effectively rose. Let us look also at general purpose assistance to local government. Under the Fraser Government general purpose assistance went up by 15.5 per cent. Under the present Government general purpose assistance has fallen by 0.3 per cent. What does that mean? That means that in local government regions and in areas as rural as mine, and yours, Mr Deputy Chairman, local people are effectively asked to carry more of the burden of achieving what they hope will be the local characteristic of their region. Nowhere is this more clearly illustrated than in the whole question of road funding. Nowhere have people been as disadvantaged as they have been in rural areas by the way in which we currently go about road funding. The total road funding chart shows that under this Government in 1987-88 the real percentage change in road funding was a fall of 7.14 per cent, and in this year there has been a further fall of 7.8 per cent. That is a burden, I remind the honourable member for Dobell, that my pensioners, as ratepayers, must bear if the roads in rural areas are to be maintained. Honourable members have heard me speak before about the stretch of road from Spalding Burough to Morgan, with which the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Pratt) is so familiar. But is is not a matter of my being repetitious about this. We should ask ourselves why the Royal Automobile Association of South Australia is in itself indignant about what is happening to road funding. Mr Pratt —Where is the money going? Mr ANDREW —As the honourable member for Adelaide rightly asks, where is the money going? In reality not even one-fifth of the Federal tax levied on motorists at the petrol bowsers is spent on Australia's road network-this from the same people who claimed that the Fraser Government turned the petrol bowser into a tax collection station. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(4.35) —Yesterday in discussing the immigration and ethnic affairs estimates, the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Pratt) complained that the interpretation of the Opposition's immigration policy by sections of the media was completely wrong and disappointing, and he tried to blame this on the Australian Labor Party. It is a fact that the interpretation which the Australian Labor Party has put on the Opposition's immigration policy is also the one which has been adopted universally throughout Australia. That point seems to have skipped the honourable member for Adelaide and, indeed, the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). Let me illustrate the point that I am making. We have news today that supports the view that the interpretation of the Opposition's immigration policy and policy of multiculturalism is creating great heartache and division. I refer to the news that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has become the first major leader of a political party not to be invited to the annual conference of the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia-I repeat, not to be invited. Why was the Leader of the Opposition not invited? It is because the councils are disgusted with the policy adopted by the Opposition in relation to multiculturalism, ethnic affairs and immigration. Mr Braithwaite —That is your interpretation. Dr THEOPHANOUS —No, it is not just my interpretation. This is the interpretation of the overwhelming proportion of the Australian people. It is certainly the interpretation of all the ethnic organisations in Australia, the ethnic media and, more importantly in certain respects, our overseas neighbours. There is no doubt that no other policy initiative announced by the Opposition in recent times has caused such damage as the damage done to this country by its immigration and ethnic affairs policy. Let me say to honourable members opposite who followed closely the recent Victorian election that they will be paying a very heavy electoral price for what happened. Their party lost key votes from various migrant groups because of the policy they have adopted, and they will be losing more in the future. Let them wait until the national conference of the Federation adopts a position on the policy that the Opposition has put forward. We will see whether those opposite will be able to show their heads in any migrant community in this country after having adopted such a disgraceful policy. When the Leader of the Opposition announced in July of this year that the Opposition was going to drop its policy of multiculturalism, we looked forward to seeing in August at least the reasons for that. Did we get the reasons in any statement from the shadow Minister? Did we get the reasons in any statement from the Leader of the Opposition? No, we did not. All we got was a paragraph from the new policy-a paragraph that is supposed to justify the reasons for dropping the policy of multiculturalism which even prominent members of the Liberal Party such as Malcolm Fraser and the New South Wales Premier, Nick Greiner, have strongly supported, saying it has been the best social program to be adopted in this country since the war. The Leader of the Opposition dropped the policy of multiculturalism. The reason given in the Liberal Party policy for doing so-- (Quorum formed) The Opposition does not want to hear that it is losing votes from migrant communities all over Australia because of what it has done to multicultural policy, so it decided to call for a quorum to be formed to prevent me from giving the true facts. My colleagues will want to hear the pathetic reason given in the Liberal Party policy document for dropping the policy of multiculturalism. I will read one paragraph of the document. This is the Liberal Party's justification for dropping one of the great social policies in the last 15 to 20 years: Terms and concepts such as `multicultural' and `multiculturalism' promote much debate. They mean different things to different people. To many they are words of reassurance. To others they have over time promoted division rather than unity. That is the reason given for dropping the policy of multiculturalism. There is no evidence, no proof, no support for this claim; there is just a simple statement. The only people who back the Opposition are people like Bruce Ruxton and the new National President of the Returned Services League, who considers that the multicultural policy is a divisive issue. The fact is that multiculturalism has been a very constructive policy that has been used to build unity in this country by giving every person, irrespective of where he comes from, irrespective of his cultural, racial or religious background, the right to participate fully in this country, as a full citizen with equal rights. That is what multiculturalism is all about. That is what the Opposition wants to change. Let us be very clear: its attack on multiculturalism is an attack on the rights of people to participate fully in Australian society and to be able to bring their cultural traditions here. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(4.45) —I want to take part in this debate on the estimates for the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. In the time that is available to me I would like to cover a number of matters. I would like to comment, firstly, on the need to distinguish between migrants and refugees; secondly, the need to attract more able, intelligent, adventurous, enthusiastic young migrants; thirdly, the need to review the family reunion element of our migration program; fourthly, the urgent need for this country to have a population policy; and, fifthly, the need for more children, rather than more migrants, although we need more of those, too. I turn first to the question of migrants and refugees. I think it is important, when we look at our migration policy, that we clearly distinguish between those to whom we give permission to enter Australia on the ground that they are refugees and those who enter as migrants. Refugees are often people who have been discriminated against. They are people who have been driven out of their countries. They are people who, very often, are unable to return to the countries of their birth. They fall into a totally different and distinct category. We, as a nation, must play our proper role in helping to solve the problems of refugees that occur from time to time around the world. I will briefly discuss my comment about the need to attract more young migrants. We often hear in relation to our migration program that one of the reasons for the desire of those who promote expanded migration is to try to make the country younger. For too long Australia has experienced what is described by some as a brain drain. Able, intelligent, adventurous young Australians have gone overseas, taking their skills with them, and have made great contributions to other countries. We still continue to provide a great opportunity for young people. It is my view that the current migration program is far too restrictive in the way in which it requires technical skills for people applying to enter Australia as independent migrants. We should be more adventurous in looking for the more adventurous. People who are young, who have tertiary education skills, who are enthusiastic, should be admitted because of their personalities as well as their paper qualifications. We should allow them to make a contribution to this country, whether or not there are identifiable jobs for them. We want young and enthusiastic people to come to what they may see as a frontier country. I touch briefly, in the limited time available to me, on the family reunion program. I think we need to review this program. It was first instituted 25 or 35 years ago when our migrants arrived here after a five or six week sea journey, when the opportunities for migrants to return to their countries of origin to visit their parents, brothers, sisters and other members of their families were extraordinarily limited. We are now living in the jet age. We are living in an affluent age when migrants who come to this country have an opportunity to return to their countries of origin to visit their families and friends. After all, it is a long way from Adelaide, my home city, to Cairns. Many young South Australians live in Cairns, and their parents can visit them there, and vice versa. I believe that migrants coming to this country from now on should be told if they are admitted for their personality, their enthusiasm, their skills or their education, it is they who are allowed to come and it does not provide an automatic right for them to nominate their extended families. In that way we can ensure that this country's migration program includes an even greater proportion of the young, enthusiastic and intelligent people, so that we can reverse the brain drain and draw from other countries. I turn now to the question of migration policy as a whole. I do not believe that any migration policy should discriminate against its applicants on the basis of their race, colour, nationality, descent, national or ethnic origin, gender or religion. There is a need for boundary controls, though, as to the size of the program and the age, skills, education and personalities of the migrants; but there should not be discrimination on the basis of the criteria to which I have just referred. Last week I spoke in this House about the need to improve the border monitoring and the need to improve the border controls on the migration of foreign capital to this country. The aim of this monitoring and these controls should be to ensure that too high a proportion of Australia is not owned or pledged as security to foreign investors and lenders, wherever they come from. There is a great difference between discriminating against people and discriminating against the country source of foreign investment and foreign loans. Fifthly, I referred to the need for us to have a population policy. The recently announced Liberal-National parties' migration policy touched upon this question. There is a need for a greater emphasis by this Parliament, by all parties. We should be looking first at the needs of young Australians seeking to establish homes and a secure environment for raising children. Under the present system many barriers are raised against young families, and all our policies, especially our taxation policies, should be aimed at restoring a favourable climate for families. We need more children rather than more migrants. This is how Australia should be replacing its population and the way in which Australia should be keeping the average age of the population young. Immigration, if relied upon, should be relied upon to the extent that it is in the national interest to increase our population. Before we concern ourselves with population increase, we should decide how we want to achieve population replacement. Experts are warning us of the implications of a less than zero rate of population growth. Headlines in the newspapers draw our attention to the fact that mums and dads are not producing enough children. We are experiencing a serious birth dearth, a birth shortage of major proportions. This problem arises as a consequence of falling fertility. Australia's fertility rate is substantially below the replacement rate and below the rate required to keep the population stable over time. When one considers the dramatic effects that this can cause, one finds that a less than replacement rate means automatically an ageing population. I shall illustrate the implications that could face this country by drawing a comparison with the implications that currently face West Germany. West Germany today is on the course that yields fewer than 1.3 children per woman over the course of her lifetime. Recent demographic projections show that if that rate continues, it will reduce West Germany's population from 60 million today to 50 million by the year 2000 and down to 16 million by the end of next century. As one French Prime Minister has said, Europe, on that basis, is vanishing. We are faced with the same problem in this country and there is a need for us to develop a population policy, to ask ourselves what are our population goals, what they should be, and whether there are institutional factors in our tax and social security programs that are denying young Australians the choice of the family size that they would desire. I am not suggesting that pro-natalist policies will necessarily encourage an increase in fertility, but I believe a large number of young Australians would desire to have a larger family if there were a less hostile tax system and a less hostile social security system, a system that recognised the cost of supporting dependants. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(4.55) —I wish to make a few more comments, because I was cut off last time, in relation to the other aspect of Opposition policy which has had such an impact in this country. I refer to the way in which the whole concept of race has been introduced into immigration through that policy and through the debates surrounding that policy. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), who spoke previously, is to be exempted from this because he was one of those who walked out of the chamber. A number of Opposition members crossed the floor when we tried to reassert the principles of non-discrimination on the basis of race in immigration policy; but, disgracefully, the Opposition failed to support that because, obviously, it is involved in adopting a policy which contains those discriminatory principles. It is a sad day for Australia that we have had to have such a debate and that the debate is continuing because of the fact that the Opposition has not decided to adopt a new policy based on non-discrimination. Whatever the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) and others say when they talk to various migrant communities, they are not believed when they say that their policy is non-discriminatory. The reason is that it is in the policy. That is the problem. It is in the policy in terms of the following paragraph, paragraph 3, which reads: The capacity of the Australian people to accept and absorb change must always be a main factor in immigration policy. The size and composition of our immigration policy should not jeopardise social cohesiveness and harmony within the Australian community. Here we are introducing the notion that the composition of the immigration program is to be judged on the basis of some criterion of social cohesiveness. Here one has the introduction of two extremely dangerous concepts. Last night the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Pratt) said that there was no problem with social cohesiveness in Australia; it was just under pressure. If there is no problem, why has the Opposition introduced the issue of social cohesiveness? The honourable member for Adelaide and other members of the Opposition must ask themselves whether they really want to introduce these dangerous concepts into the immigration debate. What is meant by social cohesiveness? Who is to judge it? Is it good for us if any person says, `I do not think a particular group is conducive to social cohesiveness', and therefore we have to listen to that group, or any individual who makes that claim? Imagine the dangerous consequences of this. This creates the very division that the Opposition claims it wants to get rid of, because allowance is made for groups of people to say that they do not like the behaviour of one group or another group. The very tolerance that has been built up through the multicultural policy becomes undermined and that becomes an excuse for saying that the composition of the program must be changed and there should be discrimination against people coming from certain parts of the world. That is the policy being adopted by the Opposition. It is no use to run away and say that we are really not discriminatory or prejudiced. The Opposition has introduced these dangerous elements. As the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) said in his speech to this House, although some people suppose that a particular ethnic group, such as the Asian community-which in itself is a number of different cultures and different groups; but for this purpose let us talk about it-in some sense represents a problem for social cohesion, overwhelmingly the evidence is against them. What has the Opposition done? It has opened up a Pandora's box. It has discussed this issue. It has left the matter floating in its policy, and then it says that it is the Government that is creating problems in immigration policy. What nonsense! It is open to the Opposition to change that policy. Its leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who bears a great deal of responsibility for what has happened in this matter, will go down in history in a very dishonourable way because of it. The quicker the Opposition changes this policy, the quicker it moves back to a policy supporting multiculturalism and the idea of non-discrimination, the better it will be. Yesterday the shadow Minister raised a number of other issues in relation to the immigration program. We are prepared to discuss all of those issues, but we cannot accept a situation where the Opposition adopts a morally bankrupt position as the starting point of its immigration policy. Once it gets away from that morally bankrupt position we can have a serious discussion about all kinds of issues in relation to immigration, including the administration of the immigration program. We are happy to do that, but we cannot do it in the context in which the Opposition has raised these issues, where it continues to persist with a discriminatory policy and to attack without justification and without any basis the policy of multiculturalism that has been a source of unity for this country, certainly not a source of division. Finally, let me say one thing about the multicultural policy. It is no good spokesmen for the Opposition speaking at ethnic functions around Australia and then saying, `Why are they booing us? Why are they telling us to sit down? Why are they telling us to shut up?'. The reason is clear. Those people see the Opposition as attacking their rights, taking away the multicultural policy which has been the foundation on which we have based this general program of assistance and support to the various migrant groups in the community. It is no good the Opposition spokesmen going to these functions and pretending that they will be treated in the same way as before. The fact of the matter is that the ethnic communities of this country consider that the Opposition has attacked them fundamentally by attacking the policy of multiculturalism. I urge the Opposition to rethink what it is doing in this area before it is too late. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(5.05) —Basically, the nature of these estimates involves discussion of two essential aspects of government policy. One is immigration and the other is local government. Let me deal first with the local government issue, which was raised by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew). I listened with great interest to the honourable member for Wakefield, who made it perfectly clear that he wanted more spent on local government, and I have some sympathy with that. He said he wanted more spent on roads, and I have some sympathy with that. He wants more spent on local hospitals in his electorate. Who could not sympathise with that? But in making all these assertions in the Estimates debate, what the honourable member discloses is the essential political schizophrenia of the coalition. During the last election campaign we were told that the policy of the coalition was to provide massive tax cuts funded by massive cuts in public revenue. The problem is that if we are going to cut public revenue-the figure that was estimated was put forward in order to justify the policies of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard)-we would be looking at cuts of about $6 billion. I recall the Leader of the Opposition saying that one of the things he would do in his first week in government would be to call together members of his Cabinet and tell them that they all had to face a massive cut in their portfolios. This was simply money straight off the top, with no question of where the Ministers would find it. It is extraordinary that, having adopted a broad policy that was good enough to go to the electorate with which says that there have to be continual cuts in government expenditure, when it comes to the Estimates we find individual members of the Opposition saying, `Well, although I supported that policy at the last election, I did not really mean it. What we really want is more money for local government. We want more money for hospitals. We want more money for roads'. Mr Staples —And tax cuts. Mr HOLDING —Yes, and tax cuts as well. Mr White —I wouldn't get on to that subject. Mr HOLDING —I am very happy to get onto any subject the honourable member wants to mention. Every speech that Opposition members make in this House indicates that the one thing they will not do is allow facts to interfere with their political prejudices. Let us deal with the Government's record on local government. In the last Budget introduced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), general purpose financial assistance to local government was increased to $652.5m for 1988-89 as against the previous figure of $636m. That was a 2.5 per cent increase over last year's entitlement. In the economic circumstances we face, local government has had to take on considerable additional commitments. The financial assistance provided to local government has dramatically increased under a Labor government. When we came to office the untied assistance was $424.5m. This year it is $652.5m, an increase of over 50 per cent. At the same time this Government improved funding arrangements through the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986, with the result that more assistance now goes to disadvantaged councils. In the last Budget, road funding was maintained in real terms, increasing from $255m to $269m. That is the record of a government which over five years has been forced to adopt economic constraints. What we see is the kind of approach adopted by the Opposition where any argument is good enough: `Do not let us relate political philosophy to our particular demands'. As my colleague the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) pointed out, nowhere was that more evident than in the contributions made by members of the Opposition in respect of immigration. I adopt the arguments put so cogently by the honourable member for Calwell, who talked about the fact that the Opposition was the first major combination of political parties in almost 2 1/2 decades to adopt a policy of opposition to a bipartisan approach on immigration and to do so for the most spurious of reasons. The reasons were advanced at two levels. Firstly, there is the argument about multiculturalism. I accept the argument that there is some misunderstanding in the community about multiculturalism and that some people perceive it as being more relevant to ethnic communities than to them. It is the responsibility of members of the Opposition and members of the Government to explain what that policy is about and how it affects every Australian. What happened was that the right wing think tanks had done some polling and they had discovered that the last group of people to arrive in Australia was not very popular. Suddenly a concern was expressed, first of all in the National Party by Senator Stone. I must concede that Senator Stone has a certain honesty and candour about his position: he does not make any secret of it. He said, `In government we will restrict Asian immigration'. It was as simple and as blunt as that. The Leader of the Opposition thought that that was not really a bad idea, that he could actually run with that and pick up a few votes. The way he chose to put it was that the Government must remain in control of its immigration policy. Let me say this: over recent years no government in the Western world has been more in control of its immigration policy than the Australian Government. I include the last two Liberal Ministers for immigration in that. It ought to be noted that when these policies were canvassed by the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber-surely this is of significance-one former Minister for immigration chose to absent himself from the chamber and the other took a far more principled course and crossed the floor of the House. Does that not indicate some dissent, some lack of clarity in terms of position? Why did they take that view? I have said it publicly and I will say it again: I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition is a racist. But I believe that what he was playing for was the worst aspect of Australian society because in the history of our immigration policy-it does not matter what time one looks at it-there has always been an ethnocentric attitude towards the last group of arrivals. I invite those who say, `We will cut back on Asian immigration'-wink, wink, nod, nod-`because we do not believe that they are socially cohesive', to look at the history of immigration. If they apply that standard and ask, `What evidence do we have?', they will see that we have polls. Opposition members who are interested in immigration would know that when the Italians, whose community has made an enormous contribution to Australian society, came out after the war they were subject to the same sorts of hatreds and nonsense. I have available for the benefit of honourable members, if they want to take the trouble to read them, copies of Sydney newspapers from 1948 which said that `Australia was about to be Latinised'. What a lovely term! What they meant by that was the Italians in sections of Sydney had bought and opened some restaurants and fruit shops, were buying their own houses and, God help us, were speaking Italian on the streets. What a threat that was! The interesting thing about those articles is that if one changed the name of the author, changed the term `Latinised' and made it `Asianised', it could be signed by the Professor of History at Melbourne University, the Leader of the Opposition or Senator John Stone. At no stage has the Italian community received more than 30 per cent approval in gallup polls. Never has a poll been conducted in which the Greeks, who have made an enormous contribution to the development of Australian society at every level, have received more than 32 per cent approval. The best that another great community, the Jewish people, could get-even when we knew the nature of what had occurred to them during the War and the Holocaust, when they sought to come here from the four corners of the earth-was 38 per cent approval. That is the history. Previous great Ministers for immigration in all parties at no stage said, `We will lean to those sorts of attitudes'. The only groups that ever received approval, for a very short period, were the British and the Dutch. That was it. Will one single member of the Liberal Party or the National Party who says, `Multiculturalism produces a lack of social cohesion or social division' get up in this House and say, `It is occurring in my electorate'? The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Pratt) says that he wants one Australia, but does he say that multiculturalism has produced any evidence of social division in his electorate? The only thing that is occurring in South Australia is the lunacy of the group known as National Action. Those lunatics fired bullets through the home of a former Minister for immigration, Mr Hurford, and recently fired bullets through the office of Senator Teague. That is a national disgrace. Mr White —Do you know that? Mr HOLDING —It is interesting that the honourable member is the only voice in this Parliament who wants to support such a group. When a Minister for immigration goes to South Australia he walks around with a couple of bodyguards. When we ask why, we are told that it is because of what has occurred in South Australia as a result of the actions of National Action. Those sorts of lunatic groups have been spurred on and encouraged by some of the nonsense-- Mr White —Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. I seek your indulgence and clarification. I hope the Minister is not accusing me or anyone else on this side of supporting the particular group which he is talking about. Mr HOLDING —No. Mr Downer —You are; you are saying `spurred on and encouraged by us'. Mr HOLDING —Statements have been made by the honourable member's leaders in the course of the argument on immigration, and they have encouraged those groups. I do not say that they set out deliberately to encourage them, but I do say that the kinds of arguments that have been advanced by a once great Liberal Party have given a credibility to fringe racist groups that they would never have had otherwise. Mr Downer —Ha, ha! Mr HOLDING —The honourable member can laugh. It is all right for him. He never opens his mouth except to put his gold-plated foot in it. He does not know what this kind of pressure is all about. He has led a thoroughly protected life. When the honourable member for Mayo talks about what is occurring on the tram stops and the bus stops-he has never lined up for one in his life; he has never had to-- Mr Downer —Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. Unless the Chair upholds decency in debate I think this debate will degenerate into a great deal of personal abuse. These allegations are completely false and utter nonsense. It is a massive and dangerous beat-up. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Cowan) —There is no point of order. I suggest that the interjections cease and the Minister return to addressing the Chair. Mr HOLDING —I am very happy to address the Chair. What I am saying is that so long as major political parties in this country are prepared to say that particular groups who apply for immigration to this nation can be discriminated against on the basis of social cohesion and can be excluded, having passed all the tests, on the basis of their race or origin, they are pandering to some very dangerous forces in our society. I believe that there is overwhelming evidence to show that many younger people who are good young Australians of Asian origin and background are suffering on a daily basis. I encourage the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) to examine those facts, because it is time they were examined. I conclude on this note: if all is well, as the shadow Minister would have us understand, in terms of immigration policy, what precisely is Senator Stone's position? We are in an odd and unique situation in that the person whose ranking is fourth in the coalition-who would be entitled to be ranked fourth if the coalition came to government-cannot participate in the shadow Cabinet because he has been very blunt and, I think, very honest about his personal views on Asian immigration. The poor man was caught because he honestly believed that he was supporting his Leader. That is why he got the bullet. The Leader of the National Party, old Sinkers, is prepared to support John Stone as Leader in the Senate so long as he-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Rocher) —Order! The Minister will refer to honourable members by their correct titles. Mr HOLDING —The Leader of the National Party of Australia in the House of Representatives supported the Leader of the Opposition when he sacked Senator Stone but gave Senator Stone his assurance that he, the Leader of the National Party, would continue to support Senator Stone so long as he stayed in the Senate and did not try to come here and take his job. That is the reality. Honourable members opposite know it. I ask honourable members opposite not to come in here and preach to us about their position on immigration because the position of their leader is a national disgrace. The position that has emerged in the coalition is that a principal coalition spokesman is out of the shadow Cabinet, because he at least had the honesty to say clearly what he believes ought to be the policy, but continues to hold his leadership position in his Party. That is the kind of nonsense that is going on in the coalition. While that is the Opposition's position on immigration, the reality is, as the honourable member for Calwell pointed out-I know the Leader of the Opposition would like these matters not to be mentioned because he would like to think that he can go back to ethnic communities and receive some sort of welcome-that those people who have come to build their homes in Australia feel nothing but contempt for what has occurred in the destruction of what was bipartisan policy support for the development of multiculturalism in our society; policies which I believe have brought great strength and credibility to this nation. Those policies were not the property of any one government. While that position continues to be maintained by the coalition, anything it says on the question of immigration or the problems of immigration lacks complete credibility. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Defence Proposed expenditure, $7,440,398,000. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(5.23) —The appropriation for the Department of Defence is nearly $7.5 billion. It is not the total amount of that appropriation that is of interest here because that amount has been relatively static; in fact, I think last year it declined by one per cent. This year that appropriation is 2.4 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). I took out figures for every year back to 1950 and found that this year's allocation of funds to defence represents the lowest proportion of GDP since 1950-it may well be longer than that. Therefore, it is with a degree of amusement that we hear the Government, the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) saying in this House and elsewhere how much they are committed to defence. In fact, in relative terms, government commitment to defence has never been lower in 40 years. A defence White Paper produced only last year entitled Defence of Australia 1987 was predicated on an annual real increase in defence spending year by year of 3 per cent. We saw that percentage cut down to 2 per cent, one per cent, minus one per cent and, this year, to 0.5 per cent. It is a joke to think that the Government should say how committed it is and how much it is spending on defence when each year we have seen the promised defence budget cut back. It has not been cut back in terms of equipment; the money has come from other areas such as training and facilities for personnel-as the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel well knows. The equipment vote has been kept going at the expense of other areas. That has created enormous problems in the Defence Force. We only have to see-they are referred to often enough-the wastage rates that set records month by month and year by year. On the question of defence personnel the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has recently appointed Senator Jocelyn Newman to the position of shadow Minister for defence science and personnel. I welcome her, as I am sure does the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. Senator Newman is a welcome addition to the shadow Ministry line-up. She is very experienced in defence matters. Mrs Kelly —When are you going to talk about them? Mr WHITE —I will have plenty to talk about. If the Minister just listens she will find out. I welcome Senator Newman to the shadow Ministry. Recently we heard the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Holding) refer to the disgraceful attitude of the Opposition to immigration matters. Tonight I want to talk briefly about the disgraceful attitude of the Government to ships visiting for the Bicentennial Naval Review. The cowardice shown by the Federal Government in dealing with the unions last week in Melbourne in relation to the visit by the Ark Royal and the Fort Grange has brought great shame to this country. We have all been diminished as Australians by this dishonourable incident. Page after page of the White Paper and Government policy statements month after month stress the importance of the alliances to this country and Australia's part in the Western Alliance. Page after page states that we are a staunch member of the Western Alliance and how reliable we are. Yet, last week ships that were invited by this country to come and visit for our bicentennial were left to wallow around Port Phillip Bay in indescribable weather without the Government lifting one single finger to help them. Not a finger! When the office of the Minister for Defence was asked what was being done about it, it was stated, `It is in the hands of the union'. The union has taken over. The unions of this country have taken over the control of our foreign affairs and defence policies. That is the reality of it. If honourable members were to go now to the British High Commission or the American Embassy they would see that the subject exercising the minds of people in those places is how reliable this country is. Not a month ago the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) said that it was time the American alliance was ended. Our allies are asking whether they are seeing the first signs of this country going down the New Zealand road. As honourable members opposite know, a matter of great concern to them is where we stand in regard to the Western Alliance. These people do not know who is running the country. They do not know whether it is John Halfpenny, who stands up in Melbourne and says, `We have had a great victory', because he and his mob have not allowed two visiting British warships to berth in Melbourne. Is that a great victory? It is a great and shameful disgrace. Those ships were asked by the Australian Government and the Australian people to come here for our Bicentenary. One British ship arrived in Sydney with a damaged propeller. The British Government inquired whether, if that ship were to be docked for repairs, the Australian Government would allow it out of dry dock; whether the Government would guarantee that it would not sit in dry dock for weeks, perhaps months, because of industrial action? What did the Australian Government do? It said, `No, we will not give you that guarantee'. It would have been simple to do so because had the unions interfered the Navy would have been available to undock that ship. However, the Government would not give that guarantee and the British never made a formal request. What a way to treat allies and friends! So we had this disgraceful episode in Melbourne last weekend. Those ships left. We now have visiting British warships heading for Adelaide, where they are due the day after tomorrow. But already the Seamen's Union of Australia and the South Australian Trades and Labour Council in Adelaide have said, `We will not provide the tugs, any facilities or any services for those ships'. The British Government at least considered-I do not know whether it has reached a decision-not completing the bicentennial visit and taking its ships home. It was that threat of cancellation, plus an embarrassment that would be caused to the Duke of York, whose ship would have been affected, that at last got the Government off its tail to negotiate with the Seamen's Union. It did not say in here, `We are going to fix it; we are going to put naval tugs there; we are going to ensure that that ship is berthed. They are our friends, our allies and our visitors'. What did the Government say? It said, `We will try to fix it in Adelaide and we will negotiate with the unions'. When our alliances are in tatters and our friends are asking what sort of ally we are, the Government of this country is saying that it will negotiate with the unions. I am, unfortunately, running out of time. If those negotiations are successful, do honourable members think that will solve the problem? What about the next time we get some visiting warships? Are we going to have the same problem? Will the Government try to fix the problem by negotiation? That is apparently how it is going to run its defence policy-by negotiation with the unions. This whole matter has been a disgrace. The Government has to face up to the fact that it will have to legislate to ensure that warships visiting this country are given the protection they deserve. Once it does that, then we can start to repair some of the damage that has been done in the last week, and then we can again stand up like proud Australians. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(5.33) —I was going to speak on Australia's defence relationship with the South Pacific region and, in particular, on our defence cooperation program, but I cannot let the utter drivel that the chamber has been subjected to go by without making a few comments. We have just heard the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) talk about the amount of funds set aside for the defence portfolio for this year and how, if he were in government, he would be spending more. Yet a few minutes before he spoke the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) said that he wanted more money spent on local government, transport and local hospitals-all sorts of wonderful things. The honourable member for McPherson now says, `We want a lot more money for defence'. Yet the policy of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is for tax cuts and a reduction in services. Where would the Opposition, if in government, get the money from if it is going to put more and more money into other services? Those opposite continually come into this chamber and say, `We are going to spend a fortune on defence'. In fact the former member for Denison said in the old Parliament House, just before the last election-his speech was never repudiated-that we should spend another $7.5 billion on defence. What lunacy! We would all like to spend a lot more on a lot of things, but it cannot be done. What has been said is drivel. During every defence debate in this chamber the honourable member for McPherson comes in and talks utter nonsense. Most of those on that side of the chamber know that. The only program that has ever been effectively put into place on defence matters has been put into place by this Government. Mr Downer —Talk about drivel! Mr CHARLES —Here we go. The honourable member for Mayo interjects. During his Government's term of office, which was for nearly 30 years, we had the old replacement mentality. They said, `We have run out of tanks. The old ones are getting a bit rusty. Let's replace them'. They never asked themselves, `Do we need the damn things?' The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) was the first Defence Minister to look at what capabilities this country required. Thus we had the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, followed by the White Paper-very important milestones in defence thinking about where we were going, the sorts of funds that were required and the sorts of capabilities this country needed for the future. Indeed, capital procurement under our Government has rocketed. Mr Downer —Rocketed by how much? Mr CHARLES —The honourable member interjects again. (Quorum formed) The fact is that at the same time as those opposite want to give tax cuts to anyone and everyone, they want to spend more and more on what they, including the honourable member for McPherson, want to spend it on; but they are not going to cut any services. It is absolute drivel, and they know it is. Let us look at capital procurement in defence. When the light frigate program goes ahead next year-about $5 billion-worth of construction-we shall have between $11 billion and $12 billion worth of capital procurement being achieved in this country. The amount spent on capital procurement in Australia as of two years ago was 30 per cent of the total capital procurement. At present, after two years, it has gone up to 48 per cent. When the light frigate program comes on stream that will increase. In other words, we will probably have doubled it within three to four years. This could never have been achieved if honourable members opposite had been on this side of the House. They never wanted to create a defence industry or an Australian program that suited this country's capabilities in defence matters. The honourable member for McPherson said that the alliance was falling apart. It is strange that the Secretary of State has said that the alliance, the relationship, between our two countries, has never been better. Yet we hear the drivel that comes in from the shadow spokesman on defence. He talked about how the relationship is no good and how it is falling apart. He then misquoted or took statements made by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) out of context. But he did not tell the truth about what the Minister had said a few weeks ago. The fact is that the relationship between Australia and the United States and the alliance has never been stronger. Mr Lindsay —It has strengthened. Mr CHARLES —Indeed, it has strengthened. The honourable member for Herbert reminds me quite correctly. That is because of the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) who are at the table, particularly the Minister for Defence because he has been in that portfolio for quite some time and has put in place a number of things that I have already spoken about. We were the ones who put in a program for defence, particularly defence procurement, and the direction and capabilities this country needed for the future. We did not go for the easy pre-election grabs. We did not say that we would spend a few million on aircraft carriers that maybe we did not need or that we did not have any intention of buying after the election. That is, and always was, nonsense. That was the Opposition's policy; not this Government's policy. We wanted a policy for the future of Australia's defence, our capital procurement and our defence capabilities. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(5.43) —I remind the Committee, including the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) who are at the table, of the fundamental responsibility of any government of any country because it is tremendously important. I would like particularly the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, sitting next to the despatch box, to take this into account. As the junior Minister she ought to take this very much to heart. The fundamental responsibility of any government is to protect the security of the nation. In recent days we saw the Ark Royal, the British aircraft carrier, prevented from docking in Melbourne as the express result of the actions of the Seamen's Union of Australia backed up by the Trades and Labour Council of Victoria. What an indictment on any Federal Government that such a thing should be allowed to happen. What else did the people of Australia see? They saw seamen invited to this country to take part in our bicentennial celebrations being spat upon on the wharves of Melbourne and refused entry into the city. People from Australia wishing to visit the ships which were opened up for visitors were prevented because of the actions of a few demonstrators. What did this Government do about it? It did precisely zero, zilch, nothing. That is the level of attention that this Government has paid to the fundamental responsibility of any Australian Government which is to protect the security of the nation. The junior Minister at the table can write away and pretend that this does not matter and that it does not affect her. Of course it does because she is partly responsible. She cannot escape that responsibility. She is also responsible for some of the personal matters in the Australian armed services. As she would know, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade has had a very detailed look at the personnel wastage problems. The Minister appeared before the Committee which is now in its final stages of deliberation. I would hope that we would have a very interesting debate at an early stage following the tabling of that report which I would hope to see coming up very shortly. I get back to that fundamental point: the primary responsibility of any Australian government is to protect the security of the nation. This Australian Government has stood supinely by while, of all people, the Seamen's Union says that a visiting warship, here at the express invitation of the Australian Government, of the Australian people, to take part in our bicentennial celebrations, is refused docking facilities. What does the Government do about it? It says, `We will negotiate with the trade unions'. What a tremendous response! What a responsible attitude by any Australian government confronted with union power preventing an invited naval vessel from docking in Australia and showing every indication that this attitude will be pursued in other ports. What has the Government done about it? Simply nothing. It stands as a great indictment on this Government and one that it will bear for the rest of its time in office. Not only is this individual exercise of union power important but also the precedent that has been set is of fundamental importance-it will give encouragement to all those elements within the union movement and outside it who wish to prevent the docking, the arrival, or the visit of allied naval vessels. They know that this Australian Labor Government will stand supinely by while left wing unions exercise their muscle in complete defiance of what should be a response from any responsible Australian government. Rather than the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) saying that what was spoken about was drivel, it is of the most fundamental importance to the future security of this nation. In his heart he knows it and in their hearts honourable members sitting behind him know it. They know that they should not allow any trade union section or movement, either of the Left or of the Right, to dictate to any Australian government which naval vessels or which military personnel will be allowed to travel to and arrive in Australia, particularly those here at the express invitation of this Australian Government, of Australian State governments and of the Australian people. It is an utter disgrace. I now move to another issue and that is a little item tucked away in the estimates for the Department of Defence under the heading of miscellaneous. The estimates for 1988-89 under miscellaneous in the amount of $177,176,000 cover a multitude of sins. I want to refer in relation to that matter to the Cooksey Review of Australia's Defence Cooperation Programs and Policy on Export of Defence Equipment and, in particular, to the second of three terms of reference of that review, namely: You are to identify property holdings . . . which could be considered for disposal. I would have assumed that the report would address this specific request by reporting to the Minister for Defence in such a way that he might readily and conveniently identify recommended property disposals-part of selling off the farm to pay for the enormous debt. But this is not the case. In fact, the recommended properties for disposal are so carefully hidden amongst the 351 pages of the report that it took me more than 1 1/2 hours of painstaking checking through Mr Cooksey's 180 recommendations to establish a list of disposables. They were very cleverly tucked away indeed. Residents of my electorate in Warringah and many other New South Welsh people and Australians who appreciate the uniqueness of Sydney Harbour will feel great alarm at what is contained in that list. Local government bodies are already writing to me about this situation. Let me give one disturbing example. Recommendation 3.27 states that the activities at HMAS Penguin be transferred over time to other naval establishments or locations and that HMAS Penguin be declared for disposal. In commenting on that recommendation, Mr Cooksey states: Its disposal value could be substantial, on the basis of use for residential housing. I am sure that there is no need to remind the people of Sydney that in 1987 the Federal Government announced its intention to sell 4.175 hectares of vacant defence land at HMAS Penguin, which is adjacent to Balmoral Beach. Its stated intention was to sell that land to a private developer for exclusive residential purposes, at an estimated price of $16m. There was enormous community reaction to that proposed disposal of land for, let us face it, the economic elite of Sydney or Australia to buy at prodigious prices. It would have destroyed a unique part of Sydney Harbour's foreshores. Now we have a proposal for all 17.8 hectares of HMAS Penguin to be disposed of for apparently similar residential development purposes. If this is proceeded with, the Hawke Government will have shown itself for what it really is-a party which has abandoned its principles and is now motivated by the shortsighted goal of selling off national assets to pay for its past debt and budgetary extravagances. I just remind the House that this is the Government which promised in its 1983 electioneering that it would `provide funds for the purchase into public ownership and for the restoration of valuable alienated coastline'. What do we find instead? We see that it is now prepared to sell that coastline into the pockets of private developers. If that is not enough, let us consider this: the 10th terminal regiment is located on 6 1/2 hectares at Middle Head and this land has been committed to the Sydney Harbour National Park under the provisions of the Sydney Harbour Foreshores Agreement. Recommendation 4.10 of the Cooksey report states: That 10th terminal regiment be relocated once a suitable location has been determined and that the land at Middle Head be released under a renegotiated Sydney Harbour Foreshores Agreement. In other words, this land should not go to the Sydney Harbour National Park as previously agreed, but should be renegotiated out of the agreement so that the land can be disposed of for other purposes. Honourable members can guess what that will be-another multimillion dollar sale to a private developer. We have an opportunity to return large foreshore areas of Sydney Harbour into recreational and national parks which will give pleasure to ordinary Australians and help to make Sydney Harbour one of the truly beautiful natural harbours of the world. But this Australian Labor Party Government seems hell-bent on selling off our nation to hide its financial excesses of past years. It is not selling off our nation; it is selling out our nation and its people. We must protest in all possible ways. Let me assure the Government that we surely will. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(5.52) —I will take just a few moments of the Committee's time and continue with what I was saying earlier in regard to the phoney piece of legislation that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) raised at Question Time. I believe that the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) also raised this in his speech. This piece of legislation was supposed to fix all the problems that honourable members opposite have raised today. It was introduced in 1982. As the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) said at Question Time, it went through the House of Representatives and was in the Senate for three months and nothing was done. It was a phoney piece of legislation in the sense that members of the present Opposition never had any intentions of enacting it-unless we opposed it, and then they could grandstand about it and make a political issue out of it. They wanted to make a political issue out of it because they knew that they were going to have an election. The old trick of members of the Opposition in every election is to try to drum up a foreign affairs and defence matter that they can beat the drum about. They have done it for 40 years now. But the Australian Labor Party fooled them. Members of the Labor Party said, `No, we will not oppose that'. So, it went through the House of Representatives quickly, got to the Senate and those opposite thought, `Damn it. What are we going to do now? They are going to support it. We cannot grandstand'. That is how phoney members of the Opposition are. That legislation sat there for three months. They talk about aircraft carriers. The former Minister for Defence, the present Leader of the National Party of Australia and right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), already had canned that. It was about to be shoved in the closet. But, no, when we got into government and finally did away with the aircraft carrier submission, he raised it again and said, `Oh no, you should not have done that'. He had already decided to do exactly the same as the Government did a few months later, after the election. I have a few quick comments on Australia's relationship with the South Pacific and Australia's defence cooperation program. Importantly, of the $60.2m in the Budget for the defence cooperation program, $45.5m is with Papua New Guinea (PNG) and the South Pacific countries. That is important because that is the most significant region from our viewpoint. It is interesting that $45.5m is being spent on the defence cooperation program. As I said in discussing the foreign affairs portfolio estimates the other day, I have just come back from a trip to the South Pacific. I visited eight countries and saw a number of defence cooperation programs that are very well regarded and very successful. I think Australia does a magnificent job-it has some very good personnel in the Pacific-to achieve the aims of this Government and the Pacific nations which welcome the programs that we institute there. I saw some programs in Tonga which are working very well. We spoke to our defence person in Fiji and to people in a number of other countries. These are important programs. There is $45.5m worth of defence cooperation programs in PNG and the South Pacific-our most important region. I refer honourable members also to a very important statement made in this House on 22 March this year by the Minister for Defence regarding defence policy and how that policy related to the South Pacific, our regional responsibility, our ships' visits, et cetera, which we are undertaking and which we have upgraded and substantially increased since we became the Government. We are the ones who have set out a program, not those opposite; they never did. We have implemented capital procurement, capability and cooperation with our Pacific neighbours. That is what it is about. The program has been set out by this Government and we will continue down that successful track. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(5.58) —The honourable member of Isaacs (Mr Charles) has said a number of interesting things that ought to be responded to. Just on the positive side, I would like to say how good it was to visit Papua New Guinea and Tonga recently and to see the defence personnel, particularly in Mendi in Papua New Guinea, lending very valuable assistance to the Papua New Guinea people in building roads and bridges and assisting them in many other positive ways. I am very pleased that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) will make sure that that kind of support for our friends and neighbours is continued and even increased. Tonight we are discussing the appropriations for defence which, I am sure every Australian will be saddened or even horrified to hear, are at their lowest level for 40 years. It must cause the Minister severe embarrassment that this new Hawke Government achievement-it is the lowest level of funding for defence since the Korean War-has occurred while he has been responsible for the defence portfolio. Minister Beazley, like Minister Jones, is a Minister who I believe is totally committed to his portfolio and the thousands of people who serve under him. But he is also a Minister who seems to be very much ignored-a Minister, seemingly, without influence in the Hawke Government. Mrs Kelly —Oh! You do not know how the Government operates. Mr WEBSTER —The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, who is assisting the Minister for Defence, is in the chamber. I would like to say the same about her: I think that she has quite a commitment to her portfolio. We get good vibes about her in different areas. I revert to the Minister for Defence because he has the ultimate responsibility. He is virtually reduced to a `don't you worry about that' defence of the Government's cuts to his portfolio allocations. The lowest morale levels in the history of our armed forces and unequalled resignation rates or separation rates, as they are now called, now render our operational capacity doubtful. All the Minister can say is, `Don't worry about that'. As to the further extensions to the time limit for the introduction of new weapons and equipment, all the Minister can say is, `Don't worry about it'. The funding record for the past three years stands in complete contradiction to the Minister's own consultant's recommendations on funding self-reliance, and again we get the impression that we are not to worry about that. We live in an increasingly unstable and unpredictable region, and note the stepping up of diplomatic, economic and military competition in that region by the Soviet Union, China, Japan and Indonesia. Again we cannot help but get the feeling that we ought not to worry about it. For all the success of the naval review-it was a great success, until Melbourne, of course-the Army tattoo, the air show, which was a magnificent spectacle for those who attended and The Bush Tucker Man, which I enjoyed immensely, and for all the residual respect for the Minister's personal capacity and commitment, the people of Australia are worried. They are worried because they heed the warnings of those veterans who experienced the needless losses which this country suffered in World War II because we were simply unprepared. They are worried because they heed the warning of recently retired and, indeed, serving servicemen and women, that, because of cuts and declining conditions, our defence capability must be seriously questioned. They are worried because the Minister's personal commitment does not seem to make any difference. It does not appear to carry any weight in the Cabinet. It is the Minister's responsibility to submit appropriations which provide the security foundations both for short term contingencies and for potential long term threats. His reponsibility in 1988-given defence lead times-is to ensure that those who turn 18 in the year 2000 are not called upon to defend their country without the technology and the experienced service organisations to let them do the job. Unfortunately, it seems that this Government worships at the altars of the monthly opinion polls and the 18-month election cycle. It is therefore oblivious to the Minister's arguments for greater priority for military and strategic planning-and I am sure that he presents strong cases to it. As a result, we are ill-prepared for either low level but lengthy contingencies or long term security threats. One of my fears is that the very success of the air show, the tattoo and the naval review will send the wrong message about the state of our defence in 1988 and will hide the morale problems of our servicemen and women. I take this opportunity to say to those who were so impressed with the public displays of expertise and commitment by the Royal Australian Navy, the Royal Australian Air Force and the Army that we face serious-indeed, dangerous-problems in defence. Talk to any serviceman or woman in private and that message will be confirmed. With each Budget we hope that the Minister will have come good, that he will have convinced Cabinet to put its money where its mouth is, that the funding will at least reach the minimum levels recommended so objectively by the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities. The appropriations before us reveal that we must go on hoping, because the Minister was betrayed by Cabinet once again in 1988. Finally, I just say that I believe that the appropriations reveal very clearly that the only hope we have is that perhaps one day in the near future the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) will become the Minister for Defence within the next coalition government, hopefully at the next election. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(6.05) —`The Australian people expect that Australia shall be able to defend itself. The Australian government accepts its duty to provide Australia with defence forces able to meet that expectation'. These words, written by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) in his preface to the 1987 Defence White Paper, explain very simply the fundamental resolve of the Hawke Government to provide for the successful defence of this nation and its people. The Hawke Government, an authentic Australian Government, has continued to maintain the momentum of the 1987 Defence White Paper. In other words, this Budget is about re-arming Australia-to enable Australians to have the ability to defend themselves from their own resources and within the framework of Australia's defence alliances and agreements. Whilst the 1987 Defence White Paper provided a clear direction for the development of a force structure for the Australian Defence Force, this Budget, with purposeful resolve, is rapidly achieving the objectives of the 1987 Defence White Paper. The total defence outlay in the 1988-89 Budget will be $7,658m-an increase of $236m or 3.2 per cent over that for 1987-88. One of the main priorities of the Budget will be to improve conditions, including housing, for service personnel and their families. On average, the outlay of $3,462m on Australian Defence Force personnel shows an increase slightly above 3 per cent covering the increase in service allowances awarded to the Australian Defence Force by the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. In addition $60m is allocated, but not yet appropriated, to allow for projected increases in wages and salaries which may arise during the financial year. The Hawke Government will vigorously continue its priority to improve service accommodation for families and single personnel. Nearly $180m will be outlaid for defence housing this year. The allocation of $80m for investment on housing this year is part of the Hawke Government's pledge to spend $750m on improved housing stocks before January 1996. The Defence Housing Authority commenced operations on 1 January 1988 as a government business enterprise responsible for construction, acquisition, leasing, refurbishment, maintenance and disposal of all defence housing. Under the energetic leadership of its General Manager, Bill Kirkby-Jones, the Authority is well set to achieve the Hawke Government's objective of providing good standard accommodation for service personnel and their families. Townsville is a major beneficiary of the housing program. This year the Defence Housing Authority proposes spending $4.7m on new housing construction and acquisitions in Townsville and Thuringowa in preparation for the move of Royal Australian Air Force No. 9 Squadron from Amberley to Townsville. The Budget also provides $11m on upgrading living-in accommodation. Work is already under way at Lavarack Barracks, Townsville, on upgrading 36 barrack buildings occupied by single service personnel. Refurbishment of the first barrack building is almost complete. The estimated cost of converting all 36 barrack buildings over a four-year period is $20m. Spending on new equipment for the Australian Defence Force is maintained at high levels despite the tight controls on total outlays. This year 22.9 per cent of the Budget is appropriated on new equipment, which compares well with the 17.4 per cent of the 1982-83 Liberal-National Party Budget spent on capital equipment. This supports the Minister's claim that the economic need to secure fiscal objectives has not been achieved at the expense of the future capabilities of the Australian Defence Force. The extent of the program to re-equip the Australian Defence Force can be gauged by the fact that the total value of major capital equipment programs currently under way is $18,883m. Of this, a little over half, some $9,747m, has already been spent, leaving $9,086m to be funded over this and succeeding years. This does not include the costs of programs fundamental to the security of Australia such as the over-the-horizon radar system, follow-on minehunters and the Anzac ship project. One of the most important requirements for Australia's defence is to possess comprehensive intelligence about Australia's region of direct military interest. A top priority of the Hawke Government has been project Jindalee-the installation of at least three operational over-the-horizon radars located in Western Australia, Alice Springs and north-eastern Queensland. This project, costing more than $500m, will enable the Defence Force to detect and track intruders in Australia's maritime approaches. Sites near Charters Towers and Hughenden in north Queensland are being considered as locations for the new radar system. The current estimates of the projects I have referred to would bring the cost of the re-equipment of the Australian Defence Force to approximately $13,250m-again emphasising the essential requirement that the Hawke Government continue its present high level of funding of capital equipment. This Budget includes provision for continuing payments against projects approved in earlier years, including $402m for the purchase of additional FA18 Hornet aircraft; $53m for the construction of two guided missile FFG7 frigates; $381m for the construction stage of the new submarine project, the first submarine being due for delivery in 1995; $129m for 16 Sea Hawk helicopters to operate from the guided missile frigates; $65m for Raven field radios; $48m towards replacing the Army's Land Rovers and Landcruisers with 2,900 new vehicles, $30m for the Hamel 105-millimetre field-gun; and $27m towards the cost of replacing most of the Army's current small arms with modern weapons such as the locally made Steyr infantry rifle. One new major capital equipment purchase is for camouflage nets for use in northern Australia by the Operational Deployment Force and supporting units based at Lavarack Barracks, Townsville. As with new equipment, the requirements for achieving a policy of self-reliance call for extensive expenditure on the development of facilities, especially in north Australia, which has been an area of defence requirement often ignored by previous governments. The value of the new works component of the facilities function of the Budget, which has been approved for 1988-89, is $291m, which brings the total value of the works program to $736m. Estimated expenditure in this area during the year is $372m, which will leave an ongoing program of $428m for future years. A major component of the works program for 1988-89 is the further development of the Black Hawk helicopter facilities at Townsville. Many honourable members would be aware that 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 army battlefield functions. Unlike other multi-role aircraft, the Black Hawk will operate solely within the ground warfare environment. Thirty Black Hawk helicopters will be based at Townsville. The two squadrons and supporting elements will be operated by 5 Aviation Regiment. The Defence Budget provides for an increase in the active reserve forces to 30,880. The Army Reserve's 11 Brigade, based at Jezzine Barracks, Townsville, is part of the Early Deployment Force of the Australian Army combat forces. Under the leadership of Brigadier George Mansford, AM, and his extremely able assistant commander, Lieutenant Colonel Phillip Gould, 11 Brigade performs a vital role in surveillance activities in north-eastern Australia. It is the most combat effective Army Reserve brigade in the Australian Army Reserve. This defence budget proposes to enhance surveillance capabilities in northern Australia. This will enable 11 Brigade to continue expanding the numbers of active Army reservists and the scope of the activities conducted by the Brigade. During the past 10 months, a brigade signals squadron, 140 Signals Squadron, has been raised with its headquarters in Townsville and troop sized detachments in Rockhampton and Cairns. This organisation is expanding rapidly and, subject to equipment availability, will provide communications throughout the 11 Brigade's area of operations by the end of 1988. An engineer field troop, a sub-unit of the Mount Isa based 35 Field Engineer Squadron, is shortly to be raised in Townsville. In addition, a recent affiliation between the Brisbane based 13 Field Battery, Royal Australian Artillery and 11 Brigade units has given 11 Brigade, for the first time, the capability to deploy field artillery in support of operations throughout northern Australia. Exercise Kangaroo 89, to be held in July-October 1989, will allow 11 Brigade to exercise this capability in the Weipa region. High standards continue to be achieved in training, with short notice deployment exercises taking infantry company sized groups of the Brigade into the Cape York Peninsula to link up with Regional Force Surveillance Unit patrols of the Brigade's 51st Battalion, Far North Queensland Regiment, based at Cairns. These weekend activities familiarise soldiers of 11 Brigade with their intended area of operations and demonstrate that Reserve units can deploy rapidly into remote areas, given modest resources to do so. The Australian defence forces are at their most combat ready in the history of our country. I know that, under the competent leadership of the Minister for Defence and with the commitment and will of the Hawke Labor Government, Australia, within the next few years, will build one of the most formidable defence forces in the South Pacific region. I would like to record the thanks of the nation to the Minister for Defence. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(6.15) —Last week, from 12 October to 16 October inclusive, there was staged at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Richmond near Sydney the Bicentennial Air Show, which was jointly organised by Schofields Flying Club and the RAAF. Schofields Flying Club is a small private enterprise organisation based at the Schofields Aerodrome in north-west Sydney. That aerodrome is presently under threat of sale by the Department of Defence, as was stated in the recent Budget Papers. Mr Webster —It should not be sold. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —It should not indeed. I put it to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) that Schofields Aerodrome is an irreplaceable community asset. The siting of a new aerodrome of this sort is about as popular as the siting of a new maximum security prison. It is imperative that New South Wales retain this aerodrome to cater for the progress of general aviation in Sydney and in New South Wales generally. Indeed, as Badgerys Creek proceeds as the site for the second Sydney airport, without Schofields Aerodrome the future of general aviation in Sydney and its environs would be impossible. The Bicentennial Air Show was a magnificent affair, as my colleague the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) mentioned a moment ago. It was the largest and most complex air show ever staged in the Southern Hemisphere. The overall display area took up an area the size of the World Expo 88 site in Brisbane. Among many memorable flying displays, including those by the United Kingdom Harrier aircraft, the display by the RAAF FA18s was outstanding. Those aircraft, of course, were ordered by the previous Government. The Hornet demonstration, after a breathtaking display of speed, manoeuvrability and brute power, concluded with the aircraft climbing absolutely vertically, rotating slowly around that vertical axis until, at about 25,000 feet, it disappeared from sight. The obvious satisfaction and pride on the part of top Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel at acquiring this aircraft, with its state of the art technology-and their pride in the youthful Australian `top guns', if I might use that phrase, who put the aircraft through their paces-was very plain to see. It was clear to me as I attended the Air Show during the weekend. But-and this is the point I am coming to-defence capability comprises equipment and operational abilities. No matter is more vital to the Australian Defence Force at present than to stop the debilitating personnel wastage that is undermining its operational effectiveness. The present Government has not adequately come to grips with this problem. There has been a record loss of personnel from the Defence Force and a resulting decline in the ADF's capability. Defence Force personnel are concerned about all aspects-pay, conditions of service, reduced manning levels, long hours of work, the need for a more purposeful and wider role for personnel, and disruptions to family life. I am aware that the Minister is conscious of these difficulties. But of these matters that I have mentioned pay, as is the case for many of us, is the bottom line. In discussions that I have had with high ranking service officers and top businessmen, it has become very clear to me that the gap between service pay for high ranking officers with high level responsibilities and that for their civilian counterparts who have the same sorts of responsibilities, including the number of personnel under their control, responsibility for financial control and so on, is very large. In fact, the ratio of civilian pay to service pay could well be at least 3:1. That would exclude the periodic bonuses of six figures, or maybe even more, which can come the way of top civilian company personnel. I repeat this point: pay is the bottom line, although increased manning levels, better housing and other amenities and increased and broadened opportunities for training and operational experience are also important. I would suggest to the Government that nothing short of a grasping of the nettle, Mrs Thatcher style, and a very substantial lift in higher middle to top ranking service salaries and allowances is necessary, and possibly tax free allowances would be about the most cost-effective way of doing it. Otherwise, one gets an inevitable plateauing effect which discourages middle ranking officers from persevering with a service career. Especially is all that true in areas where the cost of training runs into very large sums, hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more. In those situations in particular it is not a case that the Government, in this defence vote, cannot afford the money-but, rather, that when due account is taken of the cost of training, the truth is that on a rational view the Government cannot afford not to lift salaries and thereby to arrest the loss of personnel that is threatening to undermine the operational effectiveness of the Australian defence forces. Mrs KELLY(Canberra-Minister for Defence Science and Personnel)(6.21) —I thank honourable members for their contribution to this debate-in particular, the honourable members for Isaacs (Mr Charles) and Herbert (Mr Lindsay), and the honourable members for Macquarie (Mr Webster) and Berowra (Dr Edwards). I was a little disappointed with the contribution of the shadow defence Minister, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). It is appalling, and an indictment of his position on defence, that on one of the few occasions on which we have the opportunity for a debate on important issues of defence he comes into this chamber and does not discuss issues related to defence personnel or even to major issues of procurement policy. Instead of that, he brought up the issue of the ships' visit, which was covered in responses by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) during Question Time. That highlights his attitude to the important issue of defence personnel. However, I concede that that was not followed up by the other Opposition members, and I thank them for some of their comments, even though I do not agree with all of the points they raised; and I shall refer to those in a moment. First, the Minister for Defence should be congratulated on the level of defence expenditure. In very difficult economic times, defence expenditure is $7.658 billion. That is an almost incredible amount of expenditure when one considers the tough economic times. We have 0.5 per cent growth in real terms. When looking at how that money is spent, I am pleased to see that a considerable proportion is spent on defence personnel. There was an increase from 40.8 per cent to 43 per cent from 1986-87 to 1987-88, and for 1988-89 it remains at 43 per cent-a very large increase. Another area covered in the debate was the amount of money paid to defence service personnel. Expenditure on pay and allowances is estimated to increase by $64.1m, or 3 per cent, to over $2 billion, and this compares with an overall defence budget increase of 0.5 per cent, as I have stated. So I believe the balance is right. The Government has a very great difference from the Opposition in that we have an overall policy. We are directing our defence policy to the area that clearly needs expenditure, and that is obviously capital procurement, because of the terrific rundown in the coalition party years, but more importantly, we are putting important emphasis on the personnel side. That is not just about pay and allowances; it is also about lifestyle and about conditions under which people live, like their housing, and even things important to morale, such as equipment. The Opposition does not have a policy on defence. The honourable member for Berowra talks about pay levels. I agree that there are problems about pay compression, particularly amongst our middle ranking officers. That is something that I am now looking at. However, on the other hand, our salary ranges cannot be compared with those in the private sector. It is just not possible. Consider the pilots, for example. How can we pay our pilots what pilots are being paid by Qantas? That is not on. I would be surprised if that was Opposition policy-but we do not know what Opposition policy is. The Opposition comes into this House and says that it wants cutbacks. Members of the Opposition criticise the Government for spending so much on major new works, but they do not give the Government any idea where they would make cuts. Instead, they say that they will not be specific about which programs they would cut. Are they planning to continue with the F18 program, to continue with the Black Hawks, and to continue with the submarine project? Or would the Opposition pull out? Members of the Opposition do not say what they would spend their money on. Occasionally they drop a good line by saying that they are investigating nuclear powered submarines and that that is a possibility. Then the subject of an aircraft carrier is raised again and floats through the chamber every few months. Members of the Opposition never think about where the money is to come from. The Government is urged to put more money into personnel, but what would the Opposition cut in order to do this? Morale in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) is a balance between providing increases in salary and providing the equipment that is needed. At present the Navy's morale is very high. Among the reasons for that are the new submarines and the new frigate program. There is no point in having a navy without decent equipment. The same goes for the Royal Australian Air Force and the Army. That is the essential balance, and this Government has got the balance right. We do not know what the Opposition's balance is. The Opposition has never told us. All the Opposition says is that it wants more of this and more of that-and the sums never add up. The Opposition's solution to the problem was to get another shadow Minister. I welcome Senator Newman to shadow me. But now I am pleased to know that I have two shadow spokesmen, because the shadow Minister for defence has hardly made a comment about defence in my 14 months in this job. Instead, he talks specifically about my side of the portfolio, the personnel; I have welcomed his comments. But now I have two shadowing me, and the Defence Minister seems to be left alone-probably because they know that they cannot get near him. The two shadow Ministers will be as ineffectual as each other because neither has enough status to be in the shadow Cabinet. I recognise that I have the humble role of being a junior Minister, but I work with the Minister for Defence, who is a very active member of the Cabinet and who usually wins his battle in the Cabinet. Here we have two of them-and two of them do not equal two of us on this side by any stretch of the imagination. What is the Opposition policy? The Opposition does not have one. First we hear from the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), who is followed by the honourable member for Berowra, and it is stated that the Opposition does not want anything sold. It wants to spend more money on defence. Everyone in the Opposition agrees that more money should be spent on defence-although I am not sure that the shadow Treasurer agrees with that. But, the Opposition states, nothing should be sold off. The honourable member for Warringah talked about his wonderful land in Sydney. It is beautiful land. No decision has been taken on the report of the Cooksey review of Australia's defence facilities. Mr Cooksey looked at what our assets are. The Opposition policy was so hopeless when the parties opposite were in government that they did not even know what we had. The assets register is very useful just to see what defence facilities we have around this country. We shall have a look and ascertain how it fits in with our overall defence policy. That is all set out in the defence White Paper. Everything is in a context. As far as land is concerned, I have my eyes on some of that land also, for defence housing. I want to see that land that is not used and is surplus to our requirements used for defence housing. That is a very important progress. I take issue with the honourable member for Macquarie. I appreciated a lot of the points he made but some of the things he just got wrong, particularly his comments on operational readiness. This is probably the most important point that needs to be taken up today. The honourable member made a point about wastage rates. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed) Mrs KELLY —In the middle of celebration of the eighth anniversary of those who entered Parliament in 1980, which was disrupted by the quorum, I would like to thank the honourable member for Berowra and the honourable member for Macquarie for returning to the chamber to follow through the lecture I was giving them about defence policy. Though I do appreciate the interest and great understanding they showed in this debate-unlike the shadow Minister, who did not consider any of the issues relating to Defence Force personnel-they were misled on a couple of points. The particular point I was discussing with the honourable member for Macquarie before the Committee broke for dinner was the operational readiness of the Defence Force. He had a lot of misconceptions. I know he is a man with an open mind and will listen to the points of view that have been put not so much by me, because I am not the expert in these areas, but by the Chief of the Defence Force. I will quote a comment made by the Chief of the Defence Force when he and I and the Deputy Secretary A of the Department appeared before a parliamentary committee. On this issue of personnel wastage and its effect on the Defence Force, the Chief of the Defence Force stated: On operational capability in the sense that there are ships, Army units or Air Force squadrons which have become operationally ineffective, it has not happened. That has been reinforced by comments made prior to and after that time by the Chief of the General Staff, the Chief of Naval Staff and the Chief of Air Staff. I am not asking honourable members to accept my word on this issue. I am asking them to accept the word of the commanders in chief, who know the impact. When we look at the issue of wastage, there is no doubt that we have some problems, and I have raised that myself in the House. We are tackling the problems. The Dep Sec A, who has just visited the United Kingdom, was telling me that many other countries, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom-- Mr Griffiths —Dep Sec A-what does that mean? Mrs KELLY —In the Defence Force we have a lot of jargon, I am afraid. We abbreviate everything. The leaders of my Department have had a look at what is going on in the rest of the world with the wastage problem. Unfortunately, it is not unique to our Defence Force. The problem of pilot shortage is happening to every defence force in the world, including the Soviet's. We have come up with a whole package of policies to deal with the issue. Not one of them by itself is going to solve the problem but we are tackling it. The latest separation figures I have indicate that we may be turning the corner. Today I had a discussion with the Chief of Air Staff on the pilot issue. He thinks we have turned the corner with the availability of instructors, and I think that is a very good sign. There is no doubt that there are still problems but we are dealing with them. The way out is not the way honourable members opposite suggest-that is, to pay pilots what they can get in the commercial sector. That is not possible and we have to look to many other areas, including conditions of service. Honourable members will be pleased to note the rather large increase our pilots recently received in the flying allowance determination that was brought down recently. I do not want to say much more about that, except to clarify another issue that was raised, that is, the amount of expenditure on defence. As honourable members know, I referred earlier to the fact that expenditure was almost $8 billion. I talked about the percentage of Commonwealth Government expenditure going to defence being almost 10 per cent. One of the other points raised related to the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP). The honourable member for McPherson has made much of the fact that defence expenditure presently represents some 2.4 per cent of GDP. Mr White —They are your figures. Mrs KELLY —They are our figures but as the Defence Force is very much aware-unlike the honourable member for McPherson-2.4 per cent of a Hawke-Keating level of GDP buys a lot more defence than a higher proportion of an inevitably smaller and rubbery Howard GDP. That is a very important factor that the defence forces of Australia understand. One of the points I want to conclude on is the issue of morale in the Defence Force. I again congratulate those members of the Opposition, including the honourable member for Berowra and the honourable member for Macquarie, who paid tribute to the Defence Force. I know that that was endorsed by the honourable member for Herbert and the honourable member Isaacs in their own ways in their own electorates. Mr Griffiths —What about Maribyrnong? Mrs KELLY —The honourable member for Maribyrnong has a very important defence science and technology organisation in his electorate and I know he is thrilled to have it there. The issue I want to talk about relates to morale in the Defence Force. Two members of the Opposition and members of the Government have paid tribute to the Defence Force for its contribution to the air show and to the naval salute. These are obvious ways in which the defence forces put on a fantastic exhibition of their skills and abilities for the people of Australia and the world. It is important that this chamber recognise the contribution they make, not just in those big things but in so many of the little things that they do throughout this country-the way they support the civilian infrastructure and the way they demonstrate, for example, by their tours of duty in the Pacific, the importance of our relations in the Pacific region. They make a magnificent contribution to the defence of this country. It is about time that greater recognition was given to that by the Opposition and that we had more positive policies. As I have said, morale is very important. I refer to an article which appeared in a defence supplement to the Australian newspaper recently. I wish to read from parts of an article by the Chief of the Defence Force because it has an important message for this chamber. His article, which was entitled `Unchecked criticism potentially damaging', stated: Australia has a coherent defence policy, an efficient and effective Defence Force and skilled Service professionals in whom Australians can feel pride and confidence. Yet it has become fashionable in some small but vocal segments of the community to talk about the rundown of the ADF and our defences in general. Both propositions are demonstrably untrue. Unchecked, they are potentially damaging and run the risk of causing Australians to lose confidence in the ADF. Such propositions are also depressing for the ADF itself which knows that reality is otherwise. Before honourable members criticise the Defence Force-as the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) does consistently-I urge them to think about how important the morale issue is. I conclude by quoting, again, not myself but a person who came to this country to write an article in a very respected American magazine called Defence and Foreign Affairs. Greg Copely, the magazine's editor, did a number of interviews and analyses on defence policy in this country. I quote from a collection of articles appearing in that edition because I think that will set our defence policy in context: Basically, what has happened is that the missions have been defined, at last, after years of indecision, and the forces are being structured to meet the challenges they face. This has engendered a strong and growing sense of purpose, and armed forces morale is on the rise again. Deployment and equipment has changed. And, most importantly, the Australian Defence Forces are being geared for the first time to fight as a cohesive unit . . . I did not say that and the Minister for Defence did not say it; those were the comments of independent observer Greg Copely on the Australian Defence Force. Before concluding I wish to pay tribute to a few people. One does not get a chance to do that very often. Obviously, I pay tribute to my colleague the Minister for Defence, who has set the parameters for defence well into the next century. More importantly-I am sure that he will not mind my saying that-I pay tribute to the men and women of the Defence Force, who give us enormous support. I also pay tribute to those who are not recognised very often; that is, the civilians who work for us in the Defence Department, who also give us a great deal of support. I thank all those who have taken part in this debate, particularly those who have made constructive comments, and I look forward to their continuing interest in defence. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(8.14) —I will not take up the Committee's time at any great length because I could not possibly provide a summing-up as effective as the one just given by the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly). Since she has handed out bouquets, I will hand her one. The turnaround in the figures and the attitudes that are beginning to prevail, among the families of defence service personnel, particularly in housing where the changes have been very dramatic indeed, are an indication that she has done the defence forces a great deal of good in the year that she has been a Minister. I thank honourable members who participated in this debate. Unfortunately, I had to follow a fair bit of it from my office, but I was interested in what people had to say. I was a little surprised that in this debate so little of the detail of the defence budget received any form of systematic attention. I found it quite odd that the Opposition spokesman on defence-the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White)-did not take the opportunity of bringing forward a matter of public importance on the subject, which was an option available to him. Obviously he saved what must have been some sort of matter of public importance speech for discussion of the defence budget. The defence budget is a serious matter. It is an issue that is worthy of the attention of this chamber. Even in 10 minutes there is a capacity to say something quite useful about it if one sets one's mind to it. No attempt was made by the Opposition spokesman to set his mind to it. I noticed that the Opposition spokesman was heckling the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel along the lines that it was criticism of us that had marked the statements that he has made in public, not of the defence Services themselves. I would agree that in general the statements he produces are critical of us. That is a fairly legitimate role. But it is a fact, as he will no doubt be aware of now, that on a number of occasions he has crossed the line in a number of ways-and, I might say, quite inaccurately-and that has seriously worried some sections of the defence forces. For example, he commented recently that, effectively, the Royal Australian Air Force was totally ineffective when it was in the process, through the F111 reconnaissance team, of creaming international competition on reconnaissance all over the United States-winning the competition. Mr White —You must be joking. Mr BEAZLEY —It is not a joke: it is a fact. The honourable member treats it as a joke, but it happens to be a fact, nevertheless. The honourable member has become something of a pathetic figure as he drifts around from base to base spouting one promise after another, unattached to any policy and unattached to any notion of funding. The question of funds came up in the course of the discussion and that was a legitimate point to raise in the defence debate. I think that one of the honourable members opposite raised that point for discussion. It is a matter of some pride in this defence budget that in a budget in which there has been yet again, for about the third year running, a real reduction in total outlays, there is in fact a 0.5 per cent real increase in the defence vote. Mr White —What about the White Paper? Mr BEAZLEY —I will get on to that in a minute. In government there are always many competing functions for outlays. The Australian Labor Party is criticised frequently, and has been over the years, for tending to give less of a priority to defence than it does to social security. It must be said that any fair analysis of this Government's expenditure patterns, given the sorts of problems we have confronted, would reveal that it is other areas that have borne the brunt of those cuts-not defence. It is a rather easy position to defend, in our framework, because we have a coherent policy associated with it and that has not been in place before. We as a government have made a commitment to it. The honourable member for McPherson asked about the White Paper. If he had read the White Paper he would have noticed that it is not predicated on 3 per cent real growth-- Mr White —Yes, it was. Mr BEAZLEY —No, it is not. The honourable member should read it. It was never predicated on 3 per cent real growth. It was predicated on an assumption that there would be some real growth over the life of the program but that we could not count on a substantial amount. In our historical experience that was the case. Therefore, the defence vote would need to be paid for essentially by the vigorous nature of planning and by rigorous activity in terms of cost efficiencies: the combination of the two would provide the wherewithal. That is happening. Any delays that are occurring in major equipment projects-in fact, there are not many, as indicated by the honourable member and, as I said, we have been much more substantially on time in the way in which our procurement programs have proceeded than any other government before us, including Labor governments-in very large measure have been a result of the changed basis on which we do defence procurement in this country now. The fact is that very substantially we are becoming the leading input into the development of the heavy engineering and electronics industry in this country. The massive shift that is taking place away from overseas procurement into the industries that support our defence program inside this country is imposing very substantial strains on industry capacity to absorb it and its ability to go through the learning curve fast in order to be able to bring programs in on time. Even with all that, those companies in the main are keeping up with the procurement. Mr White —You haven't put them to the test. Mr BEAZLEY —They have been put to a pretty good test now, old son. We are now saving, effectively as a result of the reforms we have instituted in the factories, roughly the equivalent of 2 to 3 per cent real growth in the defence vote. I pay a very substantial tribute here to the trade union movement which has done this, in the main, quietly in consultation with us. When I took over this portfolio some 15,000 people were employed in the defence factories. The factories are now more productive, not only in real terms but also in aggregate terms, and are operating with about eight and a half thousand people. Of itself, this is by no means a measure of which one is proud, except that it constitutes an indication of efficiencies. That has occurred over a period of some four years. Enormous efficiencies have been achieved in those factories. There have been enormous reforms in industrial practices. They have all been done very quietly and all have produced a result which is enabling us, in very tight fiscal circumstances, to keep the equipment vote on track. I think that a great deal of tribute needs to be paid to the trade union movement for doing that. The armed services and the general organisation of the Department of Defence is the next area of challenge. We have identified over $100m worth of savings that we believe can effectively be made in the logistics area. There will be some considerable pain in getting to that position. However, if we are to keep this defence budget on track those sorts of efficiencies are absolutely necessary. It is no good the Opposition coming into this place and telling us that we ought to spend more. It does not really matter what the Opposition says if, when it comes through with its policy-which I suppose it will do as soon as the honourable member for McPherson stops asking for more money that will not be delivered-it is predicated on substantial real increases, as was the Opposition's 1976 White Paper and Fraser's 1980 statement. If it is, we will know that we are being presented with a picture of failure. It simply will not be achieved. This is not a country that will be able to sustain massive growth in outlays over the next few years. That is all there is to it. It does not matter what anybody says. It does not matter if the Opposition comes in here and promises an aircraft carrier for helicopters. It does not matter if it comes in here and promises in-flight refuelling for the F111s. It does not matter if it comes in here and promises a plethora of other activities in relation to service conditions or benefits; it will not be done. If we lose office it simply will not be done. That is now understood in the defence forces. That is understood whether one addresses personnel at the Joint Services Staff College or talks to the people in the field; they do not expect any substantial or massive increases in the defence outlay. What they are into these days is reorganising themselves effectively. They are to be congratulated on that. Those are the issues. Some of them were indeed raised in the Budget debate and were appropriate for canvassing in that debate. This is not an appropriate debate for the general discussion of foreign policy issues associated with defence. To those honourable members who participated in the debate in the appropriate way, I express grateful thanks. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Beazley)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Beazley) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Beazley) read a third time. Debate resumed from 13 October, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Peacock had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House notes that: (a) this government's prospective 1988-89 budget surplus is mostly based on increased taxation, and over 70 per cent of the expenditure cuts in budget outlays comes from reduced payments to state governments; (b) this government has been found wanting in the need to bear its share of expenditure restraint by cutting its own direct expenditure; and (c) the arrangements outlined in the Bill reflect policies that discourage the incentive to invest and work productively and therefore facilitate the restructuring of the Australian economy to address the nation's net foreign debt of some $88 billion.'. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(8.29) —I do not know where the honourable member for Blaxland, the Treasurer (Mr Keating), is tonight. I have heard that he actually visited Bankstown today for the first time in about five years. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member might address the matter before the Chair, which is the States Grants (General Revenue) Bill 1988. Mr Peacock —Did he see any people? Mr IAN CAMERON —I doubt it. Apparently, the Treasurer has been in Sydney all day and I am just hoping that-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member might get to the matter before the House. Mr IAN CAMERON —I was hoping that the Treasurer would be here to hear my contribution to the debate on the States Grants (General Revenue) Bill, because he has been very much involved in the heavy-handed way it has affected particular States. He has imposed a payroll tax on Commonwealth instrumentalities that have not been paying it in the States. He has made the States agents for the Commonwealth. The States are to keep only 10 per cent of the revenue collected; the rest is to be passed back to the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, the States get very little out of it. That is just one aspect of this Bill. The other aspect is the Bill's main facet for the States-the global borrowing limits that have been imposed by the Treasurer. That is why I would like to see him in the House. If the people of Australia read this legislation, they will see that, for the first time, the draftsmen and the Treasury have set themselves up as a law unto themselves and have placed themselves in a position where they will be able to make a decision as to how much the States, and individual States, can borrow without referring these borrowings back to the Parliament. The Bill states in no uncertain terms that the Treasurer has the final say as to the overall amount that the States can borrow. We in the great electorate of Maranoa, in Queensland, are very concerned about the reduction of $367m-minus 31 per cent-which is by far the highest reduction of any of the States. When the Loan Council conference was on, New South Wales was Labor held. Of course, the Liberal Party and the National Party had a fantastic electoral victory in New South Wales. But that State has since suffered only a 5 per cent reduction. Western Australia actually had an increase of one per cent. The grant to the Northern Territory went up substantially, although its borrowings are quite low. As I said, Queensland has had a reduction of $367.7m-to a limit of $792.8m. The previous year it was able to borrow $1.16 billion. Queensland is a young, vigorous and developing State with all sorts of new projects under way, particularly in tourism and all the infrastructure that is needed for the new businesses being established. It has to borrow the funds to put railways, roads, et cetera, in place. But the Treasurer has come up with this Bill, which was rejected by the Premier at the Premiers Conference, not because Queensland did not want limits on borrowings, but because of the arbitrary reduction to which this centralist Labor Government has forced the States to agree. This legislation is being put through this House tonight to put that into effect. There has been a threat to the States that for every dollar they borrow next year over the global limit set by the honourable member for Blaxland, the Treasurer, the Government will reduce their grants by a dollar. That is the sort of government we have in this nation, and I think it is an absolute disgrace. I wish the Treasurer were here to answer my accusations. Mr Peter Fisher —He's launching his book. Mr IAN CAMERON —We know he has been away, but I hope he comes back. He has been to his electorate for the first time in about five years, as well as being away on all his trips around the world. This legislation reduces the payments to the States, and if their borrowing limits are exceeded next year they will be penalised for every dollar they borrow. The legislation says that the States have no legal recourse on the basis of evidence or fact. In other words, the Treasurer can decide that a State has borrowed too much money and he is then in a position to say, `I shall impose a penalty upon it'. I should have thought that such a system would be against the Constitution, because that deems that the States must be governed independently and be able to do what they like as far as borrowings and all other transactions are concerned, without the Commonwealth imposing these sorts of sanctions on them. The other ramification of this legislation is that since 1935 there has always been a gentlemen's agreement that guidelines be set down at the yearly conference and that the States would not go outside certain borrowing parameters. Unfortunately this agreement has been broken and this Bill sets in place the sort of legislation that I do not believe this nation needs. The legislation gives absolute discretion to the Commonwealth Treasurer. Clause 7 (1) (b) requires only that the Treasurer form an `opinion' that borrowing limits have been exceeded. Once he forms that opinion he can tell the States that they are going to get a substantial reduction in their grants. Of course, the States rely very heavily on the grants. Over $12 billion is involved in this Bill and each of the States receives its grant on a per capita basis. This has also been altered by the Treasury. We see now that no leeway is given to the developing States of Queensland, Western Australia and Northern Territory, whereas previously, because they were developing States, they were allowed some extra borrowings and extra grants. We are now back to the old formula that was in place before World War II, where the golden triangle gets all the money and the rest of Australia gets the leftovers. The same thing has happened to local government. The same criteria are being used. The Government tied local government finance to the States grants arrangement. As these grants have been reduced we have seen a substantial reduction to grants to local governments, which are struggling to maintain the road structures and other infrastructures that are their responsibility. We have not seen any real increase in road funding since 1982. That has remained at about $1.2 billion for nearly six years. Other taxation Bills will come through this House tonight which will show that the trend continues away from the productive areas of this nation into the non-productive areas. Mr Peacock —Will you speak on those Bills too? Mr IAN CAMERON —My word I will. Mr Peacock —I want to hear your views on them. Mr IAN CAMERON —My word the honourable member will hear them. Mr Acting Speaker, you will know that this Labor Government continues to increase taxation and to give those funds to the non-productive sector. Any sector showing a little productivity has its tax incentives-which were put in place by previous governments to help them expand their economies-reduced. We all wait with bated breath for tomorrow's balance of payment figures. No doubt we will, yet again unfortunately, see a substantial deficit figure relating to exports and imports, with exports being way down on what the Liberal and National Party Government was able to put in place and keep in place for 30 or 40 years of prosperity in this country. Under Labor, under the sort of exercise we are seeing with these Bills, the States are being starved of funds and even borrowings. They are not getting the grants they need so they need to borrow funds. They are being told by the Treasurer that they cannot have the money. He says, `If you borrow more than I tell you you can, you will have your grants reduced'. In effect the Treasurer is setting himself up as prosecutor, judge, jury and hangman, because this legislation gives him the power to act solely on the basis of his opinion. It is clear that we will no longer have general revenue grants, but conditional grants based on compliance with the Commonwealth's wishes. This is the centralisation trend we have seen since the Labor Government has been in office. At the back of the Bill are the determinations made under the Act. It mentions the Treasurer, and of course it includes some education grants. It mentions the Health Minister in relation to separate hospital funding, and it mentions the Australian Statistician-how on earth did he get into the act-and the sort of power he would have to determine just what the States should get, and it states: . . . shall, for the purposes of this Act, be conclusively presumed to be correct. In other words the States have absolutely no recourse to any court in the land. They cannot appeal to the High Court if they feel they are being unjustly dealt with by the Treasurer. That is the position we are in. I think that the Bill and all that is contained in it is an absolute disgrace. I hope that we do not see any other similar Acts come through this House. Although I support the amendment put before the House, I am not very keen on supporting the legislation. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Industrial Relations)(9.40) —The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), likeable and popular though he is in this place, I think completely misunderstood the main features of the States Grants (General Revenue) Bill. I know that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will be sadly disappointed that he was not here this evening to hear the honourable member speak. I will convey to Madam Speaker the fact that the honourable member for Maranoa lamented the absence of the Treasurer. I will convey to him the deep affection that obviously the honourable member for Maranoa has for the Treasurer. I have no doubt that the Treasurer will reciprocate that warm affection. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I am not quite sure whether irony is unparliamentary. Mr PETER MORRIS —He does not say anything to the Government that he means, Mr Acting Speaker. You and I know the honourable member very well. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I was talking about the Minister. Mr PETER MORRIS —The revenue that the States will gain from the abolition of payroll tax exemption in respect of Australia Post and Telecom Australia and some other Federal Government enterprises, will result in a net addition to the States including Queensland. Apart from being a reduction it is in fact an increase in revenue available to the States to use for their own purposes. The honourable member referred to the reduction in payments. I remind him that his Leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), constantly criticises this Government for not further reducing expenditure. It is a bit difficult when on the one hand the honourable member wants more money made available and, on the other hand, his Leader is calling for less money to be provided and spent by this Government. The honourable member mentioned roads. This is the same old contradiction we get from members of the National Party and honourable member opposite. In the morning and at Question Time they want less money spent by this Government but once it becomes dark, once the sun sets, out come the claims for more money to be given, more money to be spent. It is the same old line we hear over and over again. It just highlights the contradictions inherent within the Opposition's claims. Honourable members opposite cannot have it both ways. The last matter I mention is in reference to the general revenue assistance being provided to each of the States. The position is not as stated by the honourable member. The distribution of the financial assistance grants set out and referred to on page 2 of the Treasurer's second reading speech is to be determined in line with per capita relativities recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in its 1988 report on general revenue grant relativities. The information that the honourable member sought is within the Treasurer's second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum. The Bill is a normal machinery Bill that comes before this Parliament each year. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Peacock's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Charlesworth, R. I. Lavarch, M. H.Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Cohen, B. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Sawford, R. W.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Sciacca, C.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, JohnGrace, E. L. Scott, LesGriffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R.Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. McGauran, P. J.Aldred, K. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Beale, J. H. Miles, C. G.Blunt, C. W. Moore, J. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Nehl, G. B.Brown, N. A. Peacock, A. S.Cadman, A. G. Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Sharp, J. R.Fisher, Peter Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Smith, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Taylor, W. L.Hewson, J. R. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D.Jull, D. F. Wilson, I. B. C.Lloyd, B. Woods, R. L. Darling, E. E. Cameron, DonaldKlugman, R. E. McArthur, F. S.Bowen, Lionel Katter, R. C.Bilney, G. N. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Blewett, N. Burr, M. A.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question so 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 Peter Morris) read a third time. Debate resumed from 31 August, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I understand it is the wish of the House to debate the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1988 concurrently with the Income Tax Amendment Bill 1988 and the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill 1988. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course of action. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(8.55) —The Bills we are debating tonight are the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4), the Income Tax Amendment Bill and the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill. The coalition parties will not be opposing these Bills. However, I will be moving a second reading amendment highlighting a number of changes that typify this Government's high taxation policies. My colleague the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) will also be moving a second reading amendment highlighting the completely unsatisfactory nature of the Government's health care policies. In addition, I will be moving committee stage amendments to clause 13 and two other related clauses of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) in an attempt to stop what we consider a gross case of retrospective abuse. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) is an omnibus Bill which seeks to implement a multitude of changes previously announced in this year's May statement and elsewhere. I will be mentioning tonight a number of points about some of these changes. However, first I wish to deal with the introduction of a tax on non-cash business benefits. This Bill seeks to implement, subject to what the Government calls `minor variations', the proposal which was announced on 4 February 1985 to tax non-cash business benefits. I have heard of government by press release, but to get the legislation 3 1/2 years after the press release is issued is ludicrous, to put it mildly. I will deal with that in greater detail. Mr Cohen —We didn't want to rush it through. Mr PEACOCK —The honourable member for Robertson is one of the better merchants in the Parliament. If he were giving a reward to members of his staff for the number of suits they sold on his behalf-namely, an air ticket around the world-and he read the press release 3 1/2 years ago and sought to change the prize or the award to his top salesmen, he could well find that as a consequence of waiting 3 1/2 years for the precise legislation allegedly to reflect the generality of the press release he could be a tax avoider today. So he ought not to be quite as agitated, in the friendly and respectful manner that he normally is, as he was tonight. Mr Cohen —I don't know whether I'm being insulted or not. Mr PEACOCK —The honourable member has been insulted by experts. I am only playing with him tonight. As the explanatory memorandum of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to this Bill explains, the proposal was announced to overcome practices that became prevalent following the decision in the full Federal Court in the Commissioner of Taxation v. Cooke and Sherden concerning non-transferable overseas trips given to some soft drink vendors under a sales incentive scheme sponsored by the manufacturer. The Court held that the existing law taxes non-cash business benefits only if the benefits are convertible to cash and are in the nature of income according to ordinary concepts. The overseas trip, being non-transferable, was not convertible to cash and the Court accordingly held that it was not subject to tax under any provision of the law. It was a fairly frequent occurrence, and still is, for such persons, such vendors, to be rewarded with a non-convertible benefit. That, however, will be taxed from now on because this Bill will tax non-convertible benefits provided after 4 February 1985 in basically the same way as benefits which are convertible into cash are taxable under the existing law if they are in the nature of income. The fact is that a 3 1/2-year delay in legislating announcements is, with great respect to those who represent the Treasurer here tonight, an outrage. It is just not right that a short press release advising of a change in the law ought to be operable as the law. One does not need to be a practitioner to understand that if we say to people, `We are changing the law' and wait 3 1/2 years to bring in the legislation, we will unquestionably catch in the net people whose accountants and tax advisers will say, `We had better try to plan for this'. But they may get it wrong, because the generality of a press release is nothing to a piece of legislation. I think it is an outrage and it ought not simply to be highlighted in a speech by someone leading on behalf of the Opposition; it ought be be expunged from this piece of legislation. That is why I will be moving an amendment in the committee stage. It is bringing government by press release to ridiculous heights. We therefore believe it would be extremely inequitable for the legislation to apply retrospectively. The legislation should apply only to benefits provided on or after the day of introduction of this Bill. That day, of course, was 31 August 1988. There are a number of other points to raise in support of this position. The first is that the 4 February 1985 press release simply did not provide sufficient detail on the application of the future legislation. The press release clearly did not give taxpayers much indication of how affected benefits would be valued. The announcement merely stated, `As a general rule the value to be taxed will be the amount which the benefit would have cost the taxpayer in an arm's length transaction'. Taxpayers could reasonably have expected that detailed valuation rules would apply to the benefits from the date on which they were announced, not from some date 3 1/2 years ago. As members of this House are aware, and as those residing in my State are aware, there is a commercial running for a very progressive bank in the State of Victoria called the State Savings Bank. It runs an advertisement talking about the advantages of banking with it. This ad runs on television in Victoria with a rather attractive young lady talking to her husband about the desire to withdraw funds from a particular account. When her husband seeks to explain that there are some difficulties with this, she simply looks at him and says, `But it is your money, Ralph. It is your money'. I feel within my bones that there is a welling up within the Australian community which is about to give voice to all those who sit on the Government side of the House, and, dare I say, with the greatest respect to those who work with the Commissioner of Taxation, that when the Commissioner and when the Government demands this and demands that the Australian people will be justified in reminding that Government that `it is their money, Ralph; it is their money'. They earned it. Hawke did not earn it; Keating did not earn it; the Tax Commissioner did not earn it; they earned it. They elect governments basically within the confines of this country for two basic reasons. I leave aside security and foreign policy. They elect governments firstly to seek to improve their living standards and give them just a little more in the kick-as we grow and develop in this nation. Secondly, they elect them to run the economy efficiently. They do not elect governments to try at every turn to find more ways of taking their money from them, because it is their money, not the Minister's, not the Prime Minister's and not the Treasurer's. Of course, they ask of the government that much be funded for their and the nation's benefit, but they are reaching the point whereby they will say, `We want you to do this, but remember, you are doing it with our money'. When the Government introduces legislation that is the legal inscription of a short press release and is to operate from the date of the press release and not the date of the legislation, it is saying it can put out in the press boxes of this building a generalised statement and then take 3 1/2 years to draft the legislation and impose a penalty retrospective for that full 3 1/2 years because it simply did not get off its `dots' early enough to advise people where they ought to be investing, what they ought to be doing with their money, or how they should be the recipients of particular awards. That is not right. The Government knows it is not fair. It breaches that element of tax principle of equity in taxation. Mr Griffiths —I think that expression is unparliamentary. Mr PEACOCK —The honourable member for Maribyrnong has been a hard-working member of the community. I do not agree with much that he does in this House but he has either recently become or is soon to become learned in the law-is that not so? Mr Griffiths —He has been learned in the law for many years. Mr PEACOCK —I am sorry, he had not given any wordy evidence of it in this place. I thought it was only coming upon him now and I apologise to him for that. Mr Howard —He wants a job in Cabinet, but he does not have the numbers. Mr PEACOCK —He has not got the numbers, but I am talking about more intellectual pursuits than the grubby dealing in pursuit of numbers that he engages in. But he knows, as one who speaks on these matters from time to time, that equity is basic to the application of taxation. It is a basic principle. I do not want to dwell on it too long tonight, as I will be moving an amendment tomorrow in committee. It is just not right. The honourable member, instead of beavering around to get on every second-rate radio program for publicity, would do much better for himself and the members of his constituency if he would plead with his colleagues tomorrow to support my amendment and not enshrine retrospectivity as it flows through this element of the legislation. He will go off content tonight. He supports the greatest football club that ever pulled off a jersey in the State of Victoria. Mr Pratt —Hawthorn. Mr PEACOCK —He supports the Essendon Football Club. It therefore means he comes to a debate like this with clean hands. It means that he can think objectively about matters. I ask him tonight to go to his colleagues and say that the Opposition on this point is right; that we should apply the law from the date on which the legislation was introduced and not the date that the Grim Reaper, in the guise of the current Treasurer, issued a press release. I said before that, because of the lack of valuation rules in the announcement of that press release and the expectation that detailed valuation rules would be announced, taxpayers could not know how to make provision for an unknown tax liability that would eventually arise. If their calculations were based on the valuations used for the purpose of analogous tax legislation such as section 26 (e) of the Income Tax Assessment Act, or the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act provisions, they would in almost all cases have underestimated their apparent tax liability under this Bill, and they will suffer. The February 1985 press release failed to provide taxpayers with sufficient certainty to enable them to estimate their tax liabilities accurately. Under the proposed legislation, benefits must be valued, broadly speaking, at the amount the recipient would have had to pay to obtain the benefit in an arm's length transaction. Therefore, to determine the taxable value of benefits received over the previous 3 1/2 years, taxpayers will have to ascertain the amount they would have to pay to obtain those benefits at the time each benefit was granted. That is one hell of an administrative nightmare. At one end this Government has ensured that the rich become super-rich; at the other end, quite properly, it has looked after the poor. But the overwhelming majority, the great bulk of this Australian community, is enshrined between those two groups. They are the ones who are being hit. In this instance people such as shop assistants, Avon ladies, Tupperware sellers-small businesses in which incentive schemes are run, such as giving trips; you name it-are the ones who will be obliged to pay tax on all of those benefits of the last 3 1/2 years. They will have to pay it in one lump sum. It is just not fair because it could tally to many thousands of dollars for some individuals. In many instances the hardship caused is likely to be extreme. There are further cases of retrospectivity. The February 1985 press release gave the impression that the proposed legislation would apply only to benefits that are not convertible into cash. Benefits that are convertible into cash are presently valued at the amount for which the benefit could have been disposed of. However, under the proposed legislation the benefit will have to be valued at the amount which the recipient could reasonably be expected to have had to pay to obtain the benefit. In all fairness, that can be considered retrospective. Many other aspects of this legislation raise serious doubts as to its clarity. For example, the nature of the new non-cash business benefits tax is similar to the fringe benefits tax. It is quite conceivable that a benefit may be taxed first as a fringe benefit at the employer level and later be taxed as a non-cash benefit at the employee level. Do we have to wait upon the goodwill of the Commissioner of Taxation to give us a ruling before we know the tax circumstances under which businesses must operate? The fact is that this legislation appears both inadequate and retrospective. We have no problems with the principle involved in the tax; nevertheless, we simply will not abide its outrageous retrospectivity. As I said, I will move an amendment in the committee stage in line with this. The Government and its Treasurer have a shameful record on government by press release. Month after month tax legislation passes through this House which stems from press releases of six months, a year or even 18 months ago. But 3 1/2 years is just not acceptable. It is an insult to this Parliament, it is an insult to the people and it is also a usurping of the primacy of the executive branch of government over this Parliament. It ought not be tolerated by the Parliament. The Parliament can take action on that matter tomorrow. Three and a half years to produce about two pages of legislation-which is what it amounts to in the totality of this omnibus Bill-is just nonsense. The uncertainty that is its companion strikes down productive and efficient businesses, especially small businesses which run on tight margins. When the law is in place they cannot even be certain then of their position. Does the House remember that in the last sitting period a couple of weeks ago-this is indicative of this Government; it is quite extraordinary-the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) brought into this place 280 amendments to his corporations package dealing with the securities and exchange industry? He introduced legislation into the Parliament, came back a short time later and said, `I have some amendments'. There were a whole 280 of them. It was quite unbelievable. It takes a touch of exquisite genius to introduce legislation in this Parliament, come back a week or so later and say, `Hang on a flash, we made a few mistakes here. I want to amend my own Bill'. There were 280 amendments. It broke all-time records. When one takes that example together with a 3 1/2-year wait for two pages of legislation to be introduced in the Parliament, one can see a sloppiness evident. Mr Miles —Very sloppy. Mr PEACOCK —Very sloppy, and it is indicative of an arrogant government that is out of touch with the needs of average Australians. It could not care less. It introduces 280 amendments to a Bill in one case and, in another allows 3 1/2 years to pass until we can consider a couple of pages of legislation. It says, `Who cares? It's only the people we're dealing with. We'll fool them. We'll keep coming in here every day, saying that we're the greatest government in the history of this nation, saying that the mob on the other side is hopeless. They'll believe us'. I say to the Government members that the people have woken up to that rubbish. They will not believe it any longer. Every time that the Government has tested its support this year in by-elections, it has been rejected. As recently as last Saturday week it was rejected. There was the biggest swing against the Government ever recorded in the history of the seat of Oxley. The people are awake to the frauds and phoneys who try to slip this sort of stuff past them. They will not tolerate it. That is why we will produce the sort of amendments to which I have referred. Will this Government ever learn? Many industry sources have told us on this side of the House that they do not think that the Treasurer will introduce legislation on his superannuation changes. My old mate the Grim Reaper has gone to his electorate to see the people. How did he travel to see the people tonight? He travelled in his white car. He has had special dark glass put in the car, not so that the people cannot see him, but so that he cannot see the people. This man really has a great rapport with the nation! Why is he in his electorate tonight? Do honourable members know? Do they think that he is there to help a few of his constituents with their problems? He is in Canberra on weekends; he lives here. He is in his electorate to launch a book about himself. Modesty personified! He is back in his electorate for the first time since the election last year to launch a book which propagates the old Grim Reaper in print. I think he ought to think about that. The more that this nation reads about what he is doing, the more that people will wake up to the sort of stuff that he is trying to slip through the Parliament. As I said, industry sources have told us that they do not think the Treasurer will even introduce legislation on his superannuation changes. Does the House remember the superannuation changes referred to in the May statement? The Treasurer cannot work out the consequences. It will not affect his superannuation; he does not worry about that. He has his travel allowance and his trips overseas without a passport. There is no problem; he does not need to worry about that. Other people have to worry about those sorts of things, but he does not. If he has superannuation problems, they can be fixed because he is the Treasurer. But when it comes to the people, he cannot even work out the nature of the legislation that he announced in May. It looks as though it will not even be introduced until the next calendar year. What is the legal position of the superannuation funds that have been putting aside money for taxation purposes? They listened to him in his May statement, which was made in the old Parliament House, tell of the significant changes. Those funds tried to make the changes to abide by the law, but there is no legislation. They are depending again on either a press release or just a general statement. At this stage I should mention a number of other points about this Bill. Mr O'Keefe —Ha, ha! Yes, maybe something on the Bill; you might talk about that. Mr PEACOCK —The honourable member has provided me with the opportunity to advise his constituents-because I will photocopy his interjection-that he laughed about retrospectivity and about the Treasurer's casual attitude to the superannuation schemes of his constituents. He wants to berate me with some form of humour because he thinks I am not addressing the Bill. If he thinks that legislating by retrospective action is a joke, I will distribute copies of the relevant page of the Hansard to all of his constituents. If he thinks that the Treasurer is so popular that he can come in here and defend him on behalf of his constituents, they can be told that the honourable member is standing arm in arm with the Grim Reaper. Let us see how he fares in the next election. I say to the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) that he will learn all about superannuation after the next election because he will be drawing it. He will not be drawing a salary from here. I return to other elements of the Bill. It will give effect to proposals announced in the May statement to withdraw certain special concessional arrangements for the write-off of capital expenditure on the cost of plant and equipment used for the purpose of producing assessable income. The general accelerated depreciation concessions allowing write-off of most plant and equipment over three or five years will be terminated and the special five years depreciation arrangement for storage facilities for hay, grain, fodder and primary production plant will be terminated. Some other depreciation allowances will be terminated. Along with the superannuation changes, these changes were also announced in the May statement, largely offsetting the 10 percentage point reduction in the company tax rate to 39 per cent. The Confederation of Australian Industry has already noted the irony that the now abolished 5/3 depreciation provisions were of particular benefit to the manufacturing sector at a time when increasing international competition necessitates shifts to more capital intensive production methods. It is also worth noting that the depreciation changes will not necessarily benefit the many small businesses which are not incorporated and which still face high marginal tax rates. The Government often praises itself about its corporate tax reduction. The offsets that we see here certainly take the gloss off the Treasurer's rhetoric. The problem is that, at root, the Treasurer and the Government think too small. When the Treasurer claims to have reformed corporate tax in Australia and says that it now compares favourably with the average of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, he misses the point. The point is that we have to do better than match the average. I am fed up, apart from the burden that Australians have to carry under the tax programs of this Treasurer, that he comes in and says as a matter of pride that we are now on a par with the average of OECD countries. If he really wanted this country to be the take-off nation in our part of the world, a take-off nation among the industrialised countries of the world, he would not compare it with an average! It is symptomatic of the thinking of this man. We have to do better than match the average. We have to do much better. Even in our own region we have to compete with countries like Taiwan, Singapore and Korea. That is the relevant comparison, not some average blancmange within the OECD. The Treasurer works on rhetoric and illusion, and the flash answer of the day will do. The Treasurer comes into the House and buckets the Opposition. We have resisted doing that. I could come in here every day and say that the Treasurer is some piece of human pollution garbed in Italian decor. What does that add to the sum total of human knowledge? Nothing. So what is the point? The reality is that every time the Treasurer comes in here and tries to bucket the Leader of the Opposition, for example, he goes down another notch with the people. They do not want all this smart stuff. Anyone can do that. The Treasurer is not collecting all that money to come in here with some smart remark. I could come in here with a treatise of remarks on him if I wanted to, but I want to address the legislation and talk about where the nation is going and I want to provide some sort of blueprint in opposition to that Government. I do not want to come in here and say that the Treasurer has all the appeal of a wet sock. What does that amount to? Nothing. What I want from this man, and from the Government, is for him to say: `I will not compare this nation with just the average of the OECD. I will try to give incentives to people to improve their lot and that of their families. I will get our economic house in order. I will cut expenditure. I will not allow the dole to be paid without something being given in return. I will seek to get tax rates down to provide incentive, so that people will have an incentive to invest and to work. I want to improve the lot of my people and the standing of my country so that at the end of any year they will not be hassling around with pieces of paper to see whether they are abiding by some retrospective piece of law. The will be able to pay their taxes with ease, the nation will be developed, and we will be participating within our region as a competitive force'. One does not come into this place and hear the Treasurer talk about Australia. He does not address it. He is not interested in you or the people outside. He is interested in himself and his mates and the rhetoric that he can produce. That is what will bring him down. Tomorrow the Opposition will press these issues with great force. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —I seek leave, Mr Deputy Speaker, to make a short statement pertaining to the Bills before the House. Leave granted. Mr PETER MORRIS —At the time of the introduction of the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill 1988 into the House it was said that the proposed changes to the low income threshold would be reflected in the tax instalment system from 1 November 1988. Honourable members should also be aware that from 1 November 1988 certain aspects of the proposed tax file numbers legislation contained in the Taxation Laws Amendment (Tax File Numbers) Bill 1988 were also to be incorporated into the tax instalment system. Consideration of that Bill has been deferred. New pay as you earn schedules affecting both of the above were to be made available by the Australian Taxation Office to employers to operate from 1 November. However, the deferral of consideration of the tax file number legislation makes it now not appropriate to release the new tax instalment schedules at this time. The Government will keep the matter of the availability of the Medicare levy changes under review in the light of the progress of the tax file number legislation in the Parliament. To the extent an employee would have received a reduction in his or her tax instalment deductions from 1 November, because of the Medicare levy changes, that reduction will be received on assessment. I thank the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is seeking the indulgence of the Chair to formally move his amendment. The honourable member may proceed. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong) —I am grateful. As a second reading amendment, I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes that this is the highest taxing Government in the post-war history of Australia; (2) notes that this Government's so-called tax reforms invariably involve simply offsetting tax reductions in one area by tax increases in others, as witnessed in this Bill by the termination of the 5/3 depreciation arrangement to offset a reduction in the corporate tax rate; (3) notes that the Government continues its propensity for taxation by stealth by again unaccount- ably raising the provisional tax uplift factor; (4) notes that the Treasurer has failed to meet his responsibilities in respect of the administration of the taxation system and has hidden behind the rhetoric of the Commissioner for Taxation and encouraged the undermining of the rule of law in taxation matters; and (5) condemns the Government for its practice of ``government by press release'' which can cause other- wise legitimate legislation to be called into question because of the unacceptable retrospectivity thus introduced. Mr Shack —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(9.28) —I have been on the starting blocks itching to go, enjoying the presentation from the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), the shadow Treasurer. Interestingly, I did interject, and I hope that the shadow Treasurer decides to write to all my constituents, because that will help my electoral prospects. I invite him to do it. In the honourable member's 30-minute dissertation on this rather complex set of cognate Bills covering three areas, I timed his remarks. He spoke in substance on the legislation for about six of those 30 minutes. During the other 24 minutes honourable members heard about the legal qualifications of the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths); we heard about the suits of the Treasurer (Mr Keating); and we heard about the Essendon Football Club-that is fair enough, but there are others that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition might have given attention to. And so on. When he got to the substance, at the end of his contribution, he talked about the desperate need for some leadership and a blueprint, and I know that what he is saying in respect of his position is correct. The reason his contribution on the legislation was so lacking in substance and the reason he therefore had to fill in 30 minutes of the Parliament's time with all this other stuff is that there is no leadership and there is no concept of a blueprint or a policy on where these things ought to be going. For the first few minutes of my contribution I shall talk about some aspects of this legislation that were not touched on by the shadow Treasurer in his opening remarks. In that process I will come to the question of, as he described it, government by press release and the question of retrospectivity. I am happy to address that matter in the context of this legislation. Let me go first of all to the Bills-the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4), the Income Tax Amendment Bill and the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill. One of the areas that the shadow Treasurer did touch upon was his concern about the 5/3 depreciation changes. Before we introduced this legislation a number of Government members met with people in industry and elsewhere, who put to us the view that there needed to be a major change in the treatment of depreciation and a rational approach. The approach that has been adopted in the legislation, as announced in the May statement by the Treasurer, is a shift to depreciation based on the effective life of capital plant. That means that investment can be based and depreciated claimed on real expectations instead of distorted investment patterns brought about by depreciation regimes designed to get people to buy certain products to suit a seasonal spending pattern. It is a far more rational approach and one which, to my knowledge, has been widely welcomed across industry. It also gives us an opportunity to touch upon something else raised by the shadow Treasurer, showing an element of dishonesty in his approach to the Australian electorate in general. From the time these announcements were made-- Mr Connolly —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not like that remark about an element of dishonesty and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Does it offend the honourable member? Mr Connolly —It offends the honourable member and I am sure it offends the person about whom it was said. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It offends the honourable member for Bradfield and the House. Would the honourable member withdraw it. Mr O'KEEFE —I am happy to withdraw it. The statements made were mendacious. Just after the May statement was brought down and the measures about the change in the company tax rates were mentioned, members of the Opposition, with the shadow Treasurer at the forefront, were running around Australia claiming that the Government was favouring big business by not giving tax cuts to workers but giving them to companies. They were the exact words of the shadow Treasurer. He proclaimed them everywhere. Now he comes into the House tonight and repeats something that the Treasurer made as clear as a bell when these policy changes were announced-that is, that there are going to be changes made, including depreciation changes, which will offset and make revenue neutral the change in the company tax. He has come in here tonight claiming that we have been hard on business. He cannot go out into the community and say that the Government favours business at the expense of workers and then come in here and say that the Government is dudding the business sector. Let us have an element of honesty about this. The measure he has complained about is a fair and sensible change which should have been made years ago. I have no problem in both explaining and supporting it in this debate tonight. The shadow Treasurer made no mention-I wonder why?-about a number of other aspects of this legislation. One is the increase provided for in the pensioner rebate. Pensioners will not be required to pay tax on extra income they earn, something that many of us were very pleased to see incorporated in the Budget and which came about as a result of a lot of consultation with pensioner groups. It is a change to ensure that many pensioners are removed from the tax net and also from the provisional tax net. It is legislated for, on the table, provided for in this House. Of course, that was not even touched upon by the shadow Treasurer. It is a major benefit to pensioners which the shadow Treasurer chose to ignore. Why? Because he, along with other members opposite, delights in wandering around Australia talking to pensioner groups and scaring them about all the dreadful things the Government is doing. But when legislation is introduced improving the position for pensioners, there is no mention of that at all. Let me move to the question of non-cash business benefits. One of the other things evident to members studying this legislation is that part of it relates to policy changes and part of it is what I call the dog catching up with its tail as it chases it round the circle. The issue of non-cash business benefits is one of those aspects. One of the unfortunate aspects of corporate taxation in Australia is that we legislate for the specific. We are required, because of the way the tax legislation is structured, to lay down the things that will be treated as income. The minute we do that, out come the corporate lawyers and the fancy tax boys with the microscope, studying every word to try to find that little loophole. In this case they found a loophole because legislation cannot be drawn up to cover every single possibility. They went off with an appeal to the High Court of Australia and an element of Government revenue was lost because of this loophole approach. What this legislation does is to fix up that loophole and bring into the tax net another form of fringe benefit, another form of payola to the high-fliers-the old overseas trip that cannot be cashed out. It was to be expected that the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong, representing business interests, would be complaining about that tonight. Another element of the legislation which I particularly welcome is the liberalising of the remote area home ownership scheme that brings about a change in the treatment of homes in remote areas. This is something we had particular experience with on the Prime Minister's country task force. Moving around Australia and looking at aspects of the fringe benefits legislation and other forms of tax treatment, we came to see that this was an area that needed some tidying up, some liberalisation. I am glad to see that that has been incorporated in this legislation. The statement made by the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Peter Morris) just before I was called upon to speak was very relevant to another aspect of this legislation that I want to touch on. Again, it is an area the shadow Treasurer chose not to speak about, despite the fact that it is one of the key areas he has focused on for a number of years. I refer to the Medicare levy. One of the provisions of the Bill is to put in place increases in thresholds so that the Medicare levy cuts in at a higher level of income or, in other words, gives further relief from the levy for people on lower levels of income. It does one other thing: it enshrines the rate for the Medicare levy at the same level. This means that it will have been at the same rate since December 1986. In other words, this legislation means that the Government has honoured its election commitment to maintain the Medicare levy at the present level-not to increase it, as Opposition members ran around during the election campaign saying would be done, but to maintain it as it is and to increase the salary cut-in point so that people on lower incomes will not be required to pay the levy. Of course, the shadow Treasurer chose to make no mention of that at all. As I said at the start of my contribution, his 30-minute dissertation in the House was full of a whole lot of stuff about football and Italian dressing styles and fashionwear and had very little to do with the substance of the legislation. He does not want to talk about the legislation. The Minister's statement means that another element has crept into this discussion about the levy. Because the Government has chosen to defer this House's consideration of the tax file number legislation, the improvements relating to the Medicare levy will have to be deferred. One is entitled to ask, `Why are we deferring this legislation? Why is this benefit being deferred?'. The reason is that we are giving the Opposition more time to consider its position on the tax file number. By gee, when we come into this House with the tax file legislation we will see the Opposition fronting up to a tough one. Will it be prepared to be fair dinkum about backing these measures to give the Commissioner of Taxation some real tools to get into the secret bank accounts, the solicitors' secret trust funds and all the other areas where the high-fliers tuck their dough away? Will it be prepared to vote yes for the legislation? I hope so. We are deferring a benefit to be derived from improvements relating to the Medicare levy to give the Opposition the time that it has requested to consider the proposed amendments to the legislation. It will be very interesting to see the Opposition's response. I go to the one matter of substance on which the shadow Treasurer spent some time; that is, the issue of Government by press release, as he called it, and the question of retrospectivity. I have a very clear position on this. I am not happy that legislation is delayed and takes quite some time to get on the table, but I am even less happy when nothing happens until a matter is put into the Parliament's legislative program. I point out that the legislative program is continually disrupted by the Opposition and continually blocked and mucked about by the Senate. That is the reason the legislative program gets behind, and that is the reason we take time to get legislation into and through the Parliament. We cannot just leave the people of Australia with no guidance and no direction on these issues while we have these problems in the House. I believe that the Treasurer's actions in issuing guidance and directions to the community through press releases and statements in the House are a means of outlining the position as it will apply from a certain date. So I reject what will obviously be a beat-up on the retrospectivity issue. I reject that notion. Everyone who will be affected by this legislation has known from the time the Treasurer made the statement-as have all their corporate lawyers and fancy tax accountants who study this stuff in minutiae-exactly how and when their positions will be treated. Opposition members should not march in here and preach retrospectivity as some sort of evil notion in this context. If they intend to block the Government's legislative process, they must acknowledge that the only alternative we have is to make policy announcements and give outlines of the way matters will be treated. I think that that is a pretty positive way of going about things. I happen to have a personal view that the quicker we get away from legislation by the specific and get to a situation where, if the high-fliers want to try a fancy scheme in the hope that it will get through all the loopholes, they must place it on the board before the Tax Commissioner beforehand and get permission to do so, the better. That is the sort of direction in which I would like to see us going. The whole legislative process of tax law by loophole patching up which gets created by this system is one that, sooner or later, Australia must have some other thoughts about. I do not have any problems with this legislation. I think that the Minister's explanation was a pretty good one. If the honourable member for Kooyong wants to use his parliamentary or shadow Minister's stamp allowance writing to all the electors in my constituency telling them about my position on this matter, he is welcome to do so. It will improve my margin. My constituents understand that the Government is prepared to make decisions, lay them out on the table and be judged by the results. The results are that Australia is back in the black; the tax laws have been cleaned up; the country is moving back into credit; and we are starting to raise our heads in international circles. The shadow Treasurer comes in here and talks about the OECD average. The OECD average is a very good guide for Australia because at the moment our economic performance and economic restructuring put us at the top of the list of OECD countries. That is something in which every Australian can take a lot of pride. It is not something that the Opposition can get any free credits out of. In the time that I have been a member of this Parliament, every move that has been made by this Government to bring about reforms and to clean up all the rorts has been opposed on the other side of the House. Now, when there is some credit to be given and there is some recognition that we have turned a $9 billion deficit into a $5 billion surplus, what do we get? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition wanders in here saying that he would love to have some leadership and a blueprint. I am sure that he would. If he had a blueprint he could put it to the people and be judged on it. But he does not have one. All the policies and all the action come from the Government. All we get from the other side of the House is personal denigration and disruption of Question Time-all the personality stuff. It is simply a camouflage for the fact that there are no policies and there is no creative thinking on the other side of the House. I have no problem in supporting the legislation. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(9.48) —In this cognate debate the House is considering the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1988, the Income Tax Amendment Bill 1988 and the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill 1988. As Opposition spokesman on health in this place I intend to confine my remarks to the Medicare legislation. As a first step, I foreshadow an amendment which I will move at the appropriate time in this debate, which will probably be tomorrow morning. The amendment reads: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House: (1) expresses its concern at the increasing costs of Medicare despite a fall in the delivery of medical services, particularly to the poor and needy; (2) deplores changes made by the Government to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme; and (3) calls on the Government to ensure that all Australians obtain the high-quality, affordable health care, to which they are entitled'. The Medicare Levy Amendment Bill 1988 further amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986. It has been introduced to comply with the current requirement that legislation authorising the collection of the levy must be passed annually by the Parliament. In this respect I should point out that we have this annual opportunity to review the Medicare levy and the performance of Medicare because of the Opposition's amendment to the legislation some 12 months ago. It is certainly in no way due to any commitment on the part of this Government to the concept of open government. It was this side of the Parliament that successfully moved the amendment to the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill 1987 which ensured that the Government would be thwarted in its attempt to include authorisation of the collection of the levy for all future years. Failure to have secured our amendment-which did not happen-would have meant that the Parliament would have been obliged to legislate only for changes to the rate of the Medicare levy. It is welcoming to see that the Government has understood the reality in this respect and has brought forward the legislation in the form it is in. In addition to authorising the collection of the Medicare levy, this Bill proposes to increase the taxable income threshold below which a full or partial exemption from the levy may be claimed. This is a move which brings these exemptions more into line with current day realities. Notwithstanding the fact that, courtesy of the amending statement tonight of the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Peter Morris), this move has been deferred, it is a measure that is welcomed by the Opposition as it goes some way towards reducing the onerous taxation burden which this Government, over the past five years, has placed on low and middle income Australian families. However, less welcome is the fact that those same low and middle income Australian families are being short-changed by the Government in terms of the actual delivery of health care. While members of the Australian community are having regularly to fork out 1.25 per cent of taxable income for the Medicare levy, the return which they are in fact receiving for their health dollars is declining. At this point in my contribution it is perhaps worth remembering that this is yet another of the broken promises of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who said that the Medicare levy would remain at the one per cent figure at which it was originally set. It is also worth remembering that at the time Medicare came into effect in 1984 we were told that it would be self-funding. Unfortunately, as in so many other areas, the claims made by the Government in support of Medicare have proved to be patently untrue. It is calculated that the 1.25 per cent of taxable income accounts for only 16 per cent of health care costs in the Commonwealth Budget. Medicare, hailed by the Labor Government as a panacea for all the problems confronting the sick, is and always has been a dismal failure. What we have seen since this Government assumed office in 1983 is a massive growth in public health care costs. Australia's taxpayers are now footing the bill for a health Budget which is something like 70 per cent more than it was when Labor came to power. What are they getting in return? The answer is, precious little. I invite those honourable members in the chamber to cast their minds back to the days before the Hawke-Keating Government. I ask them: were there doctors' strikes in those days; were there nurses' strikes; and, importantly, were there queues of people waiting for hospital beds? Of course, the answer to all of these questions is no, there were none. We had no doctors' strikes; we had no nurses' strikes, and we certainly had no queues of at least 100,000 people waiting for hospital beds. The great irony of Medicare and the current health care system is that as well as being tragic in human terms that such a dramatic downturn in the availability and quality of health should have occurred under a government which claims to have a mandate on social justice, it is also a system which disadvantages the very people it is supposed to assist. We have got a government at the moment which is not above posturing as the most caring and compassionate government in our history. Yet it is this very same government which is now rationing the provision of health care by means of the ever-lengthening queues for public hospital treatment. As a consequence of this, the quality of life of those pensioners who need cataracts removed or who need hip replacement surgery so that they can get around is being severely diminished. These are the people who are the victims of a cruel hoax. They are the people who believed the Government's promise that it would provide a free and universal medical and hospital system and that they would be looked after in times of ill health. Instead, these pensioners and other people on low incomes find themselves at the bottom of the barrel, and at the end of the lengthening queues. They find themselves being treated as second class citizens and being forced to wait inordinate periods of time for much needed hospital treatment of their personal health problems. What is even more galling for them is that they know that while they are waiting for pain relieving surgery other people are jumping ahead of them in the hospital waiting list queues. Those people in our community who are more articulate, who can manipulate the hospital waiting lists or who can afford to pay for private health insurance and, subsequently, private treatment, are getting attention when they require it. All this is happening at a time when total government expenditure on health care is rising. As was pointed out on page 1 of the Health Care Markets policy discussion paper of the Consumers Health Forum of Australia released earlier this week: . . . health care costs each year, on average, around $1,100 a head or around $3,000 a household. This is a bill which, as far as the average person is concerned, is largely unseen. A summary of health outlays presented on page 122 of Budget Paper No. 1 1988-89 shows that in the current financial year the Government expects to spend in the order of $7,350.5m on medical and hospital services and benefits. This level of expenditure is quite clearly not matched by receipts from the Medicare levy. The figure for such receipts is listed on page 314 of Budget Paper No. 1 as a mere $2,315m, taking into account the new thresholds for low income earners as ultimately will be provided in the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill. That figure for receipts is not even a third of the cost of items listed as medical and hospital services and benefits-all of which I assume represent the real cost of Medicare. As I said in this House in the debate last week on the appropriations for the Department of Community Services and Health, Medicare is a monster which is gobbling up ever increasing amounts of public funds. The cost containment methods being applied by the Government have not worked in the past and will certainly not work in the future. The rationing of health care via the public hospital waiting list system has not significantly reduced costs. However, as I have already mentioned, it has significantly reduced the access of low income earners and the most disadvantaged to hospital treatment. This is something which the Opposition believes cannot and should not be tolerated in a society such as ours. We on this side of the House are committed to seeing all Australians receiving the quality health care to which they are entitled. What has the Government been doing? It has been casting around looking for scapegoats to blame for the failure of its unachievable promise to provide a free and universal medical and hospital system. It has sought to reduce services and costs by abolishing the Medicare rebate for some items. For example, last year it hacked away at the Medicare rebate for the removal of certain skin cancer treatments. That was a move which flew in the face of overwhelming evidence that the incidence of skin cancer in this country is one of the highest in the world, if not the highest. This year we are being treated to a misguided attempt to contain costs by tinkering with pathology rebates and the provision of life saving drugs under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. In addition, moves within the Department of Community Services and Health itself to curtail expenditure on salaries are jeopardising a range of services. Take, for instance, the nutrition section of the Department, which employs dietitians to prepare scientifically based tables on the composition of foods. The information which the section collects and disseminates is invaluable to programs aimed at improving the nutrition and overall health of the Australian people. Yet, this section is faced with staff cuts which will virtually eliminate its scientific function and turn it instead into something like a propaganda machine for the Government's much touted Health for All Australians plan-although how this plan can be expected to work when its No. 2 priority, nutrition, is being lopped off at the knees in terms of scientifically based information, is hard to fathom. Take also the Department's oral health unit, which on the evidence contained in the Budget Papers appears to have been left without any funds at all. The Government's action in abolishing the oral health unit was rightly internationally condemned by a unanimous resolution of the General Assembly of the Federation Dentaire Internationale meeting in Washington, D.C. last weekend. Again, it is interesting to note that the Health for All Australians document, so warmly endorsed by the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) when he launched it on 7 April this year, identified dental disease as of `continuing concern'. In fact this document makes the point on page 52 that: The contribution that dental health makes to total health is not well recognised. Prophetic words indeed. Seemingly the Government, which has endorsed the recommendations contained in the document, does not recognise the contribution which dental health makes to total health. Otherwise, why would the Government abolish the oral health unit, leaving itself as the only government of a major country without a dental unit to advise it. In the absence of the expert consultant advice which the unit could provide, there might well be adverse consequences for dental public health as well as for the practice of dentistry in this country. These two examples relating to the nutritional section and the oral health unit of the Department of Community Services and Health are just a couple of instances which clearly demonstrate this Government's misplaced priorities in the health area. In the mistaken belief that governments are the only bodies which can actually do things in the public policy area, this Government has blindly pursued an ideological path which has led it to be at loggerheads with health care professionals. Not only that, but its ideological commitment to publicly funded health care, as opposed to a more productive and rewarding mix of the public and private sectors, has diminished the quality and level of service in our overall health care system. It has categorised private hospitals, which account for about 25 per cent of all Australian hospital beds, and subsequently replaced this with a categorisation of private hospital patients to align insurance benefits to the treatment received. These moves have not only affected Commonwealth bed subsidies for private hospital patients but have also impacted upon the level of benefits a privately insured patient attracts from a hospital insurance fund. As a result of its ideologically inspired attacks on the private health care sector, the Government has overloaded the public health care system to the point where Medicare is about to irretrievably break down. The Medicare levy to be collected as a result of the passage of this legislation is nothing more, and nothing less, than a token gesture towards meeting a total health care budget which is exploring in its scope, a budget which, in the current financial year, is estimated to be nearly $11 billion dollars, compared with last year's figure of just over $8.2 billion-a sum which does not just exceed last year's budget by something equal to our current inflation rate of about 6 per cent, but which represents an increase in outlays of 30.3 per cent. In anyone's terms this is a very steep increase. If the Australian taxpayers were seeing value for their money, such an increase would be slightly more acceptable. But what we are seeing, and have already seen, under Medicare is a significant decline in the availability of health care delivered to the community in general, and the less well off sections of that community in particular. The Medicare levy collected as a result of the passage of this legislation will be but a drop in the bucket in terms of meeting the cost of what has proved to be an overly expensive experiment in socialised medicine. The sooner the Government realises that Australians will have access to the high quality health care which they deserve only when there is an active partnership between the public and private health care sectors, the better off we will all be. Mr GEAR(Canning)(10.07) —The contribution we have just heard from the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) clearly illustrates that he has been in the job of shadow spokesman for only a couple of weeks. We would expect a contribution like that, read out, might I say, with some precision. It was obviously written by somebody else because I know he has not had the time to get on top of the broad issues. Health insurance is a unique industry. We cannot compare health insurance with car insurance or with any of the services in the community that we take for granted, because it has unique characteristics. This was recognised a long time ago. In fact, governments of both persuasions have accepted the community rating principle, which recognises that the increasing cost of health care must be spread across the community, because the utilisation of health services is not confined to any one group in particular, although families with young children and older people are greater users of it. A serious health problem can strike anybody at any time. It is very hard to insure against the unforeseen and the unknown. The community rating principle has always been there. I remember when the former Opposition spokesman for community services and health, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), gave an address to surgeons in Townsville and espoused his view that the community rating principle should be abandoned. When the reality of that proposition was floated in the papers on the following day-that pensioners and young families would pay substantially more, while the healthy would pay substantially less-it did not take long for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to tick off the honourable member for O'Connor. We see that he is no longer in that position, mainly because of that outrageous statement on which the Leader of the Opposition had to attack him and put him in his place. It would not have surprised anybody listening to this debate tonight that the Opposition did not tell us what it is going to do about a health policy. Students of history will know that during the Opposition's term of office it had five different health schemes. Since then I think it has had two or three. I have lost count, but there have been a number. There cannot be many alternatives left for the honourable member for Tangney to have a shot at. The Opposition asks why we do not leave health care insurance to the private sector. The simple fact is that the private sector was stopped by law from ever making a profit. Those of us who follow the marketplace and those of us who believe that the marketplace should, in many ways, set the prices would think, `Well, that's a bit strange. Fancy a private operator going into business and not being allowed to make a profit'. But under conservative and Labor governments that has been the case. So why all this talk by the medical profession about letting the private sector do it? The fact is that if there is some virtue in the private sector doing it, if there is some virtue in the profit factor-that is, that profits or the desire for profits will increase efficiency-it is absent in health insurance. It always has been. We are really talking about a unique industry whose aim is to spread the cost across the community-the community rating principle-the non-profit private health insurers. When we look at it it is really a co-op. It is all of the people in Australia putting their money, which they might draw on at some time, into health insurance organisations. This is what distinguishes it from car insurance, as the honourable member for O'Connor once likened it to. The fact is that there is no profit motive. If administration costs chew up some of that money that people are putting aside for their health costs, one would think that it would be more efficient, in terms of the utilisation of that capital, to have one insurer rather than 60 or 70; that is, one insurer doing that job and doing it efficiently, rather than 60 or 70 chewing up all those administration costs and keeping all those people employed in administering those smaller organisations. Of course, that is what Medicare has done. Medicare takes all of those contributions on the ability to pay. That is another great virtue of Medicare. It does recognise that some people can afford to pay more for health insurance than others. So it is levied on one's income-the more one earns the more one pays. This principle strikes a chord with the Australian population. Also it has universality. All people in Australia have access to health care as a right, as a privilege. They do not have to go grovelling to get health care because, under the private insurance schemes, they could not afford it. They do not have to go to a doctor and say, `Geez doc, I am too poor. I can't afford health insurance. Will you please treat me?' There is none of that under Medicare. One goes to Medicare in one's own right. As a taxpayer, one contributes to the great public hospitals that we have in this country. Mr Shack —Take your turn in the queue. Mr GEAR —The honourable member for Tangney butts in to say, `Take your turn in the queue'. The Liberal Party has always been about-- Mr Hand —Their policy was that there was no queue. Mr GEAR —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs interjects and says that there was no queue. Of course, if a government freezes two million people out of health insurance, the queues shorten dramatically. The fact is that everybody is covered by Medicare and honourable members opposite are talking about queues. I will cover that subject later. One thing one can always say about the Liberal Party is that it has always buckled under to sectional interests. If there is a vocal pressure group out there which is articulate or wealthy, it will always find favour with the Liberal Party. Of course, the Australian Medical Association (AMA)-the doctors union as Senator Walsh calls it-will always find an ally in the Liberal Party because it is always promoting sectional interest over the common good. That is why the AMA cannot wear Medicare-because Medicare actually looks at the consumers. Looking at the delivery of health services, one has to differentiate the delivery of those services between that industry-if we can call it that-and other service industries. Let us look at the delivery of health services. The AMA has a protected market. Governments right across Australia, including this one, give the medical profession the unfettered right to deliver medical services in this country. One can ask the chiropractic services. Ask the midwives whether they would like to be covered by Medicare-the fact is that they would. But governments stop them from being covered. The medical profession has a protected market. It is protected by laws and protected by governments. It has a monopoly on health services. It has insured clients. What other service industry has insured clients to the same extent as the medical profession? It also has restrictions on specialist training. In actual fact, it regulates the flow. I know the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations (AFCO) in particular is very concerned about this. There are shortages, such as in New South Wales, where the orthopaedic surgeons are returning to our public hospitals. When talking about waiting lists, I read one report the other day where a public health administrator in New South Wales said that when the orthopaedic surgeons, because of their scarcity of supply, got back into the public hospitals, the waiting list would drop by a factor of 25 per cent. So if people talk about waiting lists in this country, they should not blame Medicare. Look at the role of the AMA and the doctors in prolonging those waiting lists and lengthening them by their actions in going on strike and staying out of public hospitals. Mr MacKellar —You simply don't know what you are talking about. Mr GEAR —The honourable member opposite, who watches his show on his colour television, says that I do not know what I am talking about. Let us look at some of the recent moves such as the one by the Australian Medical Association to change its fees unilaterally. Mr Hand —He is getting closer to the front bench. Mr GEAR —As the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs rightly points out, he is getting closer to the front bench, but I do not think he will ever make it, even with a reshuffle. Let us look at the recent unilateral decision by the AMA to change its charging structure and the consultation it took on with its patients. I wonder whether the AMA actually went out there and had a look at the impact its proposal to be introduced on 1 November would have on its patients. Let us look at some of the editorials in some of the provincial papers such as the Border Mail. I do not know where it comes from but obviously next to the border. Under the heading `GPs' image further dented' it says: The Australian Medical Association can blame only itself for the declining esteem in which its members are held. The doctors, in recent times, have been portrayed collectively as a group of people more intent on money than medicine. The Daily Liberal says this: What is so conveniently forgotten by some medical practitioners is all Australians are taxed to ensure an equitable health cover for everyone. The system ensures medical practitioners a guaranteed fee for every patient passing through his surgery. The present fee structure is designed to average costs over all citizens in the workforce, thus denying no one adequate treatment as required. The Northern Star states: What does the AMA want-more money for doctors, a better system, or both? If it does want both, it should not use the argument that all this is being proposed in the interests of patients and doctors. The benefactors are doctors alone. The Warrnambool Standard-one of those great little chronicles out in the bush-says this-- Mr Hand —It is a good paper. It is my home town, by the way. Mr GEAR —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs points out that it is a great chronicle and that he spent some time there. It says: If a six per cent fee increase is warranted then the AMA should set out its arguments for all to see. Furthermore, it should present these points to the Government and if they are valid then it could be expected that the rebate system would be altered so that there would not be an increased direct cost to the community. While doctors are entitled to be adequately compensated for their abilities and skills, when it comes to setting a fee for services rendered more consideration should be given to the people who have to foot the bill. Amen! Is it not about time that the patient got consulted in all of this. Is it not about time that the poor old mug out there who pays the bill was listened to by the AMA. The AMA puts up the argument that general practitioners' fees are not high enough. I do not know whether that is true but I take the AMA on its word. Certainly, if one looks at the Daily Mirror of yesterday, a report on page 21 headed `Patients to face higher charges' states: Private Doctors Association national secretary Dr Hal Soper said GPs were once among the highest paid members of the community. ``I'm going back 30 years when I first started my practice, when specialists were not as common, when your overheads were only 30 per cent and there were far more patients because there were fewer doctors,'' Dr Soper said. ``These days, with immigration of doctors and the Government making it relatively cheap to study medicine, there is a far greater number of general practitioners per head of population. Of course, he is dead right. There are more general practitioners in Australia today than there have ever been. If there is an oversupply and there are more people in the medical field giving those services one would expect that their incomes would go down. The solution is not to lift the charges to the consumer. Why should the consumer be hit for featherbedding in the medical industry because there are too many doctors? Market forces do not work in the medical profession. It has always been recognised that market forces do not work. So, if there is an oversupply, the solution to the problem is not to lift their incomes; it is to get people out of the system. One would think that that would be as plain as the nose of one's face. Obviously, that is what has happened. As Dr Soper says, there are too many general practitioners. Their income goes down; so what is the solution? Lift the charge to the consumer. Out in industry that would be called featherbedding. Out in industry market forces would work to force them out of the industry; but it does not work, it never has worked and it never will work. There are good reasons for it-I am not saying that there are not good reasons for it-but that is not the solution. The honourable member for Tangney talked about waiting lists, although he did not offer a solution, as is often the case with members of the Opposition. We never hear any solutions. All we hear is criticisms; nothing positive, nothing about what they are going to do. The fact is that the throughput of all our hospitals, public and private, has never been higher than it is today. The simple fact is that, when those opposite talk about restrictions on waiting lists in hospitals, all of the health Ministers-that is Liberal, National Party and Labor-agree that the reason for waiting lists is not Medicare. The reason for waiting lists is twofold: firstly, there is a shortage of nurses. The honourable member opposite can shake his head. There is a doctor on that side of the House, but I have a doctor on this side of the House who agrees with me. The honourable member opposite can shake his head; but this doctor agrees with me, and so do all the health Ministers. Firstly, there is a shortage of health nurses and, secondly, there is an increase in technology that makes operations-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! Interjections will cease. Mr GEAR —I do not want to interfere with this great discourse that is going on. They are the facts. We will never hear the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Tangney, come up with a solution. He talked about waiting lists. If those opposite changed the health insurance arrangements in this country tomorrow, there is nothing they could do to lessen those waiting lists. Those opposite cannot do that. Dr Woods —What is your solution? Mr GEAR —My solution certainly is not to get rid of Medicare. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Lowe will have an opportunity to speak in this debate. Mr GEAR —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Those opposite are rather uncouth. They will have their time to speak. I will be very interested to hear what their solution is, because I know that they have not got one. In today's Canberra Times, under the heading `Doctors plan fund to change Medicare', there is a very illuminating sentence from Dr Aroney-- Mr Pratt —Doctor who? Mr GEAR —Dr Aroney. Obviously, the honourable member does not follow medical matters all that much, because he had to ask me to repeat that. Dr Aroney stated: Australia's medical profession is to stage a national meeting to consider launching a multi-million-dollar `freedom-fighting fund' to campaign for changes to Medicare. What is the rationale for this? Is it for the patient? Is the medical profession trying to kick a goal for the patient? No way; because half way down the article, Dr Aroney stated: This fund is to promulgate and bring about changes in Medicare which would make it more acceptable to all of us in the medical profession . . . Dr Woods —Who care about patients. Mr GEAR —There you are; the medical profession kicked the goal and won. It is after the doctor-dollar relationship. That is all the medical profession is worried about. If honourable members follow the evolution of health insurance in this country, they will see that there is one constant, which is that every time any conservative governments or Labor governments have tried to extend the scope of health insurance in this country they have run up against one obstacle; that is, the Australian Medical Association. What they really want is the privatisation of health insurance. The only reason they want the privatisation of health insurance is so that they can get at the patient's wallet. The one thing that is standing between the medical practitioners and the patient's wallet in many cases is Medicare. No wonder they want to get rid of it. If they perform an operation in the public hospital now they cannot send out a bill; it is the hospital that sends out a bill, and that protects the consumers. Through all of this I have received many hundreds of letters from patients who are very upset about the charging practices of doctors. They should be listened to. There should be no unilateral decisions by doctors to change the fee setting structure. It would not have escaped the notice of many of us that that little proposal was dropped half way through the Victorian State election. It did not escape our attention. The simple fact is that they are playing politics. They know that on that side of the House they will always find someone ready to promote the doctors' interests over the patients' interests; but now there is a greater awareness amongst consumers out in the community that they can actually do something about it. Mr MacKellar —I will give you one piece of advice: don't get sick. Mr GEAR —The former Minister, sitting on that side of the chamber, says, `Don't get sick'. Why should I not get sick? Mr MacKellar —What if you do get sick? Mr GEAR —I have paid for the great public hospitals in this country and I have paid for all the doctors' training. Why should I not front up to a doctor if I am sick and expect professional treatment? Is the honourable member denigrating the medical profession? What he is saying is this: because of the stand I am taking for the consumers in this whole field, doctors will not treat me. Is that what he is saying? Mr MacKellar —They will. Mr GEAR —The honourable member has changed his tune; I can get sick now, can I? Mr MacKellar —You can get sick for sure. Mr GEAR —I thank the honourable member for that. As a taxpayer, I have paid for all this. When I front up to a public hospital I have the right to expect decent medical treatment. Mr MacKellar —You won't get it under Medicare. Mr GEAR —The approval rating now is 65 per cent. What have those opposite ever put up that has ever had an approval rating anywhere near that-certainly not their leader, whose rating keeps going down, and certainly not their health policy. We have never seen a health policy. We have seen six or seven attempts, but nothing that has ever stuck. When we really look at who looks after the consumers and patients in this country, we see that there is only one; that is Medicare which was introduced by Neal Blewett. That is the only health insurance scheme in this country that has actually addressed the problems for which it was designed; that is, to look after patients. Dr Charlesworth —And it works. Mr GEAR —And it works, as the honourable member rightly points out. That it has a 65 per cent approval rating-and increasing-just speaks volumes for the fact that the people out there really know that they have a great policy. I am quite happy at the next election to go to the people on the Medicare policy. By that time, hopefully, those opposite will have a policy stitched together. Dr Charlesworth —No chance. Mr GEAR —Well, they might. We have to give them the benefit of the doubt; they have eight to choose from. They might have one then, but Medicare will beat it hands down. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(10.27) —I have not much time tonight. This legislation is a classic example of the socialist Labor Government's rip-out of the productive sector and transfer of funds into the social security sector. We are going to wait with bated breath tomorrow for the balance of payments figures. We are going to see a deficit of $1.5 billion in one month in our trade overseas. That is an absolute disgrace. Australia is going down the plug-hole very fast under this Government. If the people of Australia do not wake up to themselves and kick this Government out at the next election, there is something wrong with the lot of them. This legislation covers a number of things. Obviously, it is all to do with increasing taxation. We have depreciation on plant. The Government is going to rip $1 billion extra out of the productive sector of this country in 18 months' time. That is absolutely disgraceful. Under section 26aaa of the Income Tax Assessment Act, capital gains tax has been introduced into this country for the first time ever. The Government hates people who own any capital. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) is the leading socialist from Victoria. He hates the capitalists. So, what has the Government done? It has introduced a capital gains tax that will rip at least half a million dollars out of this country. Mr Deputy Speaker, you know as well as I do that there are many families in inland Australia that still do not have the benefit of electricity. What do these socialists do in this legislation? They introduce a provision whereby there are no longer any tax deductions for putting on electricity. It is all right for the people who live in Sydney. Gerry lives in Melbourne; it is all right for him. He has been living in Melbourne, off the fat of the land, for the last 20 or 30 years; but for those of us who live in the electorate of Maranoa-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable member may not refer to the Minister by name. Mr IAN CAMERON —Mr Deputy Speaker, my time has not run out yet. It is all very well for those Bolshie socialists who live down there, the Bollinger socialists who live in Melbourne and Sydney. Many of our properties still do not have electricity. This Labor Government is introducing a provision which will make it so difficult for us to put on electricity that we cannot possibly do it. We are seeing changes in regard to livestock valuations. We are seeing total, across the board changes. Often the values vary. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) is making completely new changes in this regard. What do we see at the other end of the legislation? We see increases. It is just a total transfer from the productive sector. There is $20m more in social security handouts. Gerry will be dead happy about that. When a pensioner's spouse dies, there will be no tax on the pension he or she gets for 12 weeks from the time the spouse dies; he or she will get some extra security. What a whackoff! The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs should mark my words when I say that tomorrow we will see another disastrous balance of payments. The productive sector in this country is working itself out. It is being taxed to death. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order. It being 10.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr PRATT(Adelaide)(10.30) —I wish to draw attention to the increasing number of concerned constituents approaching my electorate office in Adelaide anxious about the future of the Daw Park Repatriation Hospital. The Hawke Labor Government is planning to divest itself by 1995 of the only hospitals under direct Commonwealth administration, those that serve the returned service men and women who fought for this country. In the past century Australians have built this country's admirable reputation of honour, mateship and freedom fighting all over the world; the Balkans in the Crimean War; South Africa in the Boer War; Europe and the Middle East during the Great War; Europe and the Middle East again in the Second World War, and the wars of the Pacific, North Africa, Korea and Vietnam. I point out that the vast majority of these people are over 60 years of age. In fact, by far the majority are in excess of 65 and have now retired. These people have planned all their lives for a secure retirement, safe in the belief that, as eligible veterans, the repatriation hospital would be there to care for their health. Clearly, the Hawke Labor Government has forgotten the words of Prime Minister Ben Chifley when he said in regard to our service personnel, `On this Parliament rests the responsibility of seeing that the right thing shall be done'. The vast proportion of those veterans are now in the years when they most need the medical support offered by the repatriation hospital system, a system administered by the Commonwealth for the past 40 years. In the next few years the demand for the services of the repatriation hospitals-Daw Park in particular-will steadily escalate and then-to put it bluntly rapidly decrease as the men and women who have served Australia so well pass on. The Daw Park Repatriation Hospital is in the electorate of Hawker, where the sitting Labor member is notable for asking why pensioners should get special treatment. Why should they get special treatment indeed! Is it not enough that these people enlisted to fight for their country, their right to vote, the right of their families to free speech and access to decent education and health services? Is it not enough that these people have done their bit to build Australia from the ground up by working hard, paying their taxes and saving for a secure future, a future which the undertaker, the Grim Reaper, is now plundering with his taxes on superannuation, lump sums, roll-overs and tightening to a strangle the incomes test on pensions? To the honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey), I say that these people deserve special treatment because they are honest and decent people who have given this country their best. They deserve a fair deal in return. This lack of sensitivity is typical of the Hawke Labor Government's attitude to the people it purports to represent, those who are now suffering through the massive fall in their real disposable incomes, in their standards of living, brought about by the high taxing, big spending policies of the member for Manhattan, the Treasurer (Mr Keating). The Opposition recognises that participants in the Korean and Vietnam wars make up a tiny proportion of the total population of veterans and that to keep the repatriation hospitals running as they are ad infinitum would not be cost effective. However, the Government's plan is to sell out at precisely the moment when most veterans need the repatriation most. In contrast the Opposition is committed to the maintenance of a separate repatriation hospital system in the capital for the treatment of veterans. We see as a top priority the continuance of the moves initiated to increase highly trained staff, renew hospital facilities and replace antiquated buildings, theatres and wards. In short, the Opposition is committed to improve the repatriation hospital system throughout Australia. Further the Liberal and National parties will retain a separate modern Department of Veterans' Affairs-this as the Hawke Labor Government considers a plan to merge the responsibilities of veterans' affairs and community welfare. In recognition of the deep concern reflected in the constituent inquiries to my Adelaide office, I have convened a public meeting at the Gilles Plains-Hamstead Returned Services League on Sunday, 30 October at 11 a.m. Vietnam veteran and shadow Minister for Veterans Affairs, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) will be joined by former Veterans' Affairs Minister Senator Tony Messner in addressing concerned veterans, war widows and other anxious parties, presenting the Opposition's policy and attempting to settle their fears. Mr Hand —He did nothing for the Vietnam veterans. He just sent them overseas to be killed and left them in the lurch. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will cease interjecting. Mr Tim Fischer —Mr Acting Speaker, on a point of order: I take offence, as a Vietnam veteran, at the words just used by the Minister. I ask the Minister to withdraw. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.35) —I rise in tonight's debate to continue some of the comments that were made during the debate that has just concluded on the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill. I do so for a number of reasons, but principally in response to an article which appeared in today's edition of the Canberra Times under the heading `Doctors plan fund to change Medicare. ``ACTU-style'' national meeting called for weekend'. Quite frankly, I find the comments contained in this article, directed at the Government by a Dr Michael Aroney, to be quite offensive. I do so for a number of reasons. If one takes the time to look at that press release one sees that certain comments are made which, I believe, go right to the heart of the whole question of Medicare coverage and hospital and medical benefits for every Australian. Dr Aroney, who is President of the Australian Association of Surgeons-and, I point out, a failed Liberal candidate in a previous Federal election-said that the doctors were going to create a fund to raise $10m to push for changes to Medicare. He went on to say that the fund would be politically motivated but would not aim for the end of the Hawke Government or Medicare. How can he have that if it is politically motivated? He talks about wanting to change Medicare and then turns around and says, `Hang on; we might not really do that'. He is quoted as having gone on to say: This fund is to promulgate and bring about changes in Medicare- listen to this part- which would make it more acceptable to all of us in the medical profession. `To all of us in the medical profession.'! What about the consumers? What about all the average Australians who look to surgeons and doctors in the community to look after their interests? Is he putting them first? No, he is not. He is saying that the doctors are going to get a fighting fund together to change Medicare to make it more acceptable to `all of us in the medical profession'. He is about propping up people like his mate Dr Shepherd and the other orthopaedic surgeons who have run rampant in this country and kept people out of hospitals because they will not go into the public health system, particularly in New South Wales, to look after the aged, people who need hip replacements, knee joint replacements and so on, who do not have private health insurance. They will go only to private hospitals. We saw the evidence of that during the New South Wales health campaign, when Shepherd, Aroney and all the boys, got together with Nick Greiner, the Premier-elect, and decided, `If you guys come to the party and say we will do certain things and meet certain commitments, we will support you in this election'. They did just that. Now Collins, the Health Minister in New South Wales, has had to buckle under to Shepherd, Aroney and all these others and increase fees outrageously so that these doctors will go back into the hospitals. I am not suggesting for a minute that all members fall into this category, but quite clearly there are some. They are represented by such people as Dr Aroney and Dr Shepherd, who are going around suggesting that $10m should be put together to fight for changes to Medicare so that their own practices can be advanced. Their concern lies not with the health or welfare of people in Australia; not with the two million people who are now covered by Medicare who were not covered before; not with the Australian population-the old people in our society and those people who are frail, infirm and who need assistance; but with their rich mates, whom they want to look after and make richer. Quite frankly, I find it absolutely appalling, because I have seen in my electorate of Macarthur and in the neighbouring electorates of Cunningham and Throsby on the south coast of New South Wales, the changes these people want to institute brought to bear and brought to book by the Liberal and National parties of New South Wales. We have seen them closing down health facilities in that area. We have seen them closing down the maternity wards at Bulli hospital. Mr Hollis —And Kiama. Mr MARTIN —We have seen them closing down the maternity wards at Kiama hospital in the electorate of my friend and colleague, the honourable member for Throsby. Where is it going to end? It will continue, because the New South Wales Government has given in to the demands of the mean, greedy people who are trying to destroy the health benefit that covers every Australian in this country. I hope that every member of this House will oppose this sort of nonsense, because if those opposite ever get into government it will not be too long before they turn on them and put the screws on them, exactly as they did to Collins in New South Wales. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PROSSER(Forrest)(10.40) —It never ceases to amaze me how arrogantly certain Ministers in this Government treat the Australian people. I refer to the arbitrary and sometimes dishonest way in which decisions are made that clearly are not in the best interests of the community. We have witnessed such a display by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins). As the Minister responsible for unemployment, he carries the can for the Government's performance in this important area. The Minister has gone to great lengths to eliminate from public scrutiny the figures that may reflect poorly upon his Government. I refer to the Minister's decision to ban the release of Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) data showing unemployment levels on a town by town basis. I raised the matter earlier today in this place and again the Minister failed adequately to explain his motives for covering up an important local source of information. There are two major sources of labour force statistics-the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and the CES figures. Until March this year a feature of the CES quarterly statistics publication was the inclusion of figures showing the number of unemployed people awaiting placement. The figures set the CES information apart from the ABS data, not because they were necessarily more accurate, but because they were the only labour force information detailed enough to provide an indication of the unemployment situation in a town, a suburb or a region. They gave information upon which local communities could gauge economic and employment trends and, if necessary, develop effective counter policies and plan the provision of support services. I acknowledge that ABS data is a more accurate statistical representation of the labour force. But even a Government Minister, the former Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the present Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis) recognised the value of CES figures in 1983. I quote from a press statement he released in July that year. He said: The CES figures are a useful supplement because they provide a greater regional break up of unemployment than the ABS collection . . . they fill an important gap in local labour market information. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), when he was Opposition spokesman on unemployment, quoted CES figures in a Sydney Morning Herald article in March 1981. He claimed that they were `clear evidence' of the prevailing labour force situation. Obviously, the CES figures are less useful to members of the Government when they are unfavourable. That is demonstrated clearly in evidence I have received from the Department of Employment, Education and Training. Twice in 1987 the Western Australian Premier, Mr Dowding, when he was the Minister for Employment in the Burke Government, put pressure on the Federal Government to can the CES statistics. In certain parts of Western Australia where they were rightly being used to highlight the unemployment problem they were less than favourable. The Federal Minister Mr Dawkins, reacted by asking his Department to look into the matter. A minute to the Minister from the Deputy Secretary of the Department dated 2 September, makes interesting reading. It states: Because of recent concerns about the CES figures we have been reviewing the current guidelines for the local release of CES data by CES managers . . . The work was placed `on hold' during the election campaign on sensitivity grounds. The minute went on to make certain recommendations, agreed to by Mr Dawkins, which allowed CES managers to continue to release the figures in a different format. But on 16 October Mr Dowding came back on the scene, complaining again about the release of Unemployed Awaiting Placement (UAP) figures. This time he presented evidence in the form of two newspaper articles. Where did those stories appear? Of course, in Collie and Albany-two politically sensitive electorates for the State Labor Government. Again the Department looked into the matter. A recommendation came back to the then Minister for Employment Services, the present Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Holding), to allow the continued collection of the figures, but to allow CES managers, release them only upon request. Mr Holding agreed. Obviously under pressure from his Western Australia, colleague, Mr Dawkins overruled Mr Holding in January this year, and ordered that CES managers not be allowed to release local UAP data. The banning of these figures has nothing to do with their accuracy. The actions of the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, in cahoots with his friend Mr Dowding, were clearly politically motivated. The people of Australia have been duped again. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(10.44) —We are very lucky to be in this outstanding new building. The facilities for members and senators are a substantial improvement. We would have expected an improvement in performance. If the recent contribution by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) is any indication, although he certainly tried very hard, he was probably on drugs or something because he certainly spoke too fast. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw that allegation. Dr CHARLESWORTH —I withdraw. It was certainly not meant in a derogatory manner but he spoke very quickly. Half a dozen times a day, sometimes more often, members are counted. When the bells ring we have to scamper to this place. The Opposition calls for quorums to be formed all day. While the legislation dealing with quorums lies on the table in the other place, we do not seem to be able to get any action on that matter. Certainly, working conditions in this place are less than desirable. It is very difficult for members and senators to be able to have some sort of leisure activity. When the House is sitting members are here from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. We have in this place an outstanding new fitness centre which has been paid for by the taxpayers. It is a very good facility and it is long overdue. Unfortunately, it lies idle for most of the time. Irrespective of the controversy over the aerobics classes, it is absurd that that facility is not being better utilised. My proposal is that there should be exclusive use of that facility for members and senators, but only during limited periods during the day. I suggest that that should be the case before 10 a.m. and perhaps for a couple of hours around lunchtime and dinnertime, but that during the rest of the time the other 6,000 people who work in this building should have access to that facility. The facility lies idle for one-third of the year. If one goes there during the day during that period, the swimming pool is empty and the exercise area is not being used. It seems to me that the 6,000 people who work in the new Parliament House should have access to that facility during those times. Indeed, when the House is not sitting they do have access to the facility. Another point, of course, is that the facility has been provided by the taxpayers, but the maintenance and management of the facility should be looked after by those people who use it. It would seem to me to be perfectly reasonable and fair that there should be some sort of daily rate of payment by anybody who uses the facility and an annual fee should be payable by anybody who wants to use it and who works in Parliament House over a long period. The costs of management and maintenance of that facility and the services offered should be paid by those people who use it. It is absurd that the taxpayer should pay for it. In the past if a member wanted to swim he had to travel by car to the Deakin pool. He had to pay $3 to use the Deakin pool, a car had to pick him up afterwards and the cost to the taxpayers was even more substantial. It seems to me that all members of the staff-members of the press, people who work for the departments, the Parliamentary Library and the catering staff-should have access to this facility. I have made this point previously. It seems to have fallen on deaf ears. I have made this speech tonight because I think that the facility could and should be run on a commercial basis. It would therefore be able to provide the sort of services and facilities that people could use. I believe that it is a reasonable proposition. The users should pay. It could be expertly managed and the facility could provide a variety of fitness and health services for all of those who use this building. In my opinion it makes sense. It saves money and, while maintaining sufficient and adequate access for senators and members, it is something that we should consider. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.49) —I do not want to talk tonight about the facilities of the new Parliament House. It struck me that we might have just heard the maiden speech by the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth). I do not think I have heard him speak before. I want to talk tonight about a very important issue to all South Australians-that is, that section of the Victor Harbor railway that runs from the town to Mount Barker to Victor Harbor. Most honourable members would know that that railway is one of the most beautiful tourist railways routes in the world. It is the longest tourist railway route in the world. It is one of the most significant tourist facilities that this country has to offer the many visitors who come here. Unfortunately, the Victor Harbor railway is being seriously threatened. In the first place, Australian National did not want to keep open the section of the line between Mount Barker and Strathalbyn because, understandably, it has no further use for it. Nobody is asking it to keep open a line for which there is no further use. The consequence of that is that Australian National has gone to the Minister and asked whether the Minister will approach the State Minister to obtain agreement for the railway to be closed. I understand that the Federal Government-and I am not criticising the Federal Government tonight-is happy to do that, but the State Government of South Australia, Mr Bannon's Government, is apparently determined not to accept any responsibility for this, one of our nation's most magnificent tourist facilities. It is just denying any responsibility at all. The State Government has already said through public statements, and has indicated to the Federal Minister as well-I have forgotten the State Minister's name-that it will not accept the Victor Harbor railway any longer as a State facility. If Australian National no longer has any further use for the Mount Barker to Strathalbyn section of that line and will not maintain it, and if the State Government refuses to take over control of that line, it simply will close. If it closes the consequence will be the death of the Victor Harbour railway and that will be a sorry thing for South Australia and a sad thing for Australia as a whole. I know that the new honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Sawford) is particularly concerned about this issue and he would join with me in my expressions of concern about the behaviour of the Bannon Government-if one can call it a government. The State Government should accept its responsibilities for tourism within the boundaries of South Australia. The tourist responsibilities of the Federal Government are to promote tourism internationally, not to promote tourism within South Australia. That is Mr Bannon and his crew's job. They should take on the responsibility for a change instead of continually turning their backs on difficult decisions. We all know that Mr Bannon is completely invisible when anything goes wrong in South Australia and he certainly is invisible on the issue of the Victor Harbor railway. The State should take responsibility for the railway, and the next question is: Who will provide the $400,000 needed to replace the rotting wooden sleepers on that section of the line with the concrete sleepers that that line deserves? Mr Hand —Why are you laughing? Mr DOWNER —I am laughing at the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) who, contrary to Standing Orders is sitting there reading a newspaper, no doubt about hockey, or some sport. The South Australian Government must support community efforts to raise the $400,000 needed to ensure that the line remains open-not provide the money but support efforts to raise the money. Radio station 5AN and the Victor Harbor Times are doing a great deal, as are local community groups, including Steam Ranger that runs a train. The State Government should be supporting them and giving them the endorsement of the State Government they require and taking responsibility over the line-not providing the money. It is that act of irresponsibility, of ignoring this tourist opportunity for the people of South Australia and for the businesses of Victor Harbor and Goolwa and Strathalbyn and Mount Barker and for the whole of Australia. The tourist opportunity that this line offers is simply being squandered by the stupidity of the Bannon Government. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.54) —I raise tonight some of the actions of malice of the New South Wales Liberal Greiner Government against the Illawarra region. Mr Greiner, the Liberal Premier, is punishing the people of the Illawarra because the good loyal Illawarra people had the sense to vote Labor in all the State seats there at the last election, as they vote Labor in the Federal seats. Now the Illawarra is being massively punished with massive health cuts, more than any other region in New South Wales. My friend the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) outlined some of these. The maternity wards at Bulli and Kiama hospitals have been closed despite a promise prior to the State election that they would remain open. Six months down the track they have both been closed. I have attended meeting after meeting concerning the Kiama hospital and the Liberal candidate used to come along prior to the last State election and say, `We will keep this hospital open'. What did the Greiner Government do? This is just one of its 200 broken promises in New South Wales. It has closed both the Kiama and Bulli maternity hospitals. As an act of spite that Government is moving the Shellharbour dental school to Sydney. Mr Martin —It was kept open by Unsworth. Mr HOLLIS —It was started and kept open by the Labor Government and closed by the Liberal Government and moved out of the area. The casualty ward at Port Kembla is being closed after 5 p.m., and this is the most heavily industrialised area of New South Wales. The Greiner Liberal Government is saying that in this most heavily industrialised area no accidents will occur after 5 p.m. The spite and malice being shown by the Greiner Government towards the Illawarra region is outrageous. That Government has also decided to sell off the Port Kembla grain handling terminal. It was one of the great achievements of the Wran-Unsworth Government to get the grain handler at Port Kembla. Mr Martin —Didn't we fight for that? Mr HOLLIS —As the honourable member for Macarthur points out, it was the work of the three local Federal members that resulted in getting the $18.7m of Federal money into that grain handling terminal. I did not work my guts out for almost three years and nor did the honourable member for Macarthur and the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West), day after day after day, going to see Ministers and making representation to get the $18.7m, to have Nick Greiner sell it off to his wealthy mates. If he dares to go ahead with this outrageous proposal, I and my colleagues of the Illawarra will be demanding that that $18.7m of Federal government money be returned so that it can be reallocated within the Illawarra region. We will not stand by and see $18.7m of Federal money going to Greiner's rich mates. Mr Martin —What about the coal loader? Mr HOLLIS —They will flog off anything they can get their hands on in the Illawarra, but the Illawarra people will not stand idly by and see this happen. We will fight it every inch of the way, and we will win. The other point I would like to raise is the reluctance of the State Minister, Mr Murray, to recommend the Kaloola pass road for Federal funding. With the new national arterial road system, that road meets every criterion for economic development of the port of Port Kembla. The Port Kembla Harbour Task Force over the past few years has been doing a tremendous job in getting industry and development into Port Kembla. We need there a new road. I have seen the plans of the road and it was ready to be funded until the Greiner Government came to power. Now we need the State Minister to recommend it to the Federal Minister, who I am sure will listen sympathetically to our pleas but, because the State Minister will not recommend it, we will miss out. It is another illustration of the spite on the Illawarra region by this malicious Liberal Government in New South Wales. It is a good example of what happens anywhere in Australia if people are foolish enough to vote Liberal. The Greiner Government has broken 200 promises in New South Wales already in six months, and most of them have related to the Illawarra region. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.59 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Willis to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian National Railways Commission Act 1983. Mr Willis to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Wheat Marketing Act 1984. Mr Holding to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the Government of the Australian Capital Territory, and for related purposes. Mr Holding to present a Bill for an Act relating to elections for the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory. Mr Holding to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the planning of the Australian Capital Territory and the management of land in that Territory, to repeal the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957, and for related purposes. Mr Holding-To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Migration Act 1958. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Superannuation Act 1976, and for related purposes. Mr Cleeland to move- That the House- (1) commends the Dalai Lama for his past efforts to resolve the problems of Tibet through negotiation with the People's Republic of China and for dissuading the Tibetan people from using violence to regain their freedom; (2) commends the Dalai Lama for his new proposal in his continued quest for peace and expresses its support for the trust of his proposals; (3) calls on the leaders and the Government of the People's Republic of China to respond positively to the proposal of the Dalai Lama and to enter into earnest discussions with the Dalai Lama, or his representative, to resolve the question of Tibet along the lines proposed by the Dalai Lama; and (4) calls on the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to express the support of the Australian Parliament for the proposals of the Dalai Lama and to use their best efforts to persuade the leaders and the Government of the People's Republic of China to enter into discussions with the Dalai Lama, or his representatives, regarding the proposal of the Dalai Lama and the question of Tibet. (Notice given 18 October 1988) Mr Howe to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Child Support Act 1988 in relation to the adoption of the Act by Queensland and Western Australia. Mr Howe to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to social security and other related matters. Mr Andrew to move- That this House congratulates President Reagan on his contribution to world peace and economic prosperity during his 2 terms as President of the United States of America. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 18 October 1988: Civil Aviation Act-Civil Aviation Order Part 105-Amendments, dated 6 and 10 October 1988. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 194) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 October 1987: In relation to (a) his Department and (b) the former Department of Defence Support, in each year since 1984-85 what was the following: (i) Total number of employees; (ii) Total number of employees receiving workers' compensation payments; (iii) Gross expenditure on workers' compensation payments; (iv) Value of average compensation claim; and (v) Number of compensation cases as a percentage of total employees. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department of Defence Support was abolished in 1984 and its staff integrated into Department of Defence. Information for the years in question is for the Department as a whole; no separate information in relation to the elements of the former Department of Defence Support is available. My Department is unable to provide, without substantial effort, the precise number of employees receiving compensation payments because some employees lodge multiple claims, and the statistics on compensation maintained relate to claims lodged. As a guide, it is estimated that 20% of the claimants lodge two or more claims. Having regard to the above, the answer to the honourable member's question is as shown in the following table. Analysis of Compensation Expenditure 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 (i) Number of employees as defined by the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 ... 162,182 162,154 156,446 This figure includes members of the Australian Defence Force, Reservists, Cadets and Australian Public Servants. (ii) Number of cases where compensation payments were made ... 9 970 10,306 13,223 (iii) Gross expenditure on workers' compensation payments ... $33,217,802 $40,584,370 $45,073,448 (iv) Value of average compensation claim ... 3,332 3,938 3,409 (v) Number of compensation cases where payments were made as a percentage of total employees ... 6.15% 6.36% 8.45% (Question No. 293) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 21 October 1987: Will he provide a list of all child care centres, aged persons homes and hostels, disabled persons homes and hostels, homeless crisis centres, and other centres which receive Government assistance through his Department, by State and Territory. Dr Blewett —I have provided an answer to the honourable member's question. [The list provided for the honourable member is too lengthy to be published in Hansard. A copy of the list is filed in the Table Office of the House of Representatives where it may be read or a copy of it obtained.] (Questions Nos 908 to 924) Mr Miles asked the Ministers listed below, upon notice, on 21 April 1988: Does the Minister's Department or instrumentalities within the Minister's control have divisions, sections or units whose primary or major goal is to serve the aboriginal community; if so, for each entity, (a) what is its name, (b) what is its role, (c) when was it established, (d) what was its establishment budget and staff level and (e) what is its current budget and staffing levels. * 908 the Prime Minister * 909 the Attorney-General * 910 the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce * 911 the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications * 912 the Treasurer * 913 the Minister representing the Minister for Finance * 914 the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade * 915 the Minister for Industrial Relations * 916 the Minister for Employment, Education and Training * 917 the Minister for Defence * 918 the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy * 919 the Minister for Social Security * 920 the Minister for Administrative Services * 921 the Minister for Community Services and Health * 922 the Minister for Trade Negotiations * 923 the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories * 924 the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Mr Hand —I provide the following answer to the honourable member's question on behalf of all the Ministers listed: * 908 No Division, Section or unit of the Prime Minister's Department has the service of the Aboriginal community as its primary goal. * 909 The Attorney-General's Portfolio contains a number of specialist areas that serve both wide and specific interests of the Aboriginal community. However, these services are not primarily aimed at the Aboriginal community. The Australian Federal Police have, however, appointed a Police Liaison Officer to the Aboriginal communities at Jervis Bay and the A.C.T. (b) The role of the liaison officer is to liaise with the Aboriginal communities with the view to helping Aboriginal/police relations. (c) December 1987 (d) The duties of the Police Liaison Officer are included in the overall duties within community policing responsibilities in the ACT. The officer is a Chief Inspector. (e) See (d) above * 910 No Division, Section or unit under the portfolio responsibility of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has the service of the Aboriginal community as a primary or major goal. * 911 No Division, Section or unit under the portfolio of the Minister of Transport and Communications has the service of Aboriginals as its major goal. * 912 Within the portfolio of the Treasurer, the Australia Bureau of Statistics has an Aboriginal Statistics Unit within its Demography, Labour and Social Division, the purpose of which is to improve the range of quality of statistics relating to the Aboriginal population. (a) The Aboriginal Statistics Unit (b) The development of statistics relating to the Aboriginal population (c) July 1985 (d) $87,000 in 1985/86, two officers (e) $95,00 (1987/88), two officers. The figures in (d) and (e) have been estimated from the officers' salaries plus an apportionment of overheads. * 913 No Division, Section or unit under the portfolio of the Minister for Finance has the service of Aboriginals as its major goal. * 914 The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islands Unit. (a) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islands Unit. (b) The unit's role is to help promote a greater understanding overseas of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Culture, within the Australia Abroad Cultural Relations Program. (c) It was established in 1987 (d) The unit's establishment level is one permanent officer at Administrative Services Officer Class 7 level and one seconded officer at Journalist A1 level. The Unit has no separate budget, its activities being spread across all country/regional programs. (e) The current establishment and activity levels are the same as at the time of establishment. * 915 No Division, Section or unit under the portfolio of the Minister for Industrial Relations has the service of Aboriginals as its major goal. * 916 Information in relation to the Department of Employment Education and Training will be provided at a later date. * 917 Within the Department of Defence and instrumentalities under the control of the Minister for Defence there are no divisions, sections or units whose primary or major goal is to serve the Aboriginal community. * 918 No Division Section or unit under the portfolio of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has the service of Aboriginals as its major goal. * 919 (a) The Department of Social Security has an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services Section (ATSIS) in its Central Office. The ATSIS Section is located in the Special Client Services Branch of the Benefits Delivery Division. There are small equivalent units in the Department's State offices. (b) The role of the ATSIS Section is detailed in the functional statement, detailed below. The Section advices the Minister and senior management of the Department on Social Security policy affecting Aboriginal people and administers a scheme of Aboriginal Liaison Officers in Regional Offices. ROLE, RESPONSIBILITIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER SERVICES SECTION 1. Develop policy, assess, evaluate and advise the Minister and senior management on all matters relating to the Department concerning Aboriginals, including programs administered and/or funded by the Department of Social Security covering programs specifically designed for Aboriginals as well as the access of Aboriginals to all programs. 2. Establish formal channels of communication and consultation with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and organisations representing the Aboriginal community, DSS Divisions and State offices, to ensure that DSS services are meeting the needs of Aboriginal clients. Monitor trends in Aboriginal communities and advise on matters relative to the changing needs and aspirations of Aboriginal people. 3. Undertake field trips to screen proposed projects and to oversight the progress and effectiveness of existing projects. 4. Represent the Department on Commonwealth/State working parties, departmental and interdepartmental committees and meetings relating to Aboriginal matters. 5. Provide advice and assistance on the training and the development of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal staff of the Department, other related agencies, institutions and Aboriginal organisations. Consult with the Department of Employment, Education and Training on training programs. 6. Establish and maintain liaison with the States/Territories, local government councils and voluntary agencies providing services for Aboriginals. 7. Administer a scheme of Aboriginal Liaison Officers to be attached to all State offices and selected Regional/District offices within the Department. 8. Advise on research proposals relating to Aboriginals, monitor trends in similar fields overseas, oversight the collation and analysis of information relating to relevant Aboriginal issues and disseminate such information to appropriate Departments and Agencies. * Reference to Aboriginals in the functional statement means Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. (c) A Section then known as the Aboriginal Welfare Unit was formally established in 1977 with a formal statement of its function by the then Minister for Social Security. (d) The unit was established with a staff of two-a Clerk Class 9 officer and a Clerk Class 6. The Unit's activities took place with existing income security and subsidy programs. It did not have a separate budget. (e) The current average staffing level of the Central Office Section is 4 with a salary cost of about $135,000 pa. Within the Department as a whole, there are some 100 positions (including the Central Office and State Offices) established for the primary purpose of providing service to the Aboriginal community. The total salary cost of these positions is $2.6 million pa. (approximately). * 920 No Division, Section or unit under the portfolio of the Minister for Administrative Services has the service of Aboriginals as its major goal. * 921 Within the Community Services and Health portfolio, there are units which have the primary goal of serving the Aboriginal Community. Information is provided separately on each of these. (a) (i) Aboriginal Health Section. (ii) Aboriginal Health Unit. (Australian Institute of Health) (iii) A unit with no special name located in the Special Services and Program Support Section. (b) (i) To provide policy and medical advice to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs on all aspects of Aboriginal health advancement. The section also has carriage of the Department of Community Services and Health input to the development of a National Aboriginal Health Strategy with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, State and Territory Governments. (ii) To collect statistics, undertake research and provide information on Aboriginal health. (iii) To develop policy on, and administer programs for, child care services for Aboriginal children. (c) (i) 1973 (ii) 1985 (iii) In 1983-84, two previously identified Aboriginal positions were used to formally establish the unit. (d) (i) The budget was $86,262 (in 1973 dollars) and the staff level was: Assistant Director General (Level 1) Medical Officer Class 3 Medical Officer Class 2 2 X Clerk Class 9 1 X Clerk Class 8 1 X Class 5 1 X Clerical Assistant Class 3 1 X Steno Secretary (Responsibility for Aboriginal health programs was transferred to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in December 1984). (ii) Establishment budget and staff level-$85,000; provision for two full time staff. (iii) The staffing level was two-costs were the salary and on-costs at 1983-84 figures of one Clerk Class 9 and one Clerk Class 6 (ASO 7 and ASO 5). (e) (i) The current staffing levels are: 1 x Senior Medical Officer Class 3 1 x Medical Officer Class 2 1 x Administrative Services Officer Class 8 (May-June 1988). The Department has provided two officers: 1 x Administrative Services Officer Class 8 1 x Administrative Services Officer Class 7 (May-June) to work on the development of the National Aboriginal health Strategy. The project 1987-88 budget was $188,619. (ii) Current budget and staff level-$125,000; three and a half full time equivalents. (iii) 1/3 ASO 7) 1 ASO 6) Staffing cost $77,260 (+ on-costs) 1 ASO 5) Program budget controlled by this sub-section approximately $8 million per annum. *922 The Minister for Trade Negotiations does not have responsibility for a separate Department of State. My response to Question 914 refers. *923 Within the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories Portfolio, there are units in the Australia Council, the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Australian Museum which have the primary goal of serving the Aboriginal community. Information is provided separately on each of these: Australia Council (a) Aboriginal Arts Board (b) The Aboriginal Arts Board defines its role in the following terms: to give Aboriginal people the means to control the development of their own forms of cultural expression to stimulate development in the arts where traditional cultural practices have been disrupted to assist the best professional work to emerge in theatre, dance, music, painting, craft and other arts among Aboriginal people to assist programs that increase participation by Aboriginals in arts activities and provide employment opportunities for Aboriginals in arts related occupations to develop programs designed to encourage the teaching and practice of Aboriginal culture to arrange cultural exchanges between Aboriginal people and the wider community to use exhibitions, publications and films for the education of the wider community in the value and quality of all aspects of Aboriginal art and culture to encourage a pride in and knowledge of Aboriginal culture among the wider community both in Australia and overseas. (c) 27 March 1975 (d) The establishment budget of the Aboriginal Arts Board was $451,039 and the ASL 8. (e) The current budget for the Aboriginal Arts Board is $3,044,547 with an ASL of 10. Festival of Pacific Arts Ltd (a) Festival of Pacific Arts Ltd. (b) the company's role, as set out in section 2 of its Memorandum of Association, is: to plan, arrange and conduct the 5th Festival of Pacific Arts which is to be held in Townsville, Australia, in 1988 to promote and stimulate interest in the Festival to seek sponsorship from various bodies for the Festival. (c) The company was incorporated on 11 March 1987. (d) The Commonwealth Government agreed to provide up to $4.8 million over the financial years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 to the Festival. The company had no staff from 11 March to 9 June 1987. An Interim Manager was made available by the then Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment to assist the company during this period. (e) See (d) above regarding funding of the company. The company's staff currently numbers 15 persons. Australian National Gallery (a) Department of Aboriginal Art. (b) The role of the Department is to acquire and display works of Aboriginal art. (c) November 1984. (d) The Department was originally established with a budget of $25,000 and an ASL of 1/2 person. (e) The current operational budget is $120,000, plus expenses of $150,000 for the purchase of works of art; the current ASL is 1. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (a) Aboriginal Liaison Unit. (b) the unit's role is: to develop a special Aboriginal Contracting Employment Program for work in Australian national parks and nature conservation areas. to develop jointly with the Department of Employment, Education and Training, recruitment training and career development strategies to increase Aboriginal involvement in nature conservation activities. (c) Early 1987. (d) No separate budget was allocated at the time of establishment; there was an ASL of 2. (e) The current budget is $420,000 with an ASL of 2. National Museum of Australia (a) Gallery of Aboriginal Australia. (b) The role of the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia is defined in section 5 of the National Museum of Australia Act 1980 as follows: ``5. (1) There shall be a Gallery of Aboriginal Australia, which shall form part of the Museum. (2) The Gallery shall consist of: (a) a collection of historical material owned by the Museum that relates to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, and (b) the land and premises used in connection with the exhibition of that material. (3) Nothing in sub-section (2) prevents the exhibition in the Gallery of historical material relating to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders that is in the possession of the Museum otherwise than as part of the national historical collection. (4) In the performance of its functions in relation to the Gallery, the Council shall pursue a policy directed towards securing, under the Council, the development and maintenance of the Gallery, and the exhibition of historical material referred to in sub-sections (2) and (3), by persons who are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders.'' (c) 8 September 1980. (d) On its establishment, no separate budget or staff allocation was identified for the Gallery. (e) The current budget for the Gallery is not separately identified but is part of the budget for the Collections Management Division of the Museum. The current ASL is 3 (including 1 staff member absent on a full time Aboriginal Study Award). * 924 No Division, Section or Unit within the portfolio of the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs has the service of Aboriginals as its major role. (Question No. 1096) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 August 1988: (1) What was the cost of the national opinion poll commissioned by his Department on the Child Support Scheme. (2) What did this poll reveal. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A national survey of 1,200 people (18 years and over) was conducted for the Department of Social Security late in April and early in May in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth by The Market Research Workshop and Quadrant Research Services. To reduce costs, the survey formed part of a wider, regular ``omnibus'' survey by Quadrant. The cost of the survey was $23,287.50. (2) The major findings were: 91% of respondents supported the Child Support Scheme's compulsory maintenance collection, 61% describing the scheme as ``a very good idea'' and 30% as ``quite a good idea''. Only 6% were opposed. 86% supported the collection of child maintenance by automatic deductions from the pay of the non-custodial parent. Only 2% were concerned about possible inconvenience for employers. 82% supported recent amendments to the Family Law Act under the Child Support Scheme increasing the levels of child maintenance ordered by the courts. 94% agreed that both parents should provide adequate financial support for their children after a marriage or relationship breaks down. 93% said the parents-and not the taxpayer who pays for Social Security pensions and benefits-should be responsible for supporting the children after a marriage or relationship breaks down. 79% supported the idea of custodial parents who receive an income-tested sole parent pension being asked to use the new child maintenance collection system (for some, this is now compulsory). 78% supported the present laws under which each parent's right of access to their children depends on what is considered best for the children and not on whether child maintenance is paid. These very high levels of support for the Child Support Scheme were subsequently confirmed by an independent public attitude survey commissioned by the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age shortly after the Scheme began in June. (Question No. 1133) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 24 August 1988: (1) How many hard cover copies of update electoral rolls will be printed by the Australian Electoral Commission for each electorate. (2) How many hard cover copies of the electoral roll will be made available to each Member of the House of Representatives. (3) How many copies of hard cover updated electoral rolls for each State will be made available to each Senator. (4) To which Government departments, instrumentalities or private individuals will hard cover updated electoral rolls be issued and how many will each receive. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Electoral Commission has advised that approximately 200 copies of the roll for each Division will be printed with the light cardboard binding in mid-1989. (2) and (3) One copy of the roll of the Member's Division for each Member of the House of Representatives and one copy of the roll for the Senator's State/Territory for each Senator. On the other hand if clause 32 of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1988 has then been passed the number will be increased to five. (4) Each Parliamentary and National/State Library and the Australian High Commission, London one set for all Divisions. The Registrars-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages one set for the State/Territory concerned. Australian Archives two sets for all Divisions. Each registered political party receives one set for all Divisions in each State or Territory in which it operates. (Question No. 1167) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, upon notice, on 31 August 1988: (1) What percentage of nursing homes in each State have all fees covered by the present Commonwealth benefits payable, in addition to 87.5% of residents' pensions and rent assistance. (2) Is the percentage of beds covered by this arrangement in South Australia more or less than other States; if so, (a) how does the South Australian situation arise and (b) does the Government propose to change the arrangements to overcome this inequity. (3) Is this situation regarded as transitional; if so, what will the transition period be. (4) Are there hardship arrangements to assist those residents and their families who cannot meet the cost; if so, what are they. (5) If there are no hardship arrangements, why not. (6) What would be the cost of lifting the benefits freeze in South Australia. (7) Has the Government received representations from organisations on this matter; if so, what organisations have made representations and what has been the Government's response. Mr Staples —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The percentage of non-Government nursing home beds covered by Commonwealth benefits and 87.5% of the maximum single rate pension plus rent assistance is: New South Wales/Australian Capital Territory ... 77% Victoria ... 61.5% Queensland ... 80% Western Australia ... 77% South Australia/Northern Territory ... 70.5% Tasmania ... 87.5% (2) The percentage of bed coverage is greater than in Victoria and less than in other States. (a) The percentage varies between States because of two factors: (i) the proportion of transferred nursing home beds where residents pay 87.5% of the maximum single rate pension plus rent assistance varies between States (South Australia has the second highest proportion of transferred nursing home beds); and (ii) the lower coverage level used in setting the benefit level for South Australia since 1986 for participating nursing homes. (b) The Commonwealth `benefit' level in South Australia for participating nursing homes is the second highest in Australia after Victoria. In 1987-88, the average Commonwealth benefit payments in South Australia per resident in non-Government nursing homes were about $20,350, compared with a national average of about $18,130. In addition, per-capita 1987-88 Commonwealth expenditure on aged residential care in South Australia is the highest of any State and is approximately 18.5% higher than the national average. Currently, residents in nursing homes in South Australia receive a disproportionately high share of Commonwealth outlays on aged residential care. In view of this situation, the Government does not propose to change the current benefit arrangements. (3) Yes. The new funding arrangements introduced on 1 July 1988 are intended to eliminate, by July 1991, the requirement that nursing home residents make payments in excess of 87.5% of the maximum single rate pension plus rent assistance. All nursing home residents in all States (except those residents in exempt homes) will, when the new arrangements are fully introduced, have the same level of resident fee. (4) No. (5) As stated in (3) above, the new funding arrangements will progressively reduce and, by July 1991, eliminate the requirement for any nursing home resident (except those residents in exempt homes) to pay fees in excess of 87.5% of the maximum single rate pension plus rent assistance. Under the previous nursing home funding arrangements, a percentage of residents were always required to pay more than 87.5% of the maximum single rate pension plus rent assistance. This percentage increased during the year prior to the annual benefit review and the additional amounts residents were required to pay could increase as nursing home fees increased. (6) $1.3 million in 1988-89. (7) Yes. Representations have been received from the Nursing Homes' Association of South Australia and the South Australian Council of the Ageing through Members of Parliament. The Government's response has been along the lines of the answer to this question. (Question No. 1013) Mr Porter asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 23 May 1988: (1) Subsequent to 1 July 1987, for how many officers has the Minister's Department provided written advice of the kind specified in paragraph 6 (b) of the Australian Public Service Redeployment (Redundancy) Award 1987 to the relevant unions that those officers were redundant or potentially redundant. (2) How many officers have been invited to submit elections of retrenchment by the Secretary of the Minister's Department. (3) How many officers within or formerly within the Minister's Department have received formal advice that they are excess to capacity. (4) How many notices to excess officers required under subsection 76W (1) has the Secretary of the Minister's Department issued in the case of notices of (a) reduction in classification with the consent, (b) reduction in classification without consent, (c) retirement with consent and (d) retirement without consent. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No officer of the Minister's Department has been provided with written advice of the kind specified in paragraph 6 (b) of the Australian Public Service Redeployment (Redundancy) Act Award 1987. (2) No officers of the Minister's Department have been invited to submit elections of retrenchment. (3) No officers within the Minister's Department have received formal advice that they are excess to capacity. (4) No notices to excess officers have been issued by the Secretary of the Minister's Department under Section 76W (1). (Question No. 1154) Mr Nehl asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 29 August 1988: (1) What was the total cost of producing the 1988 departmental publication `Guide to appropriate use of terminology employed in the context of immigration, multiculturalism and ethnic affairs'. (2) How many copies of the booklet have been printed. (3) Who is the author of the publication. (4) To how many organisations and individuals was the publication distributed. (5) What types of organisations received a copy of the booklet. (6) Why is there a need for such a publication. (7) What were his reasons for approving the publication of the booklet. (8) Are Departments and instrumentalities expected to use the publication. (9) Are the definitions contained in the publication expected to be binding on the application of terminology in documents and other correspondence between Departments. Mr Holding —The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The cost of publishing the 1988 departmental publication `Guide to appropriate use of terminology employed in the context of immigration, multiculturalism and ethnic affairs' was $8,180. (2) 3000 copies of this publication were produced. (3) National Population Council. (4) To date, approximately 400 organisations and individuals have received either one copy or multiple copies of the publication for distribution within their organisation. A wider circulation is proceeding. (5) Federal Members of Parliament DILGEA Departmental Executives National Population Council members State Ethnic Affairs Authorities Ethnic Community Associations Welfare Groups Migrant Resource Centres Media outlets Commonwealth Departments Members of the wider community on request (6) There exists an element of confusion and inconsistency in the use of language describing immigration, ethnic affairs and multicultural issues. This inconsistency often leads to misunderstandings. The Guide is intended to alert communicators in the area of immigration, multicultural and ethnic affairs to the prevailing ways in which terms are used and interpreted. (7) The Guide was produced under the auspices of the National Population Council and was not initiated by the Minister. (8) Refer to answer (6). (9) No. (Question No. 1172) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 1 September 1988: Is he able to say which International Labour Organisation Conventions have been applied by France, Britain and the United States to the non-metropolitan territories in the Pacific for whose international relations they are responsible, including any trust territories for which they are the administering authority. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Constitution of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) establishes a mechanism under which a Member Country is obliged, subject to certain limited exceptions, to apply ILO Conventions which it ratifies to non-metropolitan territories for which it is responsible. Article 35 (1) of the Constitution imposes the following obligation on Members: ``The Members undertake that conventions which they have ratified in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution shall be applied to the non-metropolitan territories for whose international relations they are responsible, including any trust territories for which they are the administering authority, except where the subject-matter of the Convention is within the self-governing powers of the territory or the Convention is inapplicable owing to the local conditions or subject to such modifications as may be necessary to adapt the Convention to local conditions.'' Under Article 35 (2), a Member is required to declare the extent to which it undertakes that the provisions of a Convention which it has ratified are to be applied to a non-metropolitan territory (except where the subject matter is within the self-governing powers of such a territory). Table 1 below lists the Conventions which have been declared applicable by France, the United Kingdom and the United States of America to relevant non-metropolitan territories of the Pacific. Table 2 below gives the titles of the conventions concerned. Table 1 ILO Conventions-Declarations with Respect to Non-Metropolitan Territories in the Pacific Region made by France, United Kingdom and the United States of America as at 1 September 1988 FRANCE French Polynesia Applicable without modification: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 63, 69, 71, 73, 77, 78, 81, 84, 85, 87, 88, 91, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 105, 106, 108, 111, 115, 120, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 129, 131, 141, 142, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149 Applicable with modification: 3, 82 New Caledonia Applicable without modification: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 63, 69, 71, 73, 77, 78, 81, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 91, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 105, 106, 108, 111, 115, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 131, 141, 142, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149 Applicable with modification: 3, 82 UNITED KINGDOM Hong Kong Applicable without modification: 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 22, 26, 29, 32, 42, 45, 50, 58, 64, 65, 74, 81, 84, 85, 94, 97, 98, 105, 108, 115, 122, 124, 151 Applicable with modification: 3, 10, 14, 17, 59, 63, 82, 86, 87, 90, 92, 101, 133, 141, 142, 144, 147, 148, 150 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA American Samoa Applicable without modification: 53, 54, 55, 57, 58 Guam Applicable without modification: 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 74 Pacific Islands (Trust Territory) Applicable without modification: 53 Table 2 TITLES OF ILO CONVENTIONS REFERRED TO IN TABLE 1 No. Convention title 1 Hours of Work (Industry), 1919 2 Unemployment, 1919 3 Maternity Protection, 1919 4 Night Work (Women), 1919 5 Minimum Age (Industry), 1919 6 Night Work of Young Persons (Industry), 1919 7 Minimum Age (Sea), 1920 8 Unemployment Indemnity (Shipwreck), 1920 9 Placing of Seamen, 1920 10 Minimum Age (Agriculture), 1921 11 Right of Association (Agriculture), 1921 12 Workmen's Compensation (Agriculture), 1921 13 White Lead (Painting), 1921 14 Weekly Rest (Industry), 1921 15 Minimum Age (Trimmers and Stokers), 1921 16 Medical Examination of Young Persons (Sea), 1921 17 Workmen's Compensation (Accidents), 1925 18 Workmen's Compensation (Occupational Diseases), 1925 19 Equality of Treatment (Accident Compensation), 1925 22 Seamen's Articles of Agreement, 1926 23 Repatriation of Seamen, 1926 24 Sickness Insurance (Industry), 1927 26 Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery, 1928 29 Forced Labour, 1930 32 Protection against Accidents (Dockers) (Revised), 1932 33 Minimum Age (Non-Industrial Employment), 1932 35 Old-Age Insurance (Industry, etc), 1933 36 Old-Age Insurance (Agriculture), 1933 37 Invalidity Insurance (Industry, etc), 1933 38 Invalidity Insurance (Agriculture), 1933 41 Night Work (Women) (Revised), 1934 42 Workmen's Compensation (Occupational Diseases) (Revised), 1934 43 Sheet-Glass Works, 1934 44 Unemployment Provision, 1934 45 Underground Work (Women), 1935 49 Reduction of Hours of Work (Glass-Bottle Works), 1935 50 Recruiting of Indigenous Workers, 1936 52 Holidays with Pay, 1936 53 Officers' Competency Certificates, 1936 54 Holidays with Pay (Sea), 1936 55 Shipowners' Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen), 1936 56 Sickness Insurance (Sea), 1936 57 Hours of Work and Manning (Sea), 1936 58 Minimum Age (Sea) (Revised), 1936 59 Minimum Aged (Industry) (Revised), 1937 63 Statistics of Wages and Hours of Work, 1938 64 Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers), 1939 65 Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers), 1939 69 Certification of Ships' Cooks, 1946 71 Seafarers' Pensions, 1946 73 Medical Examination (Seafarers), 1946 74 Certification of Able Seamen, 1946 77 Medical Examination of Young Persons (Industry), 1946 78 Medical Examination of Young Persons (Non-Industrial Occupations), 1946 81 Labour Inspection, 1947 82 Social Policy (Non-Metropolitan Territories), 1947 84 Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories), 1947 85 Labour Inspectorates (Non-Metropolitan Territories), 1947 86 Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers), 1947 87 Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, 1948 88 Employment Service, 1948 89 Night Work (Women) (Revised), 1948 90 Night Work of Young Persons (Industry) (Revised), 1948 91 Paid Vacations (Seafarers) (Revised), 1949 92 Accommodation of Crews (Revised), 1949 94 Labour Clauses (Public Contracts), 1949 95 Protection of Wages, 1949 96 Fee-Charging Employment Agencies (Revised), 1949 97 Migration for Employment (Revised), 1949 98 Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining, 1949 99 Minimum Wage Fixing Machinery (Agriculture) 1951 100 Equal Remuneration, 1951 101 Holidays with Pay (Agriculture), 1952 105 Abolition of Forced Labour, 1957 106 Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices), 1957 108 Seafarers' Identity Documents, 1958 111 Discrimination (Employment and Occupation), 1958 115 Radiation Protection, 1960 120 Hygiene (Commerce and Offices), 1964 122 Employment Policy, 1964 123 Minimum Age (Underground Work), 1965 124 Medical Examination of Young Persons (Underground Work), 1965 125 Fishermen's Competency Certificates, 1966 126 Accommodation of Crews (Fishermen), 1966 127 Maximum Weight, 1967 129 Labour Inspection (Agriculture), 1969 131 Minimum Wage Fixing, 1970 133 Accommodation of Crews (Supplementary Provisions), 1970 141 Rural Workers' Organisations, 1975 142 Human Resources Development, 1975 144 Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards), 1976 145 Continuity of Employment (Seafarers), 1976 146 Seafarers' Annual Leave with Pay, 1976 147 Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards), 1976 148 Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration), 1977 149 Nursing Personnel, 1977 150 Labour Administration, 1978 151 Labour Relations (Public Service), 1978