Thursday, 3 November 1988 Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Leo McLeay) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens showeth: that your petitioners deplore the Federal Government's decision to remove 53 Pharmaceutical drugs from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme including the best available for the treatment of high blood pressure, cancer, epilepsy, high cholesterol and uneven heartbeat-and place them for cost saving reasons only on a special list requiring Authority from a Canberra bureaucrat, and; that we believe a patient's doctor is clearly the best judge for medication needed for their particular illness and that it is therefore wrong and unfair to force that doctor to seek permission from a bureaucrat in Canberra who has no personal knowledge of that case. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call on the Government to immediately abandon the proposal and keep its election promise of high quality and universal health care for all Australians. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Aldred (from 81 citizens), Mr Andrew (from 230 citizens), Mr Beale (from three citizens), Mr Beazley (from 54 citizens), Mr Robert Brown (from 81 citizens), Mr Burr (from 120 citizens), Mr Donald Cameron (from 196 citizens), Mr Ian Cameron (from 83 citizens), Mr Charles (from 83 citizens), Dr Charlesworth (from 81 citizens), Mr Cohen (from 27 citizens), Ms Crawford (from 71 citizens), Mr Cross (from 27 citizens), Dr Harry Edwards (from 51 citizens), Ms Fatin (from 135 citizens), Mr Fitzgibbon (from 107 citizens), Mr Howard (from 28 citizens), Mr Kerr (from 72 citizens), Mr Lindsay (from 54 citizens), Mr Lloyd (from 27 citizens), Mr MacKellar (from 49 citizens), Mr Mildren (from five citizens), Mr Millar (from 271 citizens), Mr Mountford (from 334 citizens), Mr Porter (from 25 citizens), Mr Pratt (from 350 citizens), Mr Rocher (from 61 citizens), Mr John Scott (from 13 citizens), Mr Les Scott (from 81 citizens), Mr Shack (from 66 citizens), Mr Simmons (from 194 citizens), Mr Sinclair (from 27 citizens), Mr Snow (from 621 citizens), Mr Spender (from 24 citizens), Mrs Sullivan (from 54 citizens), Mr White (from 189 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whilst acknowledging the Government's desire to contain the growth in health costs, the introduction of 61 new drugs to the `Authority Required' listing will result in potentially serious delays in patients receiving medication prescribed by their doctors. Your petitioners request the House to immediately reverse the Government's decision and withdraw these drugs from the `Authorities Required' list. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Charles (from 81 citizens), Mr Cobb (from 79 citizens), Mr Scholes (from 108 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of citizens of Australia points out to the House that the ACT Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 has legalised the screening of blasphemy, indecency, and obscenity. Because Parliament has traditionally respected the beliefs of its people, your petitioners therefore request that the House: 1. retain section 13 of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations as is; 2. control all censorship criteria and guidelines by substantive legislation; 3. give earnest consideration to these matters, in order that no Attorney-General shall ever again have the power to change our social and home environment for generations to come, without full and thorough debate in both Houses of Parliament. by Dr Charlesworth (from 44 citizens), Mr Courtice (from 11 citizens) and Mr Shack (from 124 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of citizens of Australia points out to the House that the ACT Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 has: degraded men; lowered the status of women; affected the safety of children; and escalated crime including sexual crime. Because the Parliament has a role to play in the well-being of the people of this Nation, your petitioners therefore request that the House: 1. not adopt a Non-Violent Erotica (NVE) Video classification; 2. not permit NVE in cinemas; 3. retain section 13 of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations as it is; 4. control all Censorship criteria by substantive legislation; and 5. give earnest consideration to these matters, in order that no Attorney General shall ever again have the power to change our social and home environment for generations to come, without thorough and full debate in both Houses of Parliament. by Mr Les Scott (from 42 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: We are gravely concerned at the Government's proposal to reduce significantly the pension and access to fringe benefits to persons who in good faith bought market linked insurance bonds, friendly society bonds, approved deposit funds, deferred annuities and unit trusts to protect their savings. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, amend the proposed legislation to ensure that it will not apply retrospectively and that provision is made to protect savings against inflation. by Mr Cowan (from 20 citizens), Mr Lloyd (from 51 citizens) and Mr Pratt (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the surveys of the Australian Bureau of Statistics represent: 1. an unnecessary demand on the time of certain Australians; 2. an intrusion in to the private affairs of individuals and families; and 3. excessive penalties for non-compliance. Your petitioners therefore request that the House take action to pass legislation making government statistical surveys voluntary and to ensure the protection of the privacy of Australians from government departments and authorities. by Mr Andrew (from 122 citizens) and Mr Rocher (from six citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that there is too much crime and violence on Television and this is breaking down the standards and codes of behaviour in our society. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to call on the Federal Government to require Television Stations to improve the standards of shows, news and current affairs programmes by reducing the incidence of crime and violence broadcast every day into people's homes. by Mr Burr (from 105 citizens) and Mrs Sullivan (from 1,131 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia within Western Australia shows: That the management of the affairs of the Spastic Welfare Association of Western Australia Incorporated is a matter of grave concern for the following reasons: (a) The active involvement beyond normal duties of senior members of the staff in the organisation of a Special General Meeting to remove certain Board Members from the Board of Directors. (b) The subsequent appointment of replacement Board Members, the expulsion of a Member of the Association and the actions taken to reverse the positive moves made to bring the Association into line with the Government's `New Directions' policy for disabled persons. (c) The financial management of the Association, in that the needs of the disabled Members of the Association are treated as of secondary importance. Your petitioners therefore pray that an Independent Enquiry be appointed to investigate and report on the Administrative and Financial Management of the Spastic Welfare Association of Western Australia (Incorporated). by Mr Beazley (from 622 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The Petition of citizens of Botany Municipality and surrounds. Respectfully showeth our concerns about possible changes relating to the Kingsford-Smith Airport, which will seriously affect our lifestyles in regard to noise pollution, road traffic and safety. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House allow: no lifting or decreasing of curfew hours, no additional runways at Kingsford- Smith Airport, no increase of size of semitrailers servicing the airport, work on a second airport to commence immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lionel Bowen (from 1,603 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia wish to express their absolute opposition to the Privatisation and Deregulation of the Australian Telecommunications Industry. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House will take the necessary steps to ensure:- That Telecom's social responsibilities are preserved and extended and adequately funded. That the telephone service is accessible and affordable to all. The maintenance of public ownership and control of telecommunications services in Australia. That Telecom consumer's rights are respected by the establishment of mechanisms whereby their grievances can be adequately represented. Especially domestic, small business and socially disadvantaged people within the community. Also, your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will reject current proposals to:- Impose State and Local charges and taxes on Telecom. Alter the legal status, employment conditions and organisation of Telecom from a public sector service provider to a commercial corporation. Take away Telecom's regulatory function and place this with a new body called Austel. Remove Telecom's ``Buy Australia'' policy, thus threatening local manufacturing. by Mr Burr (from 26 citizens). To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron (from 1,904 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Indi electorate respectfully showeth that: Australians living in rural and non-urban areas rely to a great degree on the local road network for all facets of their lives. Funding for roads is an essential part of the Commonwealth's responsibilities for the maintenance of the transport infrastructure. Road funding under the Hawke Government has decreased significantly in real terms and local government is particularly disadvantaged by this decline. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled urge the Government to: Immediately address the serious problem of a rapidly deteriorating road network which is confronting local government by allocating more resources, along with State Governments, to local road funding. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron (from 300 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that we are concerned with the implementation and interpretation of the Disability Services Act 1986. We therefore humbly request that Parliament takes necessary action to: (1) Halt implementation of the Act until 1 July, 1989. (2) Ensure that prior to 1 July, 1989, formal agreement be reached by the Department of Community Services and Health and appropriate Peak Councils on eligible services, including definition of services and identification of client groups. (3) Ensure that prior to 1 July, 1989, formal agreement be reached by the Department of Community Services and Health and appropriate Peak Councils on funding formulae for eligible services. (4) In the interim, funding to services approved under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974 continue to apply to staff salaries, equipment and maintenance items. by Mr Ian Cameron (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned: Note that a majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material has strongly opposed the proposition that a new NVE category will contain that material as defined in the current `X' classification. Call upon the House of Representatives to request the Government immediately to implement the recommendation of the majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material by introducing substantive legislation to ensure that X-rated video material (and its R-rated equivalent) is refused classification for the purpose of Commonwealth laws. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Charles (from 2,155 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement on civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Charlesworth (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The subject of Immigration is of deep concern, and supports the following significant community views placed before the FitzGerald Committee on Immigration: (1) That Asians accounting for 40% of the total migrant intake is viewed with considerable concern by the Australian people; (2) The Anglo-Australian sense of superiority of their culture previously manifest in the policy of assimilation remains a significant factor in the community and should be taken into account as the wishes of the people on this important matter; (3) It is a matter of concern that 43% of one million of those residentially qualified migrants to take out citizenship have not done so; (4) It is a major recommendation that the Federal Government consult the Australian people by Referendum on the subject of Asian immigration, and then affirm its commitment to the immigration policies which conform to the general wishes of the majority of the people, and should be recognised by the Government as such. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Protect our National Identity, and preserve the Australian way of life. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan (from 108 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives, in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that there is widespread concern by farmers and consumers about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should: (1) block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia; (2) ban the import of Cobalt-60 and Caesium-137 and Caesium-134 to be used to irradiate food products; (3) ban the import of all machinery used for food irradiation (electron beam, X-ray etc.); (4) ban the importation and sale of irradiated food in Australia; and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cross (from 211 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt-60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to irradiation. We call on the House to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt-60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Kent (from 126 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully draws to the attention of the House: that the activities of the Soviet Union in our region and in particular the South Pacific are detrimental to and threaten the security of our country. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House: urge the Government not to enter into a fishing agreement with the Soviet Union. by Mr Hunt (from 13 citizens). The Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We the undersigned, are appalled that the Rumanian Government plans the commencement of the destruction in September of 7,000 villages, hundreds of thousands of peaceful homes and homesteads, thousands of churches, historic monuments and cemeteries. With this barbaric action millions of people will be disadvantaged, even sent to their death with these totalitarian actions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give these matters earnest consideration and request the Rumanian Government to abandon these horrific acts against the Rumanian community and its minorities. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we most strongly oppose the process of `food irradiation' by Cobalt-60, caesium-137, caesium-134 or any machine sources. That we oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process being permitted in Australia. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Parliament ban the importation of any radioactive substances or machinery for the purposes of food irradiation, disallow regulations permitting the irradiation of food in this country, and ban the irradiation of food in this country, and also ban the importation of food treated by irradiation. We also call upon the parliament to advise the Federal Government to withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kerr (from 156 citizens). The humble petition of citizens of the Australian Capital Territory and surrounding districts respectfully showeth- 1. The Arbitration inspectorate is established to secure the enforcement of awards and agreements of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. 2. Without this inspection service many employees, particularly those who are young or not members of trade unions would have no adequate means of securing their legal entitlements to award wages and conditions. Employers who are not members of employer organisations would have inadequate information as to their obligations to their employees. 3. Any reduction in the staff numbers of the ACT office of the inspectorate or the erosion of its independence would: (a) severely curtail the activities of this office, especially the provision of advice and information on awards and employment conditions by the inspectors; and (b) leave the ACT inadequately serviced particularly as the Territory moves towards self-government. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: 1. No reduction be made to staff numbers in the ACT office of the Arbitration inspectorate. 2. All available positions for inspectors be filled. 3. The ACT office be an independent Regional Office of the Department of Industrial Relations headed by an officer of the level of Chief Inspector as is currently the case. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore (from 80 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House. That the Australian Parliament expresses its repugnance that the Socialist Republic of Vietnam has kept imprisoned, 47 Buddhist leaders since 1984. And further, that the regime in Vietnam has recently tried and sentenced to death: Thich Tri Sieu and Thich Tue Sy, two distinguished scholars from amongst the 47. Both of these religious academics are intellectuals of the higher order, being scholars in Buddhist Scripture. Your petitioners therefore request the House to denounce the intentions of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and to call on the Vietnamese Government for clemency and a remission of the death sentence as being barbaric. by Mr Mountford (from two citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of Parliament assembled, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: 1. That we are extremely concerned over the discovery of the bacteria Listeria Monocytogenes in imported cheese found in Australia. The bacteria has been identified with deaths in America and Switzerland and can cause abortion in pregnant women, meningitis and perinatal septicaemia in newborn infants. 2. That the work of the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in sample testing and analysis of food products has been severely reduced due to ill considered budget cutbacks. 3. That the Public interest function of A.G.A.L. have been put in jeopardy through these budget cutbacks and through a failure to establish a compulsory programme of regular testing of both imported and domestic food products. Your petitioners therefore call on the House to- (a) Give the highest priority to establishing the Public interest functions of the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories. (b) Require the Departments of Primary Industry and Energy and Health to put in place a regular compulsory programme of analysis and testing of food products, both imported and domestic. (c) Require that such testing be conducted through the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories. by Mr John Scott (from 11 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens in Australia, draws to the attention of the House that the irradiation of food by any means degrades the nutritional value of food and is potentially harmful to the health of all consumers and to the environment. Your petitioners therefore request that your honourable House: 1. Withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and from the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. 2. Take all possible steps to prevent and disallow the irradiation of food in Australia. 3. Ban the export and importation of irradiated foods and animal feeds. 4. Take steps to obtain a testing device to make possible the identification of irradiated foods, as soon as one becomes available. by Mr John Scott (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The following Amateur Recreational Fishermen and Women and others formally make a strong protest against the activities of the Foreign Longliners in Australian waters. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Closely monitor the activities of these foreign longliners so that the Australian fishing industry is in no way affected by their presence. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Sinclair (from 75 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of the Division of Moncrieff draws to the attention of the House the absence of a Medicare facility in the Runaway Bay and Helensvale districts. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urgently look into establishing a Medicare facility as soon as is possible. by Mrs Sullivan (from 29 citizens). Petitions received. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(10.07) —On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs I present the interim report of the Committee entitled The Effectiveness of the Support Services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Communities, together with the minutes of the proceedings and evidence received by the Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr BLANCHARD —I am pleased to present to the House the interim report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs on the effectiveness of support services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The report reports on progress the Committee had made so far in the inquiry. In part the report is about the need seen by the Committee for a change in direction in the inquiry but it also points to major problems identified in the effectiveness of support services. The inquiry's terms of reference were very broad and this has created difficulties for the Committee in dealing in detail with the wide range of issues that have been raised. The Committee has therefore decided to divide its reference into four areas that will be dealt with progressively and reported on separately. The report expands on the reasons for this change of direction and the four areas of the future inquiry. While the breadth of the terms of reference has been a problem, it has also been salutary for the Committee. It has demonstrated the depth of basic needs that still remain in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Addressing these basic needs is not directly a matter for the Committee under its terms of reference but it is one that I highlight now to the House and suggest the importance of continued Government action to meet these needs. The report discusses the context of service delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. It concludes that the process of service delivery has become complex with the involvement of a large number of players at all levels of government. The often identified problem of lack of coordination and cooperation in the policies espoused by differing levels of government and in the funding of programs continues to be a major area of concern. The Committee will address ways of improving the situation in its future areas of inquiry. Aboriginal policies are expressed by all governments as involving Aboriginal self-determination and self-management. However, it is evident that Aboriginal people have not been given the control for the services provided to them that would be commensurate with these policies. Far from communities being in control of services provided, the services are often imposed, and are not meeting the urgent needs of communities. Catering to Aboriginal needs in the areas of support services and giving Aboriginal people effective control is not easy. Certainly a greater coordination between government and other agencies and a greater degree of cooperation with those Aboriginal organisations involved in providing services will assist. But attention must also be paid to the authority and management capacity of the Aboriginal community organisations which are the mechanisms for providing support services. The structures through which Aboriginal people run their communities have largely been imposed. Often they do not fit well with traditional values and culture while also lacking status and recognition within non-Aboriginal institutions of government. Aboriginal people need a much greater say in these structures so that they are more compatible with Aboriginal values and are more representative as organisations. Aboriginal community organisations are also often poorly resourced in both financial and human terms. As a generalisation, the quality of staff involved in Aboriginal community organisations is inadequate. Commitment is often evident, but professionalism is less so. But I would like to add that there are many people involved in this area who are very dedicated and work very effectively. Education and training for community management assume great importance. In particular, efforts to train and recruit Aboriginal people to the management and administrative positions in their own communities and organisations are of prime importance. To date the efforts in this direction have been inadequate and irrelevant. The issues I have just outlined summarise the Committee's findings. These will be matters that will be pursued in future inquiries on this reference. I hope to be able to report to the House next year with positive recommendations to address the problems I have outlined above. Before I close, I wish to pay tribute to my fellow members of the Committee, who have worked very harmoniously. It is one of those rare committees representative of all parties where the members speak freely and frankly, but at the end there is a degree of unanimity about what we want to do and what we would like to see done. In particular, I pay tribute to the Deputy Chairman, Mr Chris Miles, who unfortunately could not be here today, and to the other members of the Committee, including Mr Andrews, who was on the Committee at the time this report was prepared, Mr Ian Cameron, Mr Campbell, Mr Connolly, Mr Cross, Mr Gayler, Mr Snowdon and Mr Tickner. I would also like to pay tribute to the secretariat and in particular to the Secretary to the Committee, Mr David Elder, who is in the House today, and also to the staff-Peter Stephens, Wynne Allen, Clare Brien and Peter Ratos. As I said earlier, this Committee has worked well together. We look forward to presenting a fuller report to this House in the near future. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(10.14) -On behalf of the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), who unfortunately is not with us today but is lucky enough to be in America, I second the interim report, The Effectiveness of the Support Services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Communities. On behalf of the Opposition members on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, I thank the staff very much. I point out that Mrs Wynne Allen is of Aboriginal descent. It is very good to have attached to the Committee somebody who really knows what she is talking about when it comes to the problems of Aborigines. The members of the Committee come from a wide spectrum of Australia. That is very important. The honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard), our Chairman, is from Western Australia; the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Braddon, is from Tasmania; the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) is from South Australia; I am from Queensland; the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) is from Western Australia; the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) is from Sydney; the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) is from Queensland; the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) represents the Torres Strait islands and the north Queensland area, where there are many Aboriginal communities; the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon) has plenty of Aborigines in his electorate and has his hands full. He worked for the Central Land Council before becoming a member of parliament, so he obviously brings many skills to the Committee. The Committee also includes the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) from Sydney. He takes an urban type of interest in Aborigines but he puts on a haversack and a bush hat when he goes out into the bush and I think the Aborigines eventually accept him. The honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) has recently joined the Committee and he will obviously add his expertise. This inquiry was started some 18 months ago after we had an inquiry into the homelands lasting 18 months. After those trips we felt that the greatest need for Aboriginal people was properly trained advisers. Although Aborigines in rural Australia-we have to differentiate between urban Aborigines, who tend to group into a suburb, and rural Aborigines, who tend to group into communities-have self-management in most of their communities, not all of them have the skills to manage their communities properly. Many Europeans are still employed by the Aborigines because they feel that they need the skills that Europeans have to offer them. It was felt that many of these people were not adequately trained to carry out their tasks. I would go as far as to say that many Aborigines are better trained than some of the European advisers that I have run into in some of these communities. We decided to look at how effective these people were. Obviously, with the Aborigines themselves taking on more responsibilities, we also felt that they lacked training. Unfortunately, they live out in the bush and many of them have not had what we would term a proper education. They have obviously had a good education in bush ways; they are able to make fire with a couple of sticks and do all sorts of things that we cannot do. In some ways they are much better educated than we are. We always look at Aboriginal problems through European eyes, which is probably a bit of a pity. It is difficult for us to look at their problem through Aboriginal eyes. We go about our task very quietly, as we should. As a Committee we have been very effective in bringing about changes and helping the Government and the Ministry. Although we report to the Parliament, the relevant Minister receives the report and is meant to act on the suggestions that we put forward. Since 1980, when I became associated with the Standing Committee, we have seen some good changes within the Aboriginal communities throughout Australia. Nevertheless, once again, we are presently seeing all sorts of ructions. No doubt, when spending the amount of money available to this group of Australians-$800m or $900m-there is some waste. That does not apply only to Aborigines: we ought to understand that there is an awful lot of waste in any area of government expenditure. Telecom Australia is always a classic example, and I am going to speak about Telecom at lunchtime in the grievance debate. We have only to look at the way it operates. The number of trucks it needs to put down one post hole is pretty staggering. Obviously there is always room for improvement. We can never have sufficient education and we can never be well enough trained. The job of this Committee is to look at and recommend to the Government how we can effectively improve the training of these people. We found that the Committee's inquiry was too broad and we more or less had to call the meetings to a halt and put in an interim report and relook at where we were going. The Aborigines in these communities all have needs, as we do, and when we went there they poured out to us everything they needed, from swimming pools to gardens, from trucks to Toyotas-you name it. We felt we were being inundated by requests and that we had to get back to our particular brief, which was to look at training. There are a lot of good training programs in place, particularly those associated with the local government area. We have decided that the future direction the inquiry will take will be to look at the community management of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. I think the House should understand that the Torres Strait Islanders are a separate and different community. We are intending to go back to the Torres Strait to look at the Islanders' problems. I have already said that the education and training of community administrators is very important. There is a whole shaft of government advisory services, at both the Commonwealth and State levels. They number hundreds. This is totally confusing to these people who have never had to deal with so many public servants at once. I think Toomelah is a good example. I think about 23 different departments had to decide whether they would bituminise a road there. Consequently the roads never get bituminised because no-one wants to make a decision and one passes the problem on to the other. We feel there is room for improvement in streamlining the services given to these Australians. My final point is fairly close to my area of interest, and that is local government. I believe that in Queensland in particular, the State Government, my National Party Government, always gets buckets tipped on it for what it does not do, but I can assure honourable members that the Queensland Aborigines-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The time for the debate has expired. Mr IAN CAMERON —I am sorry, Mr Acting Speaker, I would like to close by-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr IAN CAMERON —thanking all the Committee members-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr IAN CAMERON —for their efforts. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Maranoa. Mr IAN CAMERON —We look forward to bringing back a concluded report. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Sit down. Mr IAN CAMERON —I am looking at the clock and my time is not up. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa and others in the chamber should be aware that the clocks do not indicate the time for the debate. The time for the debate is set by the Selection Committee and is indicated on the Notice Paper. The time for this debate expired at 10.22 a.m. It has nothing to do with the times that are allocated for speeches. Mr IAN CAMERON —I am sorry, Mr Acting Speaker. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(10.23) —I move: That this House notes with profound regret the financial crisis in the UN due principally to the arrears of the USA, and also the threat to the effectiveness of the World Bank posed by the failure of the US to ratify the General Capital Increase, and calls on the US Administration and Congress to swiftly authorise in full payment due to both the UN and the World Bank. The United Nations (UN) is going through a renaissance, at least in public recognition of the value of its work. UN mediation is centrally involved in defusing the conflicts between Iran and Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Angola. A UN military observer group is in place between the forces of Iran and Iraq to reinforce the cease-fire after their terrible eight-year war. A 50-member UN force, called the UN Good Offices Mission, in Afghanistan and Pakistan is observing the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan, and an agreement between the opposing forces in Angola is leading to a cease-fire which is likely to involve a large UN peacekeeping force, perhaps 7,000 strong. These three developments, all of which occurred about the middle of this year, have led some people to say that `peace is breaking out all over'. It would be fine if that were true, but it is a rather optimistic over- simplification. Nevertheless, significant progress has been made in three of the most destructive contemporary conflicts and the United Nations has played a central role in the steps towards cease-fire or reduction in tension in each of those places. This has led to a sudden widespread improvement in public perceptions about the value of the mediating and peacekeeping work of the United Nations. It was one of the reasons for the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the United Nations peacekeeping forces this year. The United Nations peacekeeping forces began in November 1956 with the creation of the United Nations emergency force in the wake of the attack on the Suez Canal by Britain, France and Israel. Peacekeeping forces started on a shoestring and are still operating that way. Since the initial use of United Nations observer or peacekeeping forces, nearly half a million men and women have served and 733 have died. At present there are five peacekeeping forces in operation involving about 10,000 military personnel and 2,000 civilians in such places as Cyprus, the Indian-Pakistani border and the Lebanon. However, the existing peacekeeping forces are $US484m in arrears, of which nearly $US100m is owed by the United States. The biggest part of that debt, $US83m, is owed by Washington for its share of running the United Nations interim force in southern Lebanon, a unit of 5,800 troops from nine countries. Those arrears in payments for peacekeeping are only one of many areas in which there are arrears by members to the various parts of the United Nations system. At the end of 1987, outstanding contributions to the United Nations general account totalled $US353m, of which the United States owed $US253m-well over two-thirds. It is true that many other countries, mostly developing countries, are in arrears too, but their contribution and arrears are small in proportion to the total United Nations budget. For many years it was the Soviet Union that was most in default in payments to the United Nations. But for the last two years the Russians have paid their annual general assessment in full and on time and have caught up on their arrears. The only other major debtor at present is South Africa, which owes the United Nations general account $US31m, which is nine years of its subscriptions. Throughout 1988 the UN Secretary-General, Perez de Cuellar, has been warning that the United Nations might have to close its doors at the end of the year if US arrears are not paid. For example, on 15 June he said that `insolvent, the organisation will have to cease its operations and would be unable to meet its commitments to member states and to staff' unless US arrears are paid by October or November. Many governments have also been urging the US to catch up on its back payments. The origin of the crisis is in the attitudes of the Reagan Administration to the UN system. The Reagan Administration has been sceptical and often hostile to the UN. The reason is simple: the US no longer controls the UN because of the large number of member countries, each of which has equal voting rights. Until the 1960s it was possible for the great powers to control enough votes to achieve their goals. Following the growth of the number of independent countries, this is no longer automatically possible. In the early 1980s many countries began, quite properly, to urge greater cost effectiveness on the UN. There is no doubt that many parts of the organisation had become overblown and relatively inefficient. In 1985 the US said that it would withhold part of its dues until there had been progress with organisational reform. A reform plan was adopted by the General Assembly in 1986 which called for a 15 per cent reduction in staff as well as a thorough review of functions, working methods and policies. The Secretary-General reported in April this year on progress with reform. It is widely recognised that there has been very substantial progress towards the target of reducing staff by 15 per cent and reform in the functioning of all aspects of the UN secretariat in such areas as public information activities, conference servicing, administration and finance. Despite that progress, the US has fallen further behind in payment of its subscriptions. In July the New York Times published an editorial in which it praised the growing effectiveness of the United Nations not only in peacekeeping but also in the improved efficiency of its general operations. The editorial said: Yet just as the United Nations achieves a new measure of significance, the United States assumes the dishonourable role once played by the Soviet Union; number one UN deadbeat. What started as a reasonable policy-withholding dues to spur badly needed reforms-has degenerated into a muddled breach of faith. Further on it said: A once reasonable policy has become nothing more than an evasion of responsibility, endangering the critical UN role in a number of peace efforts and diminishing the United States. At the beginning of September the US owed the UN general budget $467m-out of a total budget of $800m. As well as that, the US owe substantial amounts to various specialised agencies. For example, it owed the Food and Agriculture Organisation $67m, which is over 135 per cent of its annual assessments. In September, President Reagan announced that the US would remove part of its arrears by paying $44m of subscriptions overdue for 1987 and $88m for the first quarter of 1988-89. The Administration also announced that it would seek full funding from October next year and that a plan would be drawn up to repay the arrears over the following five to seven years. Clearly, that was a disappointing statement. It means that it will be five to seven years from October next year before the US will have caught up with overdue subscriptions to the UN and its specialised agencies. That means that at the end of the current US financial year, in October 1989, there will still be $279m owing to the UN general budget, $169m to affiliated agencies and $111m for peacekeeping forces. So although the motion we are now debating was placed on the Notice Paper in August and it appeared, when President Reagan announced that the US would be repaying its arrears, that the motion might be out of date, it is now quite clear that the motion remains relevant. The effect of the Reagan Administration's annual commitments would be that the US remains in arrears for another five to seven years. The UN Secretary-General has called for all states to make payments in full and on time as required. That requirement should apply to every country-to the US no less than to every other state. The problem lies not only with the Administration but also with Congress. Delays have been caused by congressmen who have been critical of the UN and have retarded the passage of appropriations through the House and the Senate. That is why this motion urges both the Administration and the Congress to authorise prompt payment in full. It is Congress which is presently delaying the approval of the first instalment of the general capital increase (GCI) to the World Bank. In February the executive directors of the bank unanimously recommended approval of a general capital increase of $US75 billion to the bank's governors. This brings the bank's total authorised capital to $US171 billion. Within two months, 77 per cent of shareholders had given support to the general capital increase, the US being the only major shareholder which had failed to give that support. This has not delayed introduction of the general capital increase, however, because only 75 per cent of voting support is required and governments have until September 1993 to complete their new capital subscriptions. As a result of the GCI, it will be possible to increase significantly the bank's sustainable level of lending and to achieve a nominal growth in lending of about 10 per cent a year over the next five to six years-that is, more than $20 billion annually by the early 1990s. It is therefore very important that the US also authorise participation in the general capital increase, yet Congress is delaying authorisation as a bargaining lever to force the Administration to take more effective action to deal with the Third World debt crisis. While one can be entirely sympathetic with the concern about US Administration inaction and the ineffectiveness of policies so far for handling that crisis, it is counterproductive to use this mechanism to try to force that change of policy. Delaying the capital increase delays the capacity of the bank to increase lending-lending which is desperately needed by indebted developing countries. This is not the moment to debate the effectiveness of the bank. Some of its policies can be justifiably criticised. The House will be debating the Australian contribution to the general capital increase shortly. For the present, the House should simply urge full US participation, in conjunction with the 142 other member countries which have already authorised their contributions to the general capital increase, so that the bank can continue to provide urgently needed funds for development projects in Third World countries. The reason for this motion is to add to pressure on the United States Administration to recognise the value of the whole UN system and the multilateral financial institutions by giving them the financial support which their obligations require. To do any less is to reduce the capacity of the UN for mediation of conflict, for peacekeeping and to reduce the capacity of both the UN and the World Bank to contribute to development in the Third World. During the 1980s much of the Third World has gone through a depression more severe than even the Depression of the 1930s in industrialised countries, so the need for UN and World Bank development activities is greater than it has ever been. As the largest and most powerful of the industrialised democratic countries, it is important for the US to justify its claims to Western leadership by fulfilling the obligations which membership of the international system involves. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Bilney —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(10.37) —Whilst the motion has some relevance and some good points, it is part of a general refrain from the Left of the Australian Labor Party against the United States of America. I would like to put it in its perspective and indicate some of the reasons why the United States Government and Congress have been tardy in meeting United Nations subscriptions and in ratifying the general capital increase of the World Bank. We have to look into the history of the participation of the United States in international forums and the contribution of the United States to world peace over the course of this century to have some idea of the perspective within which we must place this motion. I go back to the First World War where there was a sense of great idealism on the part of President Wilson in wanting to establish the League of Nations. We all know the sorry history of the League of Nations, where isolationist forces in the United States Congress did not back President Wilson in support for the League of Nations-something which, I believe, was a world tragedy of the century. It may not have succeeded in stopping the Second World War, but at least there might have been something in place which gave us something of a chance. After the Second World War the United States embarked upon an entirely different policy. It was one of the great supporters of the new United Nations which started up in San Francisco with such hope. It was a major financial supporter of the United Nations and other international bodies pursuing the course of economic development and peace. Mr Barry Jones —It had strong bipartisan support. Mr CARLTON —As the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business says, it had very strong bipartisan support in the United States. There was also the Marshall Plan put forward by General Marshall, a former United States Defense Secretary. Under the liberalising influences of Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, it was possible to pour money into a devastated Europe and also, through extensive programs of support for underdeveloped countries throughout the world, the United States made a major contribution to not only post-war reconstruction but also the economic development of the underprivileged around the world. Its support for the work of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund contributed enormously to world progress and stability in economic terms. Once it became clear to the Americans that their major ally in the Second World War-the Soviet Union-was not going to pursue a democratic course, once it became clear that the Soviet Union had, in effect, occupied the whole of eastern Europe and subjected those countries to non-democratic communist regimes and once it became clear to the Americans, with the pressure on Berlin and the wonderful resistance to that by President Truman, that their role was not just one of promoting through the United Nations peaceful initiatives but clearly had to be-and very sadly, from their point of view-a military role, institutions such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and ANZUS were set up to protect the free world by force of arms if necessary. It is worth reminding the House that over a period of some 20 years the United States had a massive superiority in nuclear weapons over the Soviet Union. It was possible over a long period after the Second World War for the United States to obliterate the Soviet Union without any fear of retaliation. Such is the nature of the world's oldest democracy, such is the nature of the restraining forces on the body politic of that country, that there was never the slightest suggestion that the United States would use that awesome power for evil purposes. Eventually the Soviet Union built up its nuclear forces either to parity or the possibility of retaliating in a devastating way. At the time, because to a very great extent of the democratising and liberalising influences of the United States in world affairs and its pressure on the old colonial nations, more and more new nations became free of their colonial masters. Unfortunately, very few of them took on a democratic form of government, but they all gradually assumed membership of the United Nations. So, from a relatively small body of members back in the 1940s, the United Nations has grown to the present situation where it has 159 members. The regrettable part of that is that the vast majority of those 159 members do not share the democratic ideals of the United States and have forms of government which deny to their citizens free votes and a free press. As this historical movement built up the United States, which had contributed in a humanitarian, open and liberal way to the democratisation of much of the world and to its economic reform, reconstruction and progress, found itself in the bar at the very institution which it had done so much to help create. Increasingly, the debates in the United Nations became dominated by ratbaggery, abuse, anti-democratic sentiments, vicious attacks on the United States and its allies and selective attacks on nations, almost regardless of the degree of their error. I would single out the treatment of South Africa and Israel as two examples of the extraordinary bias that developed in that body over a period of years. There have been many policies in all countries that we could criticise. I am merely saying that, for example, South Africa has been denied the chance to speak in the United Nations General Assembly for many years. That is the reason for its arrears to the United Nations mentioned by the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore). The reason it has not paid its dues is that it has not had a voice in the General Assembly. If Albania, Romania and various other countries of that kind which are guilty of the most appalling atrocities can speak in the United Nations General Assembly, anybody else should be allowed to speak. I give South Africa as an example of a country that is not allowed to speak. While very nasty regimes paraded themselves self-righteously within the United Nations General Assembly, the United States paid most of the bills. The United States had one vote out of 159. It paid 25 per cent of the budget and 31 per cent of the budget of peacekeeping activities of the United Nations. During this period the United States was constantly berated and attacked and was subject to hypocrisy and ratbaggery, so much so that when Dr Jeanne Kirkpatrick became the United States Ambassador to the United Nations and was asked what her first step would be in her ambassadorship she said, `I will take down the notice on the United States table which says ``Kick me'' '. That is what she said. She decided to defend the liberal and democratic record of that country in the United Nations, which she did with considerable distinction. It is not terribly surprising that the democratic body at the heart of the United States Government-the United States Congress, which I remind people is elected under a liberal constitution which has lasted over 200 years; the oldest democracy on earth and certainly a most effective one-- Mr Barry Jones —It has been amended a few times. Mr CARLTON —Yes, it has been amended a few times. Mr Cadman —That is part of the process. Mr CARLTON —That is part of the process and the amendments are done in accordance with that marvellous liberal mechanism which was devised by the founding fathers and which has worked so well. That Congress naturally got absolutely fed up with paying a quarter of the budget and 31 per cent of the peacekeeping costs of a body which constantly abused and attacked it. People are only human. United States taxpayers are the same as taxpayers anywhere else in the world. If they are forking out a huge proportion of the costs of the United Nations and paying through their taxes for one of the highest defence budgets in the world and one which has been the biggest contribution to peace in the world, paying very largely for the defence of Europe when the Europeans dragged the chain on their defence costs, and paying for global armies and a naval capacity which are there to protect our peace and freedom, is it not sensible for the United States Congress to ask a few questions about how that money is being spent? That is basically what happened. In 1986, during the Reagan Administration, the United States announced that it would withhold part of its dues. It did not say that it would do so until people stopped berating it, because that was the role of the body and people could say what they liked in the United Nations General Assembly; it said that it would not pay until administrative reforms were instituted. The extraordinary rorts in the United Nations administration were held back until something was done about them. The United States actually pulled out of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). There had been a continuing scandalous regime under the former Director-General, Mr M'Bow. Money was wasted all over the place. There was hardly any accountability. it pursued anti-democratic policies in relation to the communications and information side of its work. We did not pull out of UNESCO. I am glad we did not. I am a member of the national commission of UNESCO in Australia. We have different interests. As I am a supporter of UNESCO, certainly under its new Director-General, Mr Mayor, who is trying to reform the organisation and clean out the rorts, I say that if the United States, Britain and Singapore had not pulled out of UNESCO Mr M'Bow would probably still be there and the rorts would still be continuing. If President Reagan had not put the squeeze on UNESCO by starting to withhold some of the cash, the extraordinary rorts would have continued. The Soviet Union, which has done nothing in the cause of human freedom and the extension of democracy since the war, certainly not since the revolution and even before that, has been one of the biggest participators in the rorts in the United Nations administration of any country in the world. It has not just been Third World countries and crook little non-democratic totalitarian regimes from small countries that have been rorting the United Nations system, sending people there on short term assignments with no career dedication to the work of the United Nations. The Soviet Union has also rorted the system. I object to this motion because it gives a totally wrong impression of the contribution of the United States. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(10.50) —It is a pleasure to participate in this debate and to support the motion moved by my colleague the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore). While taking note of the points made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), I still think that the balance of the motion is correct. As the previous speaker did, I want to confine my remarks largely to the United Nations and, particularly, to the peacekeeping side of the United Nations' operations. As honourable members will know, when the United Nations was first set up it was the hope and expectation of those who established it that it would play a major role in the keeping of the peace which followed the Second World War. That is why the first aim of the new organisation, which is mentioned in article 1.1 of the United Nations Charter, states: To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace. To that end it was envisaged that the Security Council, the instrument created by the Charter for this purpose, would have its own armed forces contributed to by members and that it would play a genuine peacekeeping role of that kind. That hope was stillborn. For many years the United Nations played very little role as a peacekeeping kind. Such role as it did play, gradually increasing over time, was by means of improvisation. Gradually it worked its way towards being able to play a role in peacekeeping operations, according to some fairly ad hoc, but gradually better understood, principles. Those peacekeeping forces which it was able to establish followed the lines suggested first by Paul Martin who, at one time, was a Canadian Minister for External Affairs. According to his definition, peacekeeping would take place under UN auspices and have as its objectives the prevention of violence or its curtailment when it broke out-with the proviso that the peacekeeping force itself would only use force as a last resort in self-defence. A peacekeeping force was designed to create or restore an environment in which a peaceful solution to the problems could be considered; and was not in itself a form of conciliation and mediation but was capable of reinforcing efforts at mediation. Furthermore, under those guidelines it was decided that the UN would only respond to a request for peacekeeping forces under the conditions that a request emanated from a recognised government or governments; that it command general support in the United Nations, including the support or, at least, the acquiescence-in the case of Korea, the absence-of the permanent members of the Security Council; that hostilities must have formally ceased in the area; and that member states themselves must be willing to contribute forces. Those are very tight guidelines. They are very specific. It means that the UN can only intervene in very specific circumstances and in limited ways. Therefore, the aim of the Charter, based on the belief that international conflicts could be prevented, was not part of that scenario. It was the case that help could be given only when the parties involved in a conflict were in agreement. Nevertheless, it has been the case that there have been a number of peacekeeping operations carried out in that ad hoc, improvised way really from quite soon after the beginning of the formation of the United Nations. I want to put on the record a list of those conflicts in which Australia has participated as part of a United Nations peacekeeping force. It is the case that Australia, while not being as major a contributor as some other countries to peacekeeping operations of the United Nations, has nevertheless been a very consistent and committed participant. Australia participated in the United Nations Commission for Indonesia, UNCI, from 1947 to 1950. Australia's contribution was one representative and up to 15 military observers at any time. Australia contributed to the United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans. It contributed to the unified command in Korea. Of course, that was the only occasion on which Australia contributed a force level component. Australia contributed to the United Nations Yemen Observation Mission; the United Nations Emergency Force II, UNEF II, to which it contributed 44 men in a helicopter unit; the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation in Palestine to which it contributed 13 men; the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan, UNMOGIP, where it has contributed a force of six men from 1949 to the present; and the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus, UNFICYP from 1964 to the present. Australia's most recent contribution has been 15 officers to the United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group, UNIIMOG, dating from 1988 until the present time. I wanted to mention specifically UNFICYP, which is one of our longstanding involvements with the United Nations peacekeeping operation. Recently I was in Cyprus and had the opportunity to visit that group and to have lunch with its members. I pay tribute to-- Mr Cadman —They are excellent; I agree. Mr BILNEY —I acknowledge the interjection of the shadow Minister at the table. Commander Campbell Thompson is the leader of the 20 Australian personnel and also the commander of the joint force of Swedes and Australians which does an excellent job in very difficult circumstances there. United Nations operations, however, have been a comparatively small scale sort of thing, run on a total annual budget of less than $300m at present. We are now looking at a very different situation resulting from a number of things which have happened. The lack of rapprochement, between the superpowers, the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, has always bedevilled the United Nations in its peacekeeping operations. Recently there has been a conscious use by the Soviet Union of the United Nations as a means of advancing the kinds of policies which Mikhail Gorbachev is now promulgating-policies such as greater disengagement and more international respectability for the Soviet Union. As the previous speaker pointed out, the Soviet Union in the past did not pay its dues as it ought to have. It has now paid up. Also there is now a considerably greater degree of pragmatism on the part of the Third World. It may be that this is a response to the United States tactic of withholding contributions, as has been suggested. That may well be the case but the amount of anti-United States, anti-Western posturing which now goes on in the United Nations has considerably reduced from that of two or three years ago. I think that there is also an attitude on the part of some other major contributor countries that the United Nations is a good way of spending money, contrary to what one sometimes hears. For example, not so long ago Japan made a one-off contribution of $20m specifically earmarked for peacekeeping. As a result of all these factors there has been a considerable enhancement in the prestige of the United Nations and its ability to deal with peacekeeping issues. However, it is now very greatly hampered by the lack of money for these operations. If peacekeeping forces are dispatched to all the trouble spots where peace is now breaking out-I am thinking of the Gulf, Afghanistan, Namibia, the Middle East and Cambodia; I think we all pray that it will be possible for the UN to send peacekeeping forces to those areas-we are looking at an annual bill which could run to something like $2 billion, which is about twice the regular budget of the United Nations. In those circumstances one cannot afford to have major contributing countries not paying their dues, particularly when I think it could well be argued-indeed, is argued within the Congress of the United States-that those objectives serve the interests of the United States just as much as they serve the interests of the world community in general; in fact, more. It is to be hoped that the attitude which has been displayed by the United States Administration in recent weeks, whereby some moves have been made towards removing the United States from its status, as an American congressman described it recently, of a `deadbeat' in the United Nations, will change, and that a motion of this kind may help in that regard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(11.01) —I 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. On Tuesday of next week certainly the free world and the world in general will know who will be leading the free world's largest democracy. A climax will have been reached in what have been some years of political speculation. For the purpose of both the motion appearing in my name and the debate this morning, I am not particularly concerned about whether it is a Bush or a Dukakis win, whether the win goes to the Republicans or to the Democrats. I am more concerned about using the forum of this Parliament to congratulate the present President of the United States of America (USA) on his performance as President of that democracy. I want to say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to those who are listening that it is not my task nor my intention, nor I believe the intention of the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson), who will second this motion, to in any way paint the image of the President of the United States as if he were perfect. Of course he is a human being-warts and all. But I want to make and reinforce the point that he is not the gun-toting Rambo that was popularly portrayed early in the 1980s, nor is he the incompetent man that has been portrayed in the latter part of his presidency. In fact, this image of an incompetent figurehead has done him no justice at all and his record as President belies all that has been done by the popular press to in some way portray him as a less than effective President of the United States of America. I noted with interest that the mover of the motion that preceded this one, the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore), and the seconder, the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney), were both anxious in their own quiet way to erode what was the United States' standing in the United Nations by referring to the failure of the United States to meet what were its obligations to the United Nations. I want to take up the point made by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), who so effectively pointed out that, far from the United States losing its interest in the United Nations, it was simply using what leverage it had to put some pressure on the United Nations in order to keep that body in some sense of perspective with the rest of the world. I think we should remember that in any debate on the United States we are dealing with the people who are our principal allies. It has been too easy for this Parliament to run with the popular image of the USA and of Americans as brash and overbearing both in their individual and in their national relationships. I am guilty of having done the same thing. In the 1970s I was a visitor for an extended period in the United States of America. Obviously I was much younger. I left Australia with all of the preconceived ideas that Australians had in the 1970s about the United States of America. I was concerned about campus unrest and Vietnam and wondered frankly whether in a place in as much turmoil as the United States of America I would ever get home again. I discovered, in the six months I spent there, I could not have been more at home than I was in that great democracy. I think it is time we stood up in this Parliament and said something about what President Reagan has done during his two-year term as President of the United States. It has been too easy to paint him as the President who has extended the deficit and as a dithering, uncertain and hesitant manager or, as I said earlier, to suggest that he is some sort of warmonger. This is an image born out of the press perception of a gunslinging cowboy. When first this motion appeared in my name I hesitated about speaking to it, but I investigated what has been President Reagan's record, and it is the result of that investigation that I bring to the House this morning. I have moved, as I indicated, that this House congratulate President Reagan on his contribution to world peace and economic prosperity. What has President Reagan done for world peace that the popular press has not picked up? Let the President speak for himself, for this is the forenote that was prepared as a cover for seven of his speeches that were put together in May of this year. President Reagan said: Abroad I have tried to convey the message of a strong America, dedicated to the quest for peace and the cause of freedom-in speeches before the British Parliament in London and the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin, in the halls of the United Nations and to the citizens of Brazil, Mexico, Costa Rica, China, South Korea, Japan, Italy, Spain and France. I have sought to communicate to the people of the Soviet Union and other nations across the barriers of distance language and political ideology. Whatever the occasion for the speeches presented . . ., I have always tried to speak plainly about the enduring values upon which this nation was founded: faith in God, commitment to democracy, the quest for peace, limited government, reliance on the free enterprise system, and an unyielding belief in human freedom as the essential key to human achievement and the progress of mankind. . . . . . . . . . . . . Seven years ago, when I first took office as President, who would have believed that we could sign an agreement with the Soviets not only to stop building additional nuclear weapons, but indeed to eliminate some of them? Some might say that that is merely the rhetoric that we have come to expect from all political figures, but the truth is that President Reagan in eight years in office has done more than anyone else to secure some sort of lasting peace in the world, and he has done it from a position of strength. He has been accused of committing more of the US Budget to defence spending than the US could afford. But the truth is that that action alone took the US back into a level playing field in terms of defence expenditure and, as Reagan said on the television program Reagan on Reagan, `National security is my first priority, more important than a balanced budget'. Having levelled the outlay on arms and forced the Russians to recognise that the Americans were prepared to match them weapon for weapon, suddenly President Reagan found, as he had anticipated, a Russian force prepared to negotiate. Certainly it meant that the free world had a popular image of Reagan as a Rambo President but-and I reiterate-who would have believed seven years ago that we could sign an agreement with the Soviets not only to stop building additional weapons but, indeed, to eliminate some of them? That achievement alone ought to be echoed round the world as a tribute to President Reagan. After eight years the Cold War has begun to thaw. Few people can claim to have equalled the contribution to world peace that this man has made during his two terms as President. As the President said to students gathered in Moscow: Nations do not distrust each other because they are armed: they are armed because they distrust each other. Because of his passionate commitment to democracy he backed freedom fighters around the world-in Grenada, Afghanistan, Angola and Central America. I know that that is an invitation for honourable members opposite to be critical of his actions in any one of those countries, but we deceive ourselves if we pretend that confrontation and war can ever be comfortable or perfect. The President, faced with a choice not unlike that which his countrymen faced at the end of the Second World War over the bombing of the Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, had to make difficult decisions, which he made courageously and which have assisted democracies to be established in countries previously under threat. His objectives of peace and freedom have been achieved because he was prepared to negotiate from a position of strength. The negotiations he undertook to set in place the intermediate-range nuclear force (INF) agreement are probably the most significant demilitarising action since World War II. If President Reagan's image as a peacemaker has been distorted by the popular press, the misrepresentation has been nothing compared to what has happened to his reputation as an economist. He has been blamed for burgeoning government deficits when the real perspective is that from 1965 to 1980 the American budget went up five times while the deficit went up 52 times. I refer to a statement made by Mr Niskanen, the President of the Cato Institute. In May this year he said that the American economy was in fine shape compared to the situation when Reagan took office. Niskanen cited not only the sharp decline in inflation but also increases in productivity and growth from what he termed the dismal record of the Carter Administration in the late 1970s. He said that real earnings had bounced back after their decline during the presidency of Jimmy Carter. Critics opposite may well say, `Look at the enormous level of American debt; look at what has been run up and look at this sort of overburden that the whole world economy faces'. Before we are seen falling for that cheap anti-American line that we have come to anticipate, let us look at the relative American debt compared to our own. In 1986 the Australian debt-it has burgeoned since-stood at $70.1 billion and the American debt at $525 billion. The population in Australia is 16 million; the population in America is 241 million. Before honourable members opposite throw stones they should look at the debt per American citizen as compared to that per Australian citizen. They would discover, as everyone I hope knows, that in 1986 every Australian owed-thanks to the actions of this Government; and it has only got worse but I want to cite figures I can verify-$6,600 while the American debt per head was $3,300. We are hardly in a position to be critical of President Reagan's economic policies. The unemployment rate of the United States of America under this President is at its lowest level in 14 years, while the US economy generated a world record rate of employment-10 points above that generated in Europe and one point above that generated in Japan. What is the secret? How did President Reagan do it in spite of what has been a popular press campaign against him? As he said during the television show earlier this week Reagan on Reagan: The best way to increase government revenue is to cut taxation. We have not heard much of that from honourable members opposite, have we? Time prevents me from making the other points I wish to make in the President's defence. Suffice it to say that he has been a man committed-I say this as one representing a rural electorate-to breaking down the level of protection that American farmers are currently enjoying. I refer listeners to an article in today's Australian on page 15 where national affairs commentator, Des Keegan, has written: A Bush win will underpin commodities while Dukakis might tip the US into recession and lower prices. My farmers quite frankly hope that President Reagan is followed by another Republican President. While I do not know, I have a sneaking suspicion that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) does as well. The great tribute to President Reagan must be the way he has engendered a pride of America in Americans, while here our pride in being Australians has been sapped. While we have spent our bicentennial year apologising, President Reagan has spent eight years making Americans proud to be Americans. It has been easy to belittle him and to denigrate him but we should not lose sight of the positive reinforcement that has been the hallmark of his presidency and that we could well emulate to our advantage in this nation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Halverson —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr JOHNS(Petrie)(11.16) —I cannot support the motion before the House simply because it attempts to concentrate purely on President Reagan and his efforts to help secure some elements of peace. We might equally congratulate Gorbachev on his efforts in achieving some elements of peace, particularly through the intermediate-range nuclear force (INF) treaty. But to single out Reagan is to argue from an ideological point of view and, frankly, a blindfolded stance. Agreement was reached on this particular treaty because it suited both sides. The INF is a good agreement, although it is a very small step in the very long march to securing peace. The outstanding issues are matters such as space defence, the future of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and the verification of sea launched cruise missiles. It is simply not true, as some would have it, that the Russians were dragged kicking and screaming to the negotiating table over the INF treaty. It is not true, as is the popular image, that the United States was hanging tough on the issue and that the Russians were down to their last rouble and were forced to reduce some of their weapons systems. I submit that without the change of leadership in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) to Gorbachev there would have been no agreement. We must look at the efforts of both sides to understand their contribution to world peace. Our Government's view is that both superpowers must seek to resolve their problems. I quote from a speech made by Bill Hayden in Moscow on 30 May 1984: Just as it takes two to make war, it takes two to forge the peace. Similarly, in a recent speech in September this year, Senator Evans made the point: We believe that peace . . . will not be ultimately guaranteed by threats of mutual assured destruction or elaborately constructed military defences, but rather by acceptance of the concept of Common Security-the notion, put most simply, that countries cannot, at the end of the day, enhance their own security by threatening other countries . . . This motion raises Reagan as the great peacemaker. It is incumbent on me to look at Reagan's record and be critical, in the most positive sense, of Reagan's contribution. I want to range across seven different areas, time permitting. The first is that we cannot escape the fact of Reagan's massive spending on weapons and the effect that has had on America's domestic priorities and its economy. Second, Reagan did take an early belligerent stance on nuclear arms agreements, even if in the later years he softened his approach. Third, he refused to negotiate on the important areas, like naval-based weaponry and, of course, he pushed his strategic defence initiative, or the star wars initiative, I think to the great detriment of peace negotiations. Fourth, his overwhelming desire has been to re-establish the superpower game plan of good versus evil; I believe he has upped the ante in the superpower conflict. Fifth, he has a record of dealing with terrorism that has confused the demonstration of power by the US with the exercise of that power, and it has brought the US undone in a most embarrassing way. Sixth, his policy of low intensity conflict, as in Nicaragua, has been a disgrace and has led to what I would call `dirty little wars'. Seventh, and finally, he has a disdain for the United Nations, and has certainly sought to interfere in that body's governance and deliberations. Recognising that I am responding to this motion on Reagan, I need to make these criticisms. The reality is that the Reagan Administration has tried to buy back its fallen pride, post-Vietnam, through its massive spending on defence. Reagan made those wonderful statements about standing tall in Main Street, but the American taxpayer has suffered enormously for that Reagan stance. I shall cite some figures. A major source of government spending has been, of course, in the area of defence. The amount spent on defence in the first five years of the Reagan Administration was $US1 trillion, almost exactly the amount by which the national debt increased in this same period. This level of defence spending represented a military tax of over $US16,000 on each of the nation's 62 million families. Whilst we should not just line up the American debt with expenditure on defence, it is fairly obvious that the overexpenditure on defence has had an enormous impact on the American taxpayer. Further, the reality is that Reagan took a very belligerent stance early in his presidency on the matter of nuclear arms agreements. The failure of the SALT II agreement-Strategic Arms Limitation Talks-was partly due to Reagan's brinkmanship, and frankly he almost caused heart failure amongst North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) allies. Let us look not just at the record of Reagan, but also at the score card of the United States in the area of agreements. First there is the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty, currently under siege but still intact, and there is no idea when we will get a renegotiation. Second, there is the SALT II agreement. The US has been bending the rules on that one, but it has not broken them. Thirdly, there is military spending where there was a five-year binge, followed by a recent three-year freeze. There has been a 21 per cent growth in the buying of strategic nuclear warheads. There has been no growth in strategic nuclear launchers, thank goodness. The MX missiles have become simply a shadow of their former and original concept, thank goodness. Star wars itself has received huge budgetary growth but, as there is no deployment in sight, again we can be thankful for that. ASAT-anti-satellite-testing has suffered a congressional imposed bilateral moratorium. As for nuclear testing, Reagan has succeeded in staving off the limits to nuclear testing. We agree that there has been a treaty success with INF, and we look for a potential success with the new negotiations for the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, START, but as yet nothing has been achieved. Let us look at some area where Reagan has refused to negotiate. The fact is there has been very little discussion about naval weaponry, the reason being that the US has such a large lead over the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the ability and deployment of its navy. The US and the Soviets have 6,350 naval nuclear weapons between them. None of these weapons is covered by any arms control agreements. Superpower naval nuclear arsenals include long-range land-attack cruise missiles, depth bombs, artillery projectiles, gravity bombs, anti-submarine rockets and surface-to-air missiles. Of these, only the cruise missiles are subject to any ongoing negotiations. Further, Reagan has pressed on with his Flash Gordon diplomacy via the SDI, the strategic defence initiative, or star wars. But there has been great confusion as to how Reagan has sold the notion of star wars. He presented the SDI as a way of initially escaping deterrence, the protection of the people against nuclear weapons. But almost immediately Reagan's experts assured him that this could not be achieved, so SDI was then touted as a way of enhancing deterrence. It would not protect people from nuclear weapons; it would protect nuclear weapons from nuclear weapons. It hardly advances the cause of peace. Further to that, we enter the area where Reagan has sought, ideologically if you like in terms of the debate, to re-establish superpower dominance over world affairs. He has brought power to his presidency by establishing the so-called evil of his `opposite empire', and it is that debate that brought Reagan undone. It is not just newspaper talk; he generated that state of mind. Then, of course, there is the Reagan record in dealing with terrorism, with the use of military intervention as a counter-terrorist measure. We remember the so-called surgical strike at Libya, which was a military and political disaster, and which did not even achieve the aim of killing Gaddaffi. But it certainly upset the NATO allies and set them back on their heels. It is that sort of instability that Reagan has created. The cure for terrorism is not counter-terrorism, such as the raid on Libya; it lies in the search for political solutions to complex political problems, like getting Israel out of Lebanon and restraining it from raids against the Palestinians and from carrying out search and destroy operations against Lebanese villagers. The fact is that when the Americans created the so-called surgical strike they had no idea that that would mean babies would be needing surgery. I think it eventually shocked not so much the American people but others around the world when Reagan so outrageously performed that act of anti-terrorism. Of course, there were other examples where Reagan tried to use his power in minor ways, such as having his warships based in the Persian Gulf and his marines based in the Lebanon, as well as the tragedy this year of the American warship, the USS Vincennes, that unfortunately and tragically shot down an Iranian civilian airliner. I am using these points not as criticism but only to demonstrate the fact that the Americans have been unable to differentiate between establishing that they are powerful but not using that force, and indeed using that force. Further, of course, there is the matter of what I have termed the `dirty little wars', what the Americans and probably the Russians would call `low intensity conflict'. The fact that the Americans in support of the Contras in Nicaragua have used that sort of weapon to support their own ideology has again shocked many of us. I take a short quote from Tip O'Neill, the now retired Speaker of the House of Representatives: I wouldn't liken them, have them as freedom fighters at all- he is talking about the Contras- I look on them as vicious, fiendish people who ran a government and put the nation where it is at the present day. He (President Reagan) talks about them as being freedom fighters. I get sick to my stomach. To complete my comments, I would like to refer to the main conclusion of the report of the congressional committees which investigated the Iran-Contra affair and which, even as late as yesterday, President Reagan blamed as some sort of media beat-up. The main conclusion of that eminent group was: The common ingredients of the Iran and Contra policies were secrecy, deception, and disdain for the law. Reagan knew what was going on but simply denies that. I want to conclude on one other point-I want to talk about Reagan's stance in the United Nations (UN). The fact is that the UN has matured. It has a more internationalist stance, not just the old pro-Western alliance stance that it had. Reagan, and especially the Americans, have found this hard to cop so they have been playing heavyweight with the UN and have decided now to move their aid according to how nations vote in the UN. I will give one last quote. In a press conference in August 1985 the new United States Ambassador to the UN, General Vernon Walters, explicitly linked a country's UN voting pattern to the health of its bilateral relations with the US when he made the following observation- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mountford)-Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(11.32) —Any critical and unbiased assessment of Ronald Reagan's achievements in his eight years as President of the United States of America (USA) must include a very positive reference to his significant contributions to world peace and economic prosperity. In regard to the latter, Ronald Reagan's record speaks for itself. On the `home front', Reaganomics has resulted in the longest period of peacetime economic growth in the history of the United States-more than 70 months of steady growth, low inflation and broad prosperity. Ronald Reagan will become the first US President to complete his term with both inflation and unemployment lower than when he was elected. Even his most ardent and persistent critics are impressed by the record shattering run of the current recovery. The facts cannot be denied. When President Reagan came to office, inflation was running at 10.5 per cent. It is now 4 per cent. The unemployment rate was 7.4 per cent. It is now 5.4 per cent. The home mortgage interest rate was 13.2 per cent. It is now 9 per cent. The lowest personal income tax rate was 14 per cent when Reagan was elected. It is now 11 per cent. The highest rate was 70 per cent. This has been reduced to 50 per cent. Between 1981 and 1986 real median household incomes-the best measure of family prosperity-rose 9.1 per cent. Compare this with the decrease of 3.4 per cent during the Carter Administration. Real median incomes of all male fulltime workers rose 3.8 per cent. Under Carter they had dropped by 6.4 per cent. The so-called `misery index'-the sum of America's inflation and unemployment rates-has plummeted from 17.9 per cent in January 1981 to 9.4 per cent in August 1988. Since the end of 1980, nearly 16 million net new jobs have been created in the United States. This represents some 90 per cent of all the jobs created by the Big Seven industrial economies. In August 1988, a record 115 million Americans were employed, and the unemployment rate of 5.4 per cent was the lowest for 15 years. Real gross business and personal investment has risen 25.6 per cent since 1981. Under Carter it declined by 2.3 per cent. It is interesting to note that two of the traditionally most disadvantaged groups-blacks and women-have made real progress during the Reagan Administration. Since 1981, black teenage unemployment rates-which had remained virtually static under Carter-have fallen from 41 per cent to 31 per cent. The unemployment rate for adult black males was 12.1 per cent. It is now 9.5 per cent. From 1981 to 1986 real median incomes of black families rose 10.1 per cent. Under Carter they dropped almost 6 per cent. Female unemployment has now fallen to the same level as that of men. Nearly 50 million women now hold paying jobs-over 8 million more than when Reagan first took over the presidency. Since 1981, the number of women in management occupations has risen by more than 70 per cent and in skilled production jobs by more than 52 per cent. For every category of full-time worker-black and white, male and female-real median incomes have risen since 1981. These achievements are the result of the national economic reforms which President Reagan described as having been designed with the objective of `increasing economic activity from the bottom up'. The program was based on his belief that, if given the opportunity, the people themselves will provide the solutions to their problems. `As is often the case', he said, `the best thing government can do is get out of the way'. Certainly the US faces a huge Budget deficit and a growing trade deficit-although it is worth noting that the federal Budget deficit, which nearly tripled between 1981 and 1986, declined by nearly 30 per cent in 1987. And as John Makin, Director of fiscal policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, points out: The inescapable facts about the Reagan-years deficits are that they neither caused the sky to fall nor induced some great calamity (though many economists predicted otherwise). The fortunes of the free world are closely attuned to and influenced by the fortunes of the United States. If the US falters, we all suffer. If the US is doing well, we all share the benefits. The current US economic revolution has had a positive international impact. Opportunities for expanding trade with America have been beneficial to many countries whose own economies have been under pressure. In some cases, the additional export earnings made all the difference. In his address last year to a joint meeting of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, in Washington, President Reagan outlined the central themes of US economic policies and relations-especially with developing countries-in the following words: . . . trade rather than aid, mutual benefit rather than charity, a hand up rather than a hand-out. He renewed the long term and substantial US commitment to helping solve the problems of the Third World-advocating the adoption on a wider scale of the economic concepts and reforms that had reinvigorated America's economy during his term of office, and a free and fair world trading system. He has consistently emphasised the undeniable relationship between freedom and human progress, and his contribution to economic prosperity and world peace has, at least in part, been based on this unswerving dedication to the cause of freedom. President Reagan identified the promotion of freedom and democracy as the key to world economic growth, and equated economic freedom with political freedom. He has pursued his commitment to promoting democracy abroad and building a safer and more durable world peace in many different ways-assessing the available options and acting accordingly. Pressure from his Administration helped oust former Philippine President Marcos, and Haitian dictator `Baby Doc' Duvalier. US troops helped topple the inept Marxist regime in Grenada. He has campaigned against the discredited government of Panamanian strongman Noriega. He has maintained his commitment to supporting the so-called freedom fighters-whom he described as the `key to peace'-in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Cambodia and Angola. His support for the Afghan rebels was a major factor in the Soviets' decision to start withdrawing their troops from Afghanistan. His meetings with General Secretary Gorbachev of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the signing of the INF treaty-the intermediate-range nuclear force treaty-further underline his approach and commitment to world peace and security. Unlike some other US Presidents who have had the opportunity to take the initiative in improving relationships between the two most powerful countries in the world, Reagan did not let the chance go by. The result has been a series of successful and constructive summit meetings, and a treaty providing for the abolition of an entire class of US and Soviet nuclear missiles. The INF treaty is a landmark in international postwar peace initiatives. Most significantly, it is an arms reduction rather than just an arms control agreement. There is, of course, a lot more to be done. But the longest, most challenging and difficult journey does not start until someone takes the first step-and this is what Reagan, often in the face of considerable opposition, has done. President Reagan has been an inspiration to the world. If those opposite are not persuaded by my arguments, perhaps they will be convinced by the words of our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I quote from page 837 of Hansard of 1 September: As Americans prepare to elect a new President I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to President Reagan and the members of his Administration, particularly Secretary of State George Shultz, for the leadership which they have provided to the Western Alliance during their time in office. The progress which has been achieved on a variety of world issues, and particularly in the area of arms control, has unlocked the door to what may very well be a new era of peace and cooperation. Very rarely do I find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister, but in this case there can be no doubt as to the accuracy of the sentiments he has expressed. I say to President Reagan: Congratulations. Your successor, whoever he may be, certainly has a hard act to follow. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Debate resumed from 1 September, on motion by Mr Webster: That this House- (1) declares that this nation enjoys basic human rights and freedoms unequalled anywhere in the world and that these rights and freedoms are not under threat; (2) acknowledges the inherent dangers in inserting ``rights'' clauses in a written Constitution; and (3) expresses its concerns that the changes to the Constitution proposed by referendum question number 4 would allow Commonwealth Governments to meddle with and deprive Australians of their basic rights and freedoms. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(11.41) —We are resuming the debate on the motion concerning the human rights and referendum question moved by the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) on the last private member's business Thursday. The last part of the motion states that the House: expresses its concerns that the changes to the Constitution proposed by referendum question number 4 would allow Commonwealth Governments to meddle with and deprive Australians of their basic rights and freedoms. The referendum questions have now been voted on and defeated, but it is interesting to go over a few points once again, particularly in light of the words: . . . would allow Commonwealth Governments to meddle with and deprive Australians of their basic rights and freedoms. What absolute drivel. I had something to do with the referendum campaign in my area and engaged in some very interesting correspondence with a number of religious people, particularly a bishop that I know quite well. We are still good friends after the event, but we had an exchange of viewpoints on this matter. I believe that a number of religious organisations now feel that they may have been misled or were wrong in the perceptions that they put forward at the time. It is simply not true that the changes would have allowed Commonwealth governments to meddle, as the honourable member for Macquarie stated in his motion. Section 116 of the Constitution states: The Commonwealth- I repeat: the Commonwealth- shall not make any law for establishing any religion . . . for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is mentioned twice in section 116 of the Constitution. No other government or State is mentioned. The third part of the motion relates to referendum question No. 4 regarding religion, trial by jury and acquisition of land. There is an anomaly in the relevant sections of the Constitution in that they refer only to the Commonwealth. As the Constitution stands at present, because the referendum was defeated, a State may establish a religion, a State may deprive people of their land and not give them recompense, as has happened, and a State is not necessarily covered by the section with regard to trial by jury-because States are not mentioned. That was the whole purpose of the very innocuous-as we on this side of the House thought-changes proposed to the Constitution. People decided to read all sorts of things into them, but they would not have changed the Commonwealth's powers one iota. There was great meddling not on the part of the Commonwealth but on the part of those opposite, who want to stay in yesterday's land-the men of yesterday who want to hold everything up. They say, `Let us not progress. Let us not have a new national anthem'-we have one-`and let us not have a new national flag'. A new flag is not on the Commonwealth agenda but it will happen one day, as surely as we are sitting here now. Time will pass Opposition members by. In the early 1970s the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, put forward many ideas that were frowned upon by the conservatives as outrageous-the communists were obviously going to take over!-but within only a decade, and even before this Government came to office, many of his thoughts were totally accepted by the people. Those opposite are men of yesterday trying to hold everything back. Why do they not look forward for once? They know the Constitution is deficient. Why do they not try to make it a little better and a little more operative for all of us? The motion before the House spells out that those opposite are men of yesterday when it talks about allowing the Commonwealth Government `to meddle with and deprive Australians of their basic rights and freedoms'. That is absolute drivel and everyone in this House knows it. Even those who fought against the referendum changes know that the changes would not have meant anything of substance as far as the Commonwealth was concerned. I see the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) making notes. I am talking about the substance of the Constitution in regard to the Commonwealth. The proposal would have changed things as far as the States were concerned. It would have stopped them from establishing religions, for example, which they are now allowed to do. We could have the Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen feast day or the Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen religion. It is perfectly legal for such things to be established. There could be a State religion of Queensland. It is perfectly legal under the Constitution. Unfortunately, the people of Australia did not want to make a change a few weeks ago, but it will happen. The men of yesterday will be defeated eventually. When those sorts of questions come up again we will probably not be here. When the next government brings those questions up people will accept them for what they are worth, as they have accepted Mr Whitlam's many thoughts for an equitable society. They will accept the goodness in those suggestions. People accept good suggestions. They may not accept them straightaway, but they will accept them eventually because they will see that they are right. The motion before the House suggests that the Commonwealth will meddle in and deprive everyone of their freedoms and rights. There is talk also of looking at the Bill of Rights and such things. The United States has had a Bill of Rights since its inception, but there is something draconian in such legislation as far as the conservatives in this Parliament are concerned. The changes that have been put forward from time to time by this Government since its election in 1983 have looked at ways to improve our Constitution, to make our lives better. We are not looking backwards, as are so many on the other side; we are looking forward. We have changed our national anthem and we will make changes to our national flag in years to come-It may take 10, 20 or 30 years-who knows? But it will happen. It is inevitable, just as Australia will one day become a republic. It might be 50 years from now but it is inevitable. I am not suggesting that we rush into it tomorrow, but we should be talking about it constructively so that we are in a position to accept it and get the greatest benefit from it when it happens. I am not suggesting that we should cut off our ties with the Commonwealth. I think that it is a very good thing that we are in the Commonwealth and that we should stay in it. However, we should be talking about these things constructively rather than putting a dampener on every conceivable idea that comes forward. `Do not let us worry whether a proposal has any merit or whether it will benefit Australians, the poor and Aboriginals', in whom you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have much interest, is the sort of nonsense the motion puts forward. The motion is yesterday's motion from yesterday's men. We on this side of the House are quite happy for honourable members opposite to go on like that, because until they wake up to themselves they will stay on that side of the House for a long time. I will resume my seat and let others speak, but I hope and trust that the House will reject this motion for the nonsense that it is. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(11.51) —I found the contribution of the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) most amusing. It is rather strange that we have a very sad situation for the two Government speakers. They are here at a wake because this motion was proposed prior to the referendum questions on 3 September and, because of the parliamentary process, it comes before the House only now. We know the answer. We know that the people of Australia have thrown out the referendum questions lock, stock and barrel. Yet the honourable member for Isaacs talked about Opposition members being yesterday's men. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the referendum questions are yesterday's questions and the people of Australia resoundingly defeated them and threw them out. It was not the Opposition-members of the Liberal and National parties-which threw them out: the people of Australia threw them out. They will throw out this Labor Government at the very next opportunity because they have learnt over the course of the last five years just what the Labor Government is all about. It is the highest taxing government Australia has ever had. People know that because they are hurting. They know that this Labor Government is totally out of touch with the reality of ordinary Australians. They know that because they are in the housing queues, they are paying the interest bills and they are suffering from inflation. The people of Australia are now fully aware of the iniquity of the Hawke Labor Government and what it is doing to them. At a succession of events, the Australian people have told the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and all their hangers-on that they are finished with them, that they do not want them. We have only to look at the Adelaide by-election at which Labor was rejected and at the Port Adelaide by-election, where there was a tremendous swing against Labor. In the New South Wales election Labor was trounced and thrown out. The Victorian election was an absolute cliff-hanger. Labor held on to office by a mere handful of votes. Again, the people of Victoria gave Labor the message. Then there was the by-election for Oxley, the seat held previously by the Governor-General designate. Boy, what a message was there. The people of Oxley resoundingly, again, said to Labor, `Your time's up: it's time to go'. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys), who is at the table, smiles but it is a smile of worry and fear, is it not? It is a nervous smile because he knows the truth of what I am saying. What has come through is that the people of Australia do not want more control; they do not want big government; they do not want the dead hand of bureaucracy to come and throttle them. They want to live a life as free as possible from government interference. I was interested to hear the honourable member for Isaacs say that the changes would never mean anything. He saw me scribbling notes and very quickly said, `Oh, yes, not for the Commonwealth but for the States'. What he said, before he bent over backwards to qualify what he said, was that the changes would never mean anything. He was right because the whole purpose of the four referendum questions was to concentrate more power in Canberra. That is what the referendum was all about. It was not interested in trial by jury, freedom of religion, local government or anything else: those are all window-dressing issues. The only question of importance was question No. 1, because that was the question designed to emasculate the Senate, to destroy the Senate, to give the government of the day more power, to concentrate more power in Canberra, to take power from the people and encapsulate it here, hopefully for the Hawke Government. That is not on at all because the people of Australia have seen through the Hawke Labor Government. They have seen through it because they have seen how it gets on with its big-moneyed mates. Just as an aside, Mr Deputy Speaker, it was an insult to the people of Australia when the price of beer was reduced in the Budget. I suppose that is fine for everybody who enjoys a glass of beer-I do-and a glass of wine, but nobody was after it. There was no great pressure from people saying, `We want cheaper beer'. The pressure was the $400m that could have been spent on roads and on getting rid of the assets test on social security and veterans' affairs pensioners. But no, the Government said to the people of Australia, `We in the Labor Party think you're a lot of mugs. We'll give you cheaper beer. That'll keep you happy'. It goes back to the Roman days of bread and circuses. Honourable members opposite are so stupid that they think the people of Australia are taken in. I can assure them that that is not the case. I will go through it again: the Port Adelaide by-election, the New South Wales election, the Brisbane City Council election and the Victorian election. The Government has the Western Australia Inc. election coming up soon. It should prepare for it because the Australian Labor Party will get another great kick in the guts. Forgive me if I speak as a real Australian, but come the Western Australian election, Labor will get kicked in the guts again. It is all that it deserves. The honourable member for Isaacs made passing reference, as a smokescreen, to the United States Bill of Rights. He knows, just as I and everybody else in this House know, that the American Bill of Rights bears no relationship whatsoever to the Australian Bill of wrongs that the Government tried to introduce. Again, the Australian people were not fooled then and they threw out, rejected, the whole concept of the Bill of Rights, through the agency of the Senate. That is why this Labor Government brought in those referendum questions: to gain more power over the Senate; to lessen the power of the Senate and to concentrate the power in Canberra. The people of Australia do not want that. Australia is a Federation. Australia is a collection of States working together with the Commonwealth, and it works very well providing Big Brother in Canberra does not try to grab control of the lot. That is what the people of Australia have rejected. It was very interesting to listen to the honourable member for Isaacs. He epitomises what Labor is really on about. He has brought it out in its true colours. He said that a new flag is inevitable. Does he have any Returned Services League members in his electorate? He will not be getting their votes. He said that a republic is inevitable in Australia. I for one reject that concept totally. He can bluster and say that we are yesterday's men living in the past, but I am living right now. I am learning from the past and I am living for the future-the future of all Australians. That is what we on the Opposition side are all about because, unlike Labor, we are not out of touch. We are not swanning around with multimillionaire mates. We are not doing that. We are out in the electorate talking to the people we represent all the time. We know what the people of Australia want. Increasingly, every time they get the opportunity they are giving the Hawke Labor Government the message, `Go; for heaven's sake go'. Regrettably, we are not going to have the opportunity to put that message firmly through the ballot box until probably late next year. When the opportunity does come, the people of Australia will say to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the honourable member for Isaacs, `Your time is up; it is time to go'. The people of Australia are concerned about freedom. They are concerned about liberty. They do not want an expansion of the tentacles of Canberra power. They want to be left to live their lives as free of government interference as possible. That is what Australia is all about-letting ordinary Australian citizens get on with their lives free of the dead hand of Labor control. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(12.02) —The motion moved by the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) stresses, in the first instance, that the citizens of Australia enjoy human rights and freedoms unequalled anywhere else in the world. I have no real argument with that. But I do have to take him to task over the other propositions where he talks about Commonwealth takeovers. If he wants to talk about freedoms, he ought to start looking at the various States. I would like to cite Queensland. In that State we have no freedom of information, as we do in the Commonwealth and other Labor States. There is no right to fair and democratic voting systems. The system there has been prostituted and impaired because of the gerrymander and the rorted boundaries. The individual rights to justice in that State have also been placed in doubt by the politicising of the police force. This has been demonstrated by the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct. We have noted revelations in recent times involving the stood down Commissioner of Police. The rights of Queenslanders have also been diminished in the corporate area. I want to dwell on that for a moment. I want to talk about the rights of people when it comes to corrupt tendering systems. The Fitzgerald inquiry, regrettably, is touching on only part of the problem. Whilst I commend Mr Fitzgerald and his investigators for their commitment and perseverance and the way they have argued through and worked at trying to uncover what is going on in Queensland, until they start addressing the corporate area they are not really going to get to the issues. In 1978 I named some 40 people in Queensland-police, business people and sporting personalities-who were involved in SP bookmaking. It was covered up by the police and by the Government then. We had a total cover-up across the board until now, when the Fitzgerald inquiry has substantiated the claims I have made. This week my claims about political interference and the attempts to expose the corruption behind the Stanwell powerhouse tenders were also proven. It was shown by a raid on certain documents that there was direction of the Police Department, and particularly Commissioner Lewis, by the Premier. There is corruption right throughout Queensland. It has been there for a long time. Even with the Ahern Government it has prevailed. Corruption is rife in all the State Government dealings. Premier Ahern said on this morning's AM program that his Government had nothing to do with the sort of things coming out of the Fitzgerald inquiry-the Fitzgerald revelations. I have a lot of time for Mike Ahern. I have known him for 20 years, having served for 15 1/2 years in the State House. But he and other Ministers are still in the Cabinet that was set up by Bjelke-Petersen. They cannot distance themselves unless they are prepared to really open the lid on the investigations and allegations that have been made. There is a need for a judicial inquiry into the Stanwell tenders because the police inquiry was discredited. The Auditor-General inquiry by Mr Craven was inadequate. He refused to follow up additional allegations that I made. I now challenge Mike Ahern to release Cabinet minutes of special meetings of Cabinet held on 3 August and 6 August 1987. He should tell us who were the Ministers who attended those meetings. The first meeting was a general meeting. The second meeting was a special one called by Bjelke-Petersen to overturn the original decisions to award a contract for the sale of the Queensland Fish Board which originally was going to P. Manettas and Co. Pty Ltd and was changed to Raptis Co. Pty Ltd. I have spoken to Mr Nick Manettas of the company in question. I have also spoken to John Diacopoulos, who is a lawyer. He has briefed me on two occasions. I have here correspondence which backs up what took place. I have here a telex signed by Mr John Diacopoulos cancelling the appointment after having been verbally advised that Manettas had been the successful tenderer. On 3 August 1987 a Cabinet meeting was held, where the sale of the Fish Board was determined. The number of tenders started at eight and went down to four. It finally ended up at two. But Manettas won. That was on 3 August last year. On 6 August Bjelke-Petersen was back. He called a special Cabinet meeting and he overturned it. It was not just a change of heart. I have here a statutory declaration that outlines the corruption that existed at the highest level. It is a statutory declaration taken under the Oaths Act of Queensland. It says: Mr Bedford claimed that . . . Mr Raptis had paid the sum of $250,000.00 to the Jo Bjelke Petersen Foundation, and the Premier of Queensland, Mr Jo Bjelke-Petersen, had then called his ``rump'' cabinet, and reversed his own Cabinet's decision, by awarding the tender and contract to purchase the Fish Board, to Mr Raptis's company. It goes on to say: I then phoned Mr Peter McDonald- who honourable members would know was the private secretary of the then Premier- (and I have a transcript and proof of this phone call and others) when I pleaded with Peter McDonald, that it was essential for the integrity and future fishing viability . . . He goes on, inter alia, to ask whether Mr Raptis paid $250,000 to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. In a statutory declaration Peter McDonald says that Mr Raptis did pay the money. Here we have a statutory declaration, backed up by statements made by a lawyer, which is backed up by documentation by a public affairs accountant, that there has been corruption at the highest level. I have interviewed Nick Manettas and other people, and this decision apparently was made by Bjelke-Petersen. A full investigation is needed into the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. It is run by a firm of solicitors, Flower and Hart of Adelaide Street, Brisbane. It just so happens that the daughter of Sir Edward Lyons-R. G. Lyons-apparently manages the Bjelke-Petersen Fund. There is a need for a full inquiry by the Fitzgerald inquiry or a judicial inquiry to match up the contract decisions in Queensland with the successful tenderers and also to match the donations to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. Mr Ahern's bona fides are now on the political agenda. Did Mr Raptis donate $250,000 to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation, as claimed under oath in this statutory declaration? When was this donation made? Was it made after a special meeting between Raptis and Bjelke-Petersen? What Ministers knew of the deal? What Ministers attended that special meeting on 6 August last year? Was Mr Ahern at that Cabinet meeting? Was Mr Harper at the Cabinet meeting? Why did they agree to change the terms of that decision to sell the Fish Board? Why did Raptis get prime land worth hundreds of thousands of dollars right on the river bank for about $100,000 and then get a monopoly of the fishing industry in Queensland? We have a right to know in Queensland. This is when we talk about freedom and rights. Mr Harper, the Minister for Primary Industries, has now tried to get out from under. That man ought to stand down. There ought to be a full judicial inquiry. The terms of reference of the Fitzgerald inquiry must be expanded because Ahern's credibility is on the line. Corruption has been rife in that State for decades. It is not just the police. The main area comes back to government contracts. The key is the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. If Ahern wants to set himself aside from the Fitzgerald inquiry, let him open up the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. Let him open it up. Match the donations with the contracts that his Government, while he has been in Cabinet, has given to the rorters, the corrupters of that State. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is now adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. (Quorum formed) Mr SCHOLES(Corio)(12.13) —I move: That this House is of the opinion that attempts by the Leader of the Liberal Party in Victoria to undermine Melbourne's bid for the 1996 Olympic Games are unacceptable and extremely short-sighted. I have moved this motion because of what was a fairly cheap attempt to score political points out of efforts to obtain the Olympic Games for Melbourne. In my view it was an attempt to take away from the campaign being conducted for the games. As we are all aware the Olympic Games in Seoul was an important point for promoting bids by Australia for the staging of the Olympic Games. As it was impossible for the Premier of Victoria to be part of the team promoting Melbourne's bid, the Victorian Minister for Sport and Recreation, Mr Trezise, went to Seoul to join with the Lord Mayor of Melbourne and other prominent Victorians to promote Melbourne as the site for the 1996 Olympic Games. Mr Kennett, during a visit to Geelong, in what I think was one of those efforts where his mouth was working but not communicating at all with his brain, said Mr Trezise should not have gone to Seoul but should spend the four days in Geelong. That was a stupid and unhelpful comment. Mr Trezise left Australia on the Sunday of election week and was back in Australia four days later. He joined the group in Seoul to show that Victoria's bid was supported by the State Government and, I would have thought, all political parties in Victoria. He returned home almost immediately. He spent 50 hours on aeroplanes in four days. I think that it ill-behoved the Victorian Leader of the Opposition to try to score points on this issue, especially as it had no electoral effect whatsoever. Mr Trezise is not a person who occupies a marginal seat. He has been the member for Geelong North for 24 years and is well known to his electorate. I do not want to use this time for the purpose of relating history. I want to advance the cause, firstly, of holding the Olympic Games in Australia and, secondly, of holding them in Melbourne which I think would be the most appropriate venue and which I think would be the most economic solution as far as Australia is concerned. Firstly I say that the Olympic Games is one of the greatest events in the human calendar. On the world stage it is pre-eminent. For the one-hundredth Olympic Games to be held in Australia would be a great asset and a great achievement for Australia and Australians-irrespective of which city were to be chosen. It will be very difficult for Australia's bid to be successful because, quite obviously, Athens in Greece, the home of the original Olympic Games and the venue of the first modern Olympic Games, will be pre-eminent and have an enormous advantage over all other applicants. However, every Australian should unequivocally support the bid to have the games in Australia. The games will do enormous good for Australia on the international stage. I believe that Melbourne has the facilities, the capacity and the history of involvement both as a participant in and venue for sport in Australia to make it the obvious site. There is no question that Melbourne is the most pre-eminent city in Australia as far as any form of sporting endeavour is concerned. It is the most successful and has the best attended venues. At this stage it has the facilities which would enable it to conduct the Olympic Games without excessive outlays of public funds. Shortly a decision on which Australian city will go forward to the International Olympic Committee as the recommended site and the site supported by the Australian Olympic Federation will be made. Once that decision is made, every Australian should get behind the chosen city. I think it is fair to say that Brisbane has made an extremely good job of running World Expo 88 and that most Australians are proud of that success. I believe that Melbourne has much to offer. I believe that for Victorians there is much benefit to be gained by the staging in Melbourne of the 1996 Olympic Games. The attention of the world is concentrated on the Olympic Games. The degree of publicity and international attention which will be generated could not possibly be purchased with any sum of money. For Australia the guaranteed success of the games in Melbourne, as has been the case with every major sporting activity that has ever been promoted in that city, will ensure that it achieves the recognition and the kudos that will come to it as the country staging those games, provided it is done with professional competence and with the full support of the public of this country. It is my belief that nothing should be allowed to occur which would detract from Victoria's and Melbourne's efforts. As a Victorian it is my belief that it is essential that every effort be made to obtain the games for Australia. I believe that at the time the events referred to in this motion occurred, politics temporarily overcame the long term needs. I am certain that had Jeff Kennett been elected Premier, which he was not, he would have been leading the race to support Melbourne's bid. I believe that every Victorian wishes our bid success and appreciates the enormity of the benefits which will flow to our State if it is successful. If Victoria's bid is not successful, then an Australian bid must be supported no matter which city is chosen. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Is there a seconder to the motion? Mr Griffiths —I second the motion. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(12.20) —The motion moved by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) is one condemning the Leader of the Liberal Party in Victoria, Mr Kennett. It states: That this House is of the opinion that attempts by the Leader of the Liberal Party in Victoria to undermine Melbourne's bid for the 1996 Olympic Games are unacceptable and extremely short-sighted. That is the motion the honourable member has moved before the House today. I believe that in so doing the honourable member has prejudiced Melbourne's bid. The honourable member is playing cheap politics by attacking the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Jeff Kennett, in Victoria and is prejudicing Melbourne's chances of getting the 1996 Olympics. He is playing cheap politics with Melbourne's bid for the Olympic Games. I think that is disgraceful. I had hoped that he would have come into this House and moved a motion that would have got bipartisan support from all Victorian members of both sides of the House, not only for Australia's bid, but for Melbourne's bid. But he attacks the Leader of the Liberal Party, and it is irresponsible and harmful to Melbourne's and Victoria's chances of getting the Games. For a Victorian Federal Labor parliamentarian to raise this issue in this way in the wording of this motion at this time must make us ask whether the Federal Labor Party has deserted Melbourne and whether the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), a member for a Victorian seat, and his other Victorian Labor colleagues, support Melbourne's bid. We have a Federal Labor parliamentarian coming into this House and moving this motion, which is damaging Melbourne's chances of holding the Games. He has gone over the wrong ground and old ground and has raised issues that should never have been raised in the first place. The Victorian Premier, Mr Cain, must be cringing because of the motion that the honourable member for Corio has put before the House today. It does not advance Melbourne's bid; it harms and hurts the chances of that bid; in fact, it endangers that bid. I hoped the member for Corio would have withdrawn the motion and that he would have needed the words of the Chairman of the Australian Olympic Federation, Australia's International Olympic Federation representative, and the Vice-President of the Olympic Federation, the world body, Mr Gosper, who said in September in Australia that politics should be taken out of Melbourne's bid for the 1996 Olympic Games. I agree with that. I hoped the honourable member for Corio would have agreed with that. But he has brought cheap politics into the debate again, and that is to be regretted. Let me go over the Victorian Liberal Party's position. Mr Jeff Kennett, the Leader of the Opposition, on 9 August 1988-which was prior to the calling of the Victorian election-wrote a letter to the Lord Mayor of Melbourne, Councillor Lecki Ord. I will read it to the House. It states: My dear Lord Mayor, The Liberal Party of Victoria totally supports the City of Melbourne's bid to hold the 1996 Olympic Games in Melbourne. Melbourne has the facilities required within easy reach of the City to professionally conduct the games. Such an event would be in the interests of all Victorians and Australians. Jeff Kennett has not equivocated from that position; he has not varied one iota from that position. In fact, the official position of the Victorian parliamentary Liberal Party is in the document that has been prepared by the Melbourne City Council and has gone to the Australian Olympic Federation as part of the bid. As I understand it, the Melbourne City Council understands clearly that the Liberal Party in Victoria is giving the Melbourne bid unqualified support. As I said, Mr Kennett has not equivocated at all. The bid has always had his total support. The former shadow Minister, Mr Tom Reynolds, was briefed throughout the building up and the preparation of the Melbourne bid and is totally behind it. The new shadow Minister, Mr Phil Gude, is totally supportive and is working with the Town Hall authorities in a bipartisan way to get the Games for Melbourne. As I said, the formal bid document contains the support of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kennett, in Victoria. I think the honourable member for Corio had a rush of blood to the head during the Victorian election campaign and put this motion on the Notice Paper. I think he regrets it. I think he should have withdrawn it. Because of some little tete-a-tete over a local government policy issue during the Victorian election campaign which at that time was blown out of all proportion, he has gone over that ground again, re-raised the issue and, I think, prejudiced Melbourne's bid. I think that there are good cities in Australia bidding for the Games. That is one point where I agree with the honourable member for Corio opposite; in fact, I agree with him about Melbourne. But I wish he had not raised it in this way at this time, prejudicing Melbourne's bid. Honourable members should read the honourable member for Corio's motion. Honourable members do not come into this House and move motions lightly. This motion states: That this House is of the opinion that attempts by the Leader of the Liberal Party in Victoria to undermine Melbourne's bid for the 1996 Olympic Games are unacceptable and extremely short-sighted. The honourable member for Corio has come into the chamber and attacked the Leader of the Opposition in a condemnatory way, when what all Victorian members on both sides of this House ought to be doing is getting behind Melbourne's bid and not prejudicing it in this way. I happen to believe that there are three good cities. I just happen to live in Melbourne and think that Melbourne is the best contender. I think that Melbourne is the sporting capital of Australia; in fact, I know that Melbourne is the sporting capital of Australia. In Melbourne we get the greatest turnout of spectators for sporting events of enormous variety. We get the greatest number of participants in sports across the board. I think that makes Melbourne an ideal city to be the Olympic host. We have got the great Melbourne Cricket Ground, the scene of great cricket and football events. Great heroes have been on that ground. We had that great cricket ground as the host stadium for the 1956 Olympic Games where the new form of closing ceremony of the Olympic Games was evolved because of the spirit of Melbourne. The spirit of Melbourne has been carried forward from 1956 to all closing ceremonies at the Olympic Games, where all athletes from all countries mingle together with great emotion and feeling for peace in the world. I think that makes Melbourne the ideal city in which to conduct opening and closing ceremonies. It is a great track and field venue at which to hold the 1996 Olympics. I would say to those who are critical of Melbourne's bid that Los Angeles had very successful Games in 1984, and Los Angeles had hosted a previous Olympic Games and in fact beat the great city of New York for the bid to be the host city for the 1984 Olympics. I think that Melbourne has a proven track record. It conducted the very successful 1956 Olympic Games all those years ago. But in Melbourne today there is fantastic community feeling and support for the 1996 Games. This was evidenced by the recent Totalizator Agency Board phone-in. There were some 12,000 phone calls and 40,000 people in Melbourne indicated that they would support that bid in a positive way and would act as drivers and would open their homes and let visitors stay with them and be volunteers generally during the Games. These are just some of the virtues of Melbourne, the great city. Melbourne does have the capacity. It has the facilities in the centre of the city. All the transport facilities lead into that central area and those venues around the Melbourne Cricket Ground and the tennis centre, which could be used for gymnastics, basketball and many other Olympic events. Melbourne has great capacity. It has the venues, the sporting facilities, the transport system, the hotels and the hospitality to host the 1996 Games. I also believe that it would be the most cost effective city to host the Games, because we have in place those marvellous capital assets to which I have just referred-the Melbourne Cricket Ground, the transport system, the tennis centre and other great venues. For instances, an international rowing course at Carrum in Melbourne has just been built and it is an ideal place to hold the rowing and canoeing events in the 1996 Olympic Games. I regret that I had to rise today to speak on this motion because the honourable member for Corio has raised it in the wrong way at the wrong time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! It being 12.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 104a. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(12.30) —I welcome the opportunity to participate in this grievance debate on this Thursday. I want to use this debate to say a word or two on behalf of those who are too ill, too frightened or too apprehensive to speak for themselves, namely, the aged and the ageing in our community. It is particularly significant that I should stand here in what is likely to be my last grievance debate in 1988, given the popularity of the grievance debates on both sides of the House to bat, effectively I hope, for those people who, in our bicentennial year, we must recognise persevered on our behalf, for those people who saw difficulties that my generation has never experienced, for those people who did without, for those people who fought for this country on our behalf, for we have inherited all that they did for us. In the last five years the aged communities have been forgotten by the Hawke Government. They have been attacked by the Hawke Government with things such as assets tests and taxes on superannuation. Nowhere has this been more acute than among veterans who fought on behalf of every Australian to keep the nation free. They have been subjected to an unprecedented attack from the present Administration. We are indebted to the aged in our community. Even if one were to view them from a purely cynical political viewpoint, they would be an increasingly important part of the make-up of the Australian community. The reality is that in our bicentennial year we recognise that people live longer now than they have at any other time in Australia's history. By the year 2010 the number of Australian people over 45-I will be one of them next year-will be between 8 1/2 million and 8.7 million, or 40 per cent of our population, a rise of 70 per cent in that proportion in 21 years. In fact, the number of people over 80 will go from 2 per cent to 5 per cent of our population by the year 2031. I recognise that the Government, sensitive to what will be the electoral backlash of what has been termed grey power, has announced the results of the Professor Cass inquiry into the ageing in our community and has, in response to the by-election results in Adelaide, Port Adelaide and Oxley, set up the Hawke aged task force comprising, I am pleased to note, from this side of the House the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) and the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). This is nothing more than window dressing. I want to elaborate on two experiences in my rural electorate of Wakefield which further reinforce the cruel uncertainty the aged face. The real care that the Hawke task force for the ageing may ultimately inject into the Parliament will be not only overdue but also too late. Aged people have a choice to remain in what has been the family home, to move into a retirement village which, from their point of view, will frequently be self-funded, or when age and sickness no longer allow them to be independent, to move into a hostel and ultimately into a nursing home. In my electorate there is increasing confusion and an increasing shortage of facilities and nursing home beds for the aged. But the Government has currently been obsessed with what has been called the HACC program-the home and community care program-designed to take the pressure off nursing home beds. On this side of the House there is no criticism of the concept of a HACC program which allows aged people to maintain some independence. It is not wrong to have a HACC program. The problem is that the Government is currently blinkered with what has been its HACC program and is refusing to address the demands in electorates such as mine for an expansion of additional hostels and nursing home facilities. The honourable member for Richmond put it well when he said that the term HACC could well stand for hopelessly and completely confused. In my State of South Australia-the State of the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), who is at the table-the aged have, in a sense, been penalised because the performance of groups supporting them in the past has been so good. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the town of Burra in my electorate within the CURB boundaries established by the State Government. Because Burra sits in a CURB boundary, people presume that there are sufficient beds for aged care. I acknowledge that the Minister for Community Services and Health has been very receptive when I have spoken to him of what is happening in the Burra community. He recognises the geographic isolation of Burra and the fact that the CURB boundary area unfairly penalises the people of Burra. In fact, two years ago, he was realistic enough to indicate that he was prepared to exercise some discretion in funding an additional aged care facility in the Burra area. Unfortunately, an election intervened. I now find myself standing here grieving on behalf of the Burra community because people there are still denied the nursing home beds and the hostel facilities that they need and that they proposed as part of hospital redevelopment in Burra. They are still a football between State and Federal governments, and the answer is still unresolved. Still we wait for the South Australian Health Commission to make a decision. If that were not bad enough, I take honourable members from Burra, an isolated community in my electorate, to Gawler, South Australia's oldest country town, and the major growth area in my electorate. Only last week I had representatives from Mr Max Powell, the proprietor of the James Martin Village in Gawler. He came to me with a dilemma he faces as he endeavours to address the demands of the aged in that area. By any standard anywhere across our nation James Martin Village is a modern, reputable, sought after retirement area. The James Martin Village combines both hostel and nursing home facilities on one site. In fact, there are retirement village independent units on the site as well. Mr Powell discovered that the cost of separating individual operations in one village between the retirement village, the hostel and the nursing home is becoming a nightmare. He has no flexibility and has been shown no tolerance by the Department of Community Services and Health. His plea over many months has been for the Department simply to lay down some guidelines for the way in which a multi-facet facility such as his should operate. I propose to put some questions on notice to the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) later this week to illustrate the absurdity of what is happening to villages such as James Martin. I am using this grievance debate to highlight what has been Mr Powell's frustration with the Department. He has sought from it, over a long period, nothing more than a response to reasonable correspondence that he has submitted on behalf of the people who reside in his village. It started on 11 July of this year when he wrote. He wrote again on 19 July and on 8 August he followed up with another letter. All of those letters sought a response to his original request for a review of the way in which the James Martin village currently goes about funding and meeting the demands of its residents. There was still no reply in August and on 22 August he was forced to add: Under the circumstances I have no alternative but to seek a personal interview with an officer of your Department at the Adelaide Office within this current business week. It is now November and still there is no response from the Department. Well might Minister Staples come to terms with what is happening in his Department and what is happening to the disadvantage of aged people in Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(12.40) —I rise in the grievance debate today to alert the Australian public to some very disturbing news that has been coming out of the United States (US) in recent weeks. The public is about to be subjected again to a campaign to convince it that nuclear power is safe. That campaign arises because worldwide concern about the consequences of the greenhouse effect is demanding that we consider alternatives to the current means of producing energy throughout the world. People are starting to say, `Why not turn to nuclear power?' Because, I suppose, it is a few years since the Chernobyl accident and the subject of nuclear safety has simply been off the front pages, the public has begun to accept that everything must have been sorted out, that the nuclear industry has at last solved the problems and that we had better accept the assurances of the industry. There is a general unease about nuclear power-that is not contested-but people are unfortunately not often in possession of the facts. Let me then take this opportunity to alert the public to some of the facts, because nuclear power is no alternative. Despite repeated claims by the industry that serious accidents are unlikely to happen, information now escaping into the public arena in the United States shows that accidents are occurring within the nuclear industry, and have been over the past three decades. There has been a massive cover-up by successive US administrations and the industry to make sure that the public did not find out. In spite of their efforts to deceive the public, accidents are being uncovered and in many instances they are being uncovered by congressional committees and government officials and as a result of workers in the industry going on strike for better safety conditions. Let me instance some of them that have been revealed recently in Australian newspapers. Thousands of tonnes of radioactive uranium waste have been released into the environment over the decades by a nuclear weapons plant in Ohio. Government officials have admitted that they did nothing about all the dangerous waste which got into the water supplies and into the Great Miami River. How was this discovered? By testimonials before a Congress energy and commerce subcommittee. According to reports published in the New York Times, several congressional committees are now scrambling to expose the problems of America's nuclear weapons industry. The question needs to be asked: Why have the industry and the government turned a blind eye to these problems rather than revealed them to the public? Some alarming facts are now being revealed: shoddy equipment, poor maintenance, human error and hushed-up accidents. All of these are disclosures from congressional testimony. And the workers in the industry are now taking the matter of safety very seriously indeed. At the Fernald plant in Ohio, 600 workers went on strike demanding better wages and safer working conditions. At the Savannah River plant in South Carolina, where the Energy Department claimed there had been no significant accidents in the plant's 30-year history, it has now been revealed in documents released by the company which operated the plant, that there had indeed been 30 serious accidents since the 1950s, including one that involved partial fuel meltdown. There is in Fernald a plant called the Feed Material Production Centre, which most locals thought made cattle fodder or cat food, but in fact it has been processing uranium for the last 30 years. Because of faulty exhaust air filters, this same plant had allowed the release of more than 200,000 pounds of radioactive oxide dust into the atmosphere over three decades. It is of no surprise to those who have the facts that residents in the area have very high incidences of cancer and other diseases. Amid all these recent disclosures about mismanagement, safety violations, accidents and environmental contamination, a search has begun, authorised by Congress, to find the American victims of the atomic bomb-that is, those people who lived around the Hanford reservation where uranium was first turned into plutonium in 1944. It has been revealed recently that Hanford managers have allowed radioactive emissions to be released from the stacks and they let this happen for two decades. During their experiments over the years, huge doses of radioactive iodine were released; in fact, in all, 530,000 curies. The practice was well documented but kept secret and became public only when an environmental group forced the Government to release 19,000 pages of documentation under the Freedom of Information Act. According to neighbours who live east of the Hanford Reservation bomb factory, of the 108 people who lived in 28 homes within a mile of the highway, 23 men, women and children have become ill or have died from cancer since the mid-1950s. Seven other children in the area died as infants or are handicapped. Further east, there are higher than normal incidences of thyroid diseases, well documented and well acknowledged by the locals. In Britain it was revealed in the Wise magazine of January 1988 that after 30 years we are only now learning the truth about the fire at the Windscale nuclear complex in 1957. Official documents now released reveal that fire broke out in atomic piles used to produce weapons grade plutonium. The cloud of smoke coming from the fire that raged for 16 hours contaminated large areas of Britain and Ireland and contained 600 times more radioactive iodine than the Three Mile Island disaster. Since the fire dozens of people who lived, worked or who were holidaying at the time have died or are dying of leukaemia and other cancers. Why did the Government keep the true extent of the accident a secret? Could it be that if the public were made aware of the facts they might make sure no more nuclear plants would be built? There has been widespread alarm in the public worldwide since Chernobyl about the whole of the nuclear industry. The public must continue to demand greater accountability from the industry and from the Government; but it is no use if it is too late. Now, despite all these problems, there are people who are wanting to expand the world's nuclear power program to solve the problems with the greenhouse effect. It is no solution, certainly not in the long term. Uranium, after all, is a non-renewable resource. What happens when it eventually runs out? In any event, why offer as an alternative to the problem we have, a procedure which has so many unresolved problems of its own, problems that probably will never be solved, such as the problem of waste? That is something that we are leaving with the world for the next several hundred thousand years. No-one knows what to do with it. Then there is the problem of nuclear proliferation. Why go into an alternative power source which has inextricable links with the nuclear weapons industry and which could give the world the nuclear winter certainly comparable to the greenhouse effect in terms of disaster? What about the cost of nuclear power? It is by far the most expensive form of power, even if it worked efficiently and safely, even if there were no messes, no accidents to clean up. Then there is the issue of safety, the one about which we are given all the reassurances. There is in this morning's Australian Financial Review a letter by David Hamer, who described safety in the nuclear industry comparatively. He says that it has had a bad press since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl; that if there was an accident in a coal mine killing 30 miners and a hydro-electric dam collapsed killing 1,000 people they would be regarded as unfortunate accidents; but if one person was killed in a uranium mine there would be mass demonstrations in the streets. The point is that around a nuclear power station people are at risk. Safety in nuclear power just does not mean safety amongst the workers at the stations. It means the safety of an entire community. Surely Chernobyl taught us that. What these recent revelations show is that we cannot accept the reassurances of the industry because we do not always get the truth. Who in Australia would want a nuclear power plant in his or her neighbourhood? If nuclear power is even to be suggested as an alternative to coal-fired power stations, that means here in Australia too because the greenhouse effect is a worldwide problem. It requires international cooperation. It means nuclear power stations in Australia. So the debate here will no longer be about whether to expand or restrict the mining and export of uranium; it will be about whether the Australian public can be convinced to adopt nuclear power and to have facilities built near them. With the continuing dishonest record of the industry, particularly in the United States, as revealed recently, I am sure I know what the response of the Australian public would be to that. Mr PROSSER(Forrest)(12.50) —Mr Deputy Speaker, our laws are fraught with inconsistencies and anomalies, none more so than our taxation laws. Indeed, I have already presented a private member's Bill to this House to correct an anomaly in the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935. There is another inconsistency which should be acted upon, this time contained within the Bank Accounts Debits Tax Administration Act 1982; but I am, of course, prevented from doing so by standing order 293, which preserves financial initiatives of the Crown. Essentially, this principle ensures that the Government, and no-one else, should be in charge of the purse strings. The principle behind this stems from section 55 of the Constitution. Nonetheless, I am certain that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will accept that this anomaly does exist in the debits tax and, hopefully, he will take steps to abolish it. The bank accounts debits (BAD) tax took effect on 1 April 1983. It was no April fool's joke, and remains with us today, albeit under an abbreviated title of debits tax. It is a tax which generally imposes a small financial burden each time it is imposed but which, in aggregate, represents a significant cost to the community. This financial year it is expected that $360m will be raised from the debits tax collections. Perhaps the old acronym of BAD for the tax really is a more appropriate title. That represents virtually a 100 per cent increase compared with the first full year's revenue from the BAD tax of 1983-84. This has more than a little to do with the fact that on 1 December 1986 the Government increased most BAD tax rates by 50 per cent. Of course, it is not the only example of the Government's greed for higher taxes and levels of taxation. Indeed, this Government's reputation as the highest taxing government in Australia's history-the government which has made the average Australian $56 a week worse off-is firmly on record. I want to concentrate now on the debits tax anomaly itself. Generally, people think the debits tax is a tax on withdrawals from bank accounts. Certainly, that is what the original name of bank accounts debits tax suggests. But the relevant legislation was opened up last year to snare withdrawals from accounts held by other financial institutions, particularly building societies and credit unions, and hence the slight name change. Although the banks and building societies are both caught up, under the legislation, their treatment at the hands of the Australian Taxation Office differs. As a result of last year's legislative change, subsection 3 (1) of the Bank Accounts Debits Tax Administration Act now contains a two-part definition describing the type of account to which the debits tax applies. The second part, which was a completely new addition to the Act, refers to accounts operated by non-bank financial institutions, which involves the use of payment orders. I quote: An account kept with a non-bank financial institution . . . being an account to which payments, by the institution in respect of payment orders drawn on the institution by the account holder . . . or by one or more of the account holders . . . may be debited. At the time of these amendments, it was thought the building societies would make extensive use of payment orders. These were a new financial instrument intended to operate in much the same way as bank cheques, except that they would be drawn against accounts with non-bank financial institutions. The debits tax would then be charged against the value of each payment order used by the customer; in fact, building societies have not followed this course, as had been expected. Although many societies offer cheque facilities, these cheques are operated via a third party, that third party being the bank. The first part of the definition of `taxable accounts' refers to bank accounts with cheque facilities: An account kept with a bank . . . being an account to which payments by the bank in respect of cheques drawn on the bank by the account holder . . . or by any one or more of the account holders . . . may be debited. So in the case of banks, debits tax applies to withdrawals of money from cheque accounts. In the case of building societies, it impacts on withdrawals from accounts involving payment orders. It follows that building societies which, instead of using payment orders, operate cheque accounts for their customers, via a bank, incur debits tax at the point each cheque is presented to the bank for payment. In today's competitive environment, financial institutions must pull out all stops to attract customers. This has included the provision of multi-access accounts, which are savings accounts that can be operated in a number of ways. Separate cheque and savings accounts are not the only option today, as more and more banks and building society customers opt for multi-access accounts. Indeed, it is now commonplace for savings accounts to involve the use of cheques and plastic cards. In 1983, when the BAD tax became a reality, the use of plastic cards and automatic teller machines was not the commonplace occurrence that it is today. As these combined accounts became increasingly popular, a discrepancy in the BAD tax law reared its head. Consider two people: one has a building society savings account with a cheque facility and a plastic card; the other has a bank savings account with similar multi-access facilities. When the building society customer uses his plastic card to withdraw money, debits tax does not apply. After all, he is not withdrawing money from an account which incorporates the use of payment orders. As such, his account falls outside the definition of taxable accounts held by non-bank financial institutions spelled out in the Bank Accounts Debits Tax Administration Act. However, the account used by the bank customer is a different kettle of fish; that being a bank account, the legislation provides for it to be subject to the tax if there is a cheque facility attached to the account. As our customer has a multi-use account, including a chequebook, all his withdrawals, not just the cheque, will attract debits tax. Our two customers could be on opposite sides of the same street using their respective automatic teller machines to withdraw money. One will pay tax; the other will not. Clearly this is an unfair anomaly. However, it can be easily resolved in one of two ways. The legislation could be extended to cover all withdrawals from building society accounts which have cheque facilities, including non-cheque withdrawals. Alternatively, debits tax could be abolished in respect of non-cheque withdrawals from bank accounts. Clearly, the original intention of the BAD tax was to levy cheque debits. As I have explained, it is merely a matter of historical development in the retail banking market that has caught non-cheque debits as well. The present situation clearly was not the original intention of Parliament. Indeed, during the second reading speech of the legislation, the Treasurer at the time stated: Debits resulting from cheques drawn on an account . . . as well as other debits made to an account . . . such as for periodical transfer payments and for the charging of interest to bank accounts . . . will be subject to the tax. Debits to current accounts held with trading banks will be the primary subject of the tax. The multi-facility accounts I have discussed are, of course, savings accounts. To correct this anomaly fairly, it is necessary to relieve bank customers of the need to pay debits tax on non-cheque withdrawals. Two methods of achieving this objective are possible. Firstly, the legal definition of `exempt debit' could be extended, quite simply, to ensure that only debits made to multi-access bank accounts by cheque were subject to the tax. Alternatively, a new regulation, issued under section 62 of the Bank Accounts Debits Tax Administration Act, would provide swifter relief to bank customers. Unfortunately, correcting this anomaly will not dent the massive reduction in living standards imposed by this Government. However, it will provide some relief to the thousands of bank customers, especially low income earners and pensioners. To many of these people every cent in every dollar, carefully accounted for, makes a difference. Earlier this week the Australian provided us with a sharp reminder when an anonymous author-a pensioner-wrote that he could not even afford to buy margarine to spread on his bread. Quite frankly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Australians deserve better than this. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(1.00) —We have heard two interesting speeches so far in this debate this afternoon from members of the Opposition. The honourable member for Forrest (Mr Prosser) calls for a further reduction in Commonwealth revenues of $360m. Add that to the abolition of the capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax substantiation and immediate tax cuts to pay as you earn taxpayers and the revenue base of the Commonwealth goes down by a couple of billion dollars at the least. On the other hand, we heard the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) make an impassioned plea for increased benefits to the aged of this country, a call which I totally support. I wonder what the honourable member for Wakefield, the honourable member for Forrest and those other members opposite who keep calling for tax cuts do when they get into their party room and try to match their rhetoric with the demand for increased expenditure. The Australian people should never forget that this is the Opposition which in the last election called for a $16 billion cut in Commonwealth expenditure but, despite being asked, refused to give any detail of where that $16 billion should be cut. Honourable members opposite would not say, for example, that the aged and the frail would not suffer massive dislocation of benefits being currently paid to them. Yet the honourable member for Forrest and other members opposite call for massive tax cuts. The question that the honourable member for Wakefield must surely ask is: Where is the money coming from to pay for the sort of increased benefit he calls for for members of the aged sector? Interestingly, my particular concern and grievance today concerns the aged and the frail in our community, particularly those aged and frail people who for all of their working life have paid moneys into the private health insurance system of this country, and particularly those who have paid moneys into the Health Benefits Association (HBA) of Victoria. At a time in their life when they need recoupment from the private funds to which they have contributed all of their life, the health funds are now saying in Victoria, `Bad luck; because you are now a drain on our investments we no longer want to pay the money out, and instead the Commonwealth Government now should pick up the tab despite the fact that you have paid for private insurance all of your life'. This is a very recent occurrence in Victoria. In particular, in my electorate it concerns two bush nursing hospitals, the Euroa Hospital and the Nagambie Bush Nursing Hospital. Bush nursing hospitals are unique institutions in the world. Bush nursing hospitals are those necessary facilities which exist in rural Australia and which, very largely, have been built by capital contributions from the rural dwellers themselves. Bush nursing hospitals have made very little demand upon capital from State or Commonwealth governments to provide those facilities. As any honourable member who has anything to do with rural Australia well knows, they are financially supported very strongly by the people in the communities where they are. Bush nursing hospitals fulfil a multitude of purposes in rural Australia. They provide an immediate refuge for those who are ill and need immediate patient care, be they aged or young. All bush nursing hospitals in my electorate provide acute beds for particularly acute caring need aged patients. If the honourable member for Wakefield is fair dinkum he will go into his party room and knock the nonsense on the head of getting tax cuts and call for increased tax, probably, in order to provide the sort of benefits he wants to see the aged get in this country. I support him on that because there is no doubt that in our rural areas our aged are suffering. It is also true that no Commonwealth Government is going to have the financial capacity necessary to ensure that all of our frail aged in rural Victoria in particular, or in rural Australia, are going to have the kind of capital expenditure incurred in those areas to build the number of nursing home beds that this country will want. That is what makes it so damning on the private health funds for the actions they are now taking. I draw the attention of the House to a particular constituent of mine who is presently in an acute bed in the Nagambie Bush Nursing Hospital. She is now 90 and a full quadriplegic, requiring drip feed to maintain life and 24-hour acute nursing care. She has paid into HBA for over 30 years of her life. I am told by the hospital that she has never been in hospital before in her life. Under current rules of the private funds after 35 days in an acute bed, if the patient is an aged person, he or she belongs in a nursing home. The reality is that in country areas we are never going to have nursing homes in every rural town. That means aged people in rural areas have the option of being sent many miles away from the areas where they have lived all of their lives and where their friends and relatives are presently living, to a home where they are strangers, surrounded by strangers and where they are no longer part of the community in which they have long grown up. Bush nursing hospitals, traditionally in Victoria, including my electorate, provide acute beds for those frail aged to spend the rest of their lives at least in the area where they have always lived. But now the Hospital Benefits Association says it will not pay. It will not pay at all. Despite the fact of 30 years contribution to the private fund it will not pick up the tab. The Commonwealth Government is going to have to pick up the tab. What is to be done with a 90-year-old quadriplegic woman requiring drip feeding and 24-hour acute accommodation in an acute bed, be it in a bush nursing hospital or any nursing home? Does it really matter? Is it not more important that that person remains in the community where she has lived all of her life? Is it not equally important that if you have paid into a private health insurance fund for your life, at the time when you require a return on that investment the health funds should, in fact, pick up that cost? I find it criminal and alarming that the health funds now in Victoria are taking the view that if you are young and if you are healthy they will provide health insurance for you. We all know that those aged over 50 use the majority of medical health services in this country. The situation is arising in this country, with our private health funds, that when you are young and are an actuarial risk you will not require any withdrawal from the insurance fund you are paying into; it will give you cover. At the time of life when you are starting to demand medical services at an increasing rate and you have contributed to one of those private funds, it will dump you. The House should well be aware that private health insurance contracts are for a 12-month duration only. In other words, the private health funds have the option upon themselves, at the end of each 12-month cycle, of saying they will no longer insure you. I wonder how honourable members opposite who give calls to help our aged and who also support user pay principles on medical health care relate that to their calls for increased assistance to the aged. I wonder how those on the other side who want to get rid of Medicare equate that with the actions of the private health funds in Australia. I wonder if, in fact, the Opposition members really understand what is occurring in rural Australia with services that the aged in rural Australia are increasingly requiring and in this country should automatically get. I quite frankly would like to see the day when there are no longer any private health funds because they are only distorting the health system. They do not care about the aged, they do not care about providing universal health services. They are concerned primarily with profit. Why should they not be concerned with profit, because they are profit motive organisations? Mr White —You can't be serious. Mr CLEELAND —If the honourable member opposite who is interrupting had listened to me earlier, perhaps he could explain to the 90-year-old woman who has paid private health care cover for 30 years of her life why, when she is in an acute bed in a bush nursing hospital, the funds says, `We are not paying for you because you are now a permanent care patient. The Commonwealth picks up the tab'. Perhaps he can explain to that 90-year-old woman what has been making that contribution for 30 years of her life and has never gone into hospital before. What is the value then of the private health system? Perhaps he can explain that, not just to my constituent but to young Australians who believe that by paying for private health insurance they will be covered. He cannot explain that to them because he knows the health funds are interested in profit and profit only, not in providing proper health care services to the people of this country. In conclusion, may I say that I am pleased that the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) when this was drawn to his attention made an unequivocal promise to the people in bush nursing hospitals in Victoria who are being hit by the private health funds in this way that they need have no concern, that whatever happens this Government will pick up their costs and will ensure that the proper care and attention they need in acute nursing homes or in acute bush nursing hospital accommodation will be covered. I am proud of that action by this Government. Mr TAYLOR(Groom)(1.10) —Australia is a modern industrial nation with the potential to develop into a leading technologically advanced society with enhanced economic, social and cultural prospects for all its citizens. However, this progress will not occur automatically. Neither is there unlimited time for its pursuit and successful achievement. Australia's future prosperity will depend on our willingness to push back the frontiers of knowledge, to exploit new alternatives, to experiment with new solutions and to adopt proven advancements. But economic advancement is not enough. The extent to which we use our prosperity to widen and deepen our culture and to improve the quality of our lives will depend greatly on our capacity to provide our youth with a sound liberal education both at school level and beyond. A strong, dynamic, expanding and forward looking higher education system is therefore central to Australia's chances of realising its proper destiny into the twenty-first century. Mr Deputy Speaker, higher education in Australia in 1988 is at the crossroads. In terms of a broader national interest, such an educational system should contribute to our economic development through growth of exploitable knowledge, stimulation of imagination, innovation, entrepreneurship and industry. It should contribute to our social development by helping to nurture mutual respect amongst free individuals, to safeguard personal freedoms, to promote tolerance and to champion excellence in human endeavour. Finally, it should contribute to our cultural enrichment through the study of our intellectual and artistic heritage and the advancement of knowledge and achievement in the humanities, the arts, the sciences and the technologies. Furthermore, for the higher education system to meet these expectations, it must enjoy the confidence of its students, the academic staff and the community as a whole. It must also have assured sources of funds for expansion where appropriate and for continuing improvements in quality. Additionally, each institution should have sufficient freedom to determine its own direction and goals subject to reasonable systems of public accountability for the use of taxpayers' funds. In the secondary schools since 1982, the proportion of students who go through to form 12 has leaped from 36 per cent to about 53 per cent. While parents have encouraged children to stay at school to qualify for jobs in a competitive market, the additional students who complete form 12 now confront a new bottleneck. This year perhaps 20,000 students could not find a place in higher education. In Queensland the disappointment was especially high. Since 1945 the number of students in higher education has risen from about 50,000 to 400,000. This massive industry, with its sizeable bureaucracy, costs the taxpayers about $2.8 billion a year. It is therefore sensible to ask whether the money is well spent. Clearly, our nation's economic circumstances call for a revitalised system of higher education. In my view we should be concentrating on our greatest natural resource-our young people. A more effective higher education system is central to efforts to innovate industry, to raise work force abilities and to guarantee rising living standards in the future. Higher education must provide an environment of expanding opportunity, to satisfy the demands of young people and others seeking to enhance their careers and to broaden their knowledge. The great challenge is to expand the capacity and to improve the quality. In recent years, difficulties have emerged. There have been insufficient places to meet the demand of otherwise qualified students. Without access to sources of funds other than those provided by the already sorely pressed taxpayer, institutions have not only been incapable of meeting demand but have also developed serious capital works and maintenance backlogs. The low rate of growth in the system has not provided adequate career opportunities for existing and prospective academic staff and has not generated sufficient funds for research activities. Inflexibility in academic remuneration has led to severe shortages of suitably qualified staff in areas of greatest demand and a loss of gifted academics to other employment in Australia and overseas. Finally, the capacity of institutions to respond flexibly to change in the external environment and to upgrade their standards of academic and administrative performance has been reduced by inappropriate internal structures and excessive governmental regulation. The Government's solution lies principally in what some have referred to as the iron fist in the velvet glove approach of the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) wherein public tertiary institutions will be invited-and I use that word cautiously-to join a new unified system which will largely remove the distinction between colleges and universities and wherein all public institutions are invited to submit educational profiles setting out their broad objectives plus a whole range of details on student loads and intakes, teaching duties and a willingness to achieve national priorities including equity. If the Dawkins proposals are accepted in toto we will have: firstly, an even greater weight of central government regulation on the system; secondly, under the unified national system the government will require institutions to negotiate for funds directly with the Department of Employment, Education and Training in Canberra and, in effect, institutions will compete with each other for favours from the government; thirdly, the forcing of amalgamation between institutions without adequate regard to the economic or educational benefits of that amalgamation; fourthly, the Government has also moved to take more direct control over research and higher education by earmarking an increasing proportion of research funds for projects decided by government to be in the national interest; and, fifthly, the Government is attempting to introduce a higher education contribution scheme, the so-called graduate tax, which fails to take adequate account of such matters as part time students in employment, the scheme's failure to return tax collected to higher education institutions and the probability of confusion and/or abuse of the system. Predictably, there is a plethora of views on the Dawkins proposals. I support some, although I reject his principal philosophical thrust towards further centralisation of political and bureaucratic power in Canberra. We already have far too much of both. The Vice-Chancellor of Melbourne University, Professor David Penington, is fearful about the intrusive and over-regulatory implications. In a recent speech he described the White Paper as heralding `the imposition on Australian universities and Australian science of a period of unprecedented political interference and central regulatory control virtually unknown elsewhere in the Western world'. The Minister for Education, Youth and Sport in Queensland, Mr Littleproud, had described the Dawkins changes as giving increased purse strings power to Canberra and the unified national system as a big brother club with which institutions must conform or they do not become members. There seem to be four major objectives in the higher education package put forward by the Minister. The first one is that there should be substantial growth; secondly, that there should be improved equity of access; thirdly, that there should be resources for the growth that is expected; and, fourthly, that the institutions should be made more accountable for the public money they spend. They are all very reasonable and laudable objectives. However, I believe there is a major contradiction in the Government's package. Currently there is a charge of $263 a year for students entering universities and colleges of advanced education. That $263 annual charge is now to be replaced by an $1,800 annual charge. Nowhere is there any analysis whatsoever of the disincentive effect of applying the $1,800 a year charge on students. In other words, there is an objective of expanding higher education, of making it more readily available and of improving equity and access to a higher education, yet the annual charge for the student is to be increased dramatically. I do not believe that higher education is the preserve of the relatively privileged in Australia. It has been possible, over the years, for people of relatively modest incomes to enter higher education. By what stretch of the imagination could a massive increase in costs to students be said to improve the access of the underprivileged? Without an adequate answer to this question the whole package is flawed. I believe that the so-called graduate tax is objectionable philosophically, that it provides a significant financial disincentive for students from low and disadvantaged families and from a practical perspective is unworkable administratively. Like John Ward, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sydney, I also oppose moves in the educational sphere that result in-I use his description-`strangulation by regulation'. On the other hand, I welcome aspects of the Dawkins proposals which will bring higher education in Australia into a more modern era. I favour any higher educational system that will restore a sound funding basis and that will give State governments greater responsibility for planning future development in our States. Much that Minister Dawkins wants to achieve in higher education is sensible and a good deal of what he proposes will help. However, there is a serious danger that his cure will be more painful than the disease and may even kill the patient. The issues are therefore both practical and philosophical. I hope that in introducing the Higher Education Funding Bill later today in this place, the Minister will provide comfort to the many thousands of students and academics with whom his proposals do not sit easily at present. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(1.20) —I wish to bring to the attention of the House a case in relation to a tendering contract involving Lloyd Aviation Group, which is based in Gladstone in my electorate. The Group believes it has been unfairly treated in a contract with the Queensland Department of Harbours and Marine. It feels that the Department ignored quoted prices and has shown favouritism to a company called Helispray. On 19 September Lloyd received from the Department of Harbours and Marine an invitation to quote on providing a helicopter service for the transfer of marine pilots at the port of Gladstone. The quote had to be received by the Department of Harbours and Marine by 5 p.m. on 23 September 1988. Lloyd prepared a submission and hand delivered it to the offices of Harbours and Marine on the 22nd Floor, 41 George Street, Brisbane, before 6 p.m. on 23 September. The submission was placed in the tender box indicated by the receptionist as the correct place for the submission. On 26 September the managing director of the Lloyd Group contacted a senior officer of the Department to ascertain the result of the submission. He was told by the officer that the contract had been given to Helispray because the Lloyd Group had not submitted a quotation. The Group understandably objected to this description of the sequence of events. It was then informed that the Department did have the quotation and that it was substantially lower than the other one submitted, but because Helispray had already been advised by telephone of its winning bid, the Department said it was too late to do anything about it. The Lloyd Group appealed against this and a request to have the quotation considered was denied. This is the second time the Group believes it has been unfairly discriminated against by the Queensland Government. In 1985 it successfully tendered for providing a helicopter service for the transfer of marine pilots at the port of Gladstone and Hay Point. After being advised of its successful bid, and before the commencement date of the contract, Lloyd was advised that the Hay Point section of its contract was taken from it and given to Helispray, which was one of the unsuccessful tenderers. According to information presented to me, the manager of Helispray boasted at the time that he had contacts in the Department of Harbours and Marine and that it would eventually give him the Gladstone contract. I do not know whether the gentleman has a crystal ball or just has wonderful foresight, but the Helispray company was subsequently given the contract. According to the information available to me, the Helispray company could not comply with the commencement date of the contract on 1 October. The Lloyd Group was then asked by the Department to fill in for it until it was ready. Lloyd was told that this was to be two weeks. I am also advised that Helispray was unable to abide by its commitments to the Hay Point contract for six months. I would like to call on the Queensland Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services, Mr Neal, to launch an immediate inquiry into the letting of both of these contracts. I have referred the matter to members of the Public Accounts Committee which has recently been established in Queensland. It appears that the tradition of jobs for the boys, established by the Bjelke-Petersen Government with government contracts, is alive and well under the Ahern Government, if the information is correct. Mr Sciacca —It is shameful. Mr COURTICE —As the honourable member for Bowman says, it is shameful and it is a sad indictment of the Government in Queensland. My colleague the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) was hounded by the Police Commissioner, Mr Lewis, under the Bjelke-Petersen Government when he released information about a contract on the Stanwell power station. I do not expect the same reaction to this disclosure because members of the clique who were hounding the honourable member for Capricornia have either resigned in disgrace or have had their deeds exposed in the Fitzgerald inquiry. The Queensland Government certainly needs to look at its tendering process. How is it that a company which has the lowest tender misses out on a contract? How is it that having won a contract fair and square the Lloyd Group has part of that contract removed from it by a company which could not handle the contract for six months? How is it that even in this latest contract scandal the group is advised that its submission is lost only to resurface when it is too late to do anything about it? The people who are the real losers out of this are not only the Lloyd Group and its employees and their families; they are the Queensland taxpayers. Because more taxpayer funds have to be allocated to this project, there is less money to spend on other services for Queensland families. In central Queensland there is less government money for basic services like education and health; there is less money to provide adequate medical staff. At the mining town of Moura in my electorate-everyone knows the dangers of the coal mining industry-there has been difficulty attracting adequate medical staff. All schools throughout central Queensland suffer lack of adequate support staff and it places great pressure on parents and citizens. The Boyne Island and Tannum Sands region needs a high school. The shonky tendering arrangements in Queensland departments mean that parents and children in areas like Boyne Island and Tannum Sands have to wait while enough funds are appropriated for them. As I said, the letting of this contract has occurred under the Ahern Government. It appears that the Ahern Government is permitting the use of the sleaze factor when it comes to the letting of contracts. It is up to the Queensland Minister to investigate fully these contracts and ensure that justice has been done. The efficiency of letting contracts is crucial to achieving efficiency in government as a whole. It is incredible but true that after 20 years in State Parliament, eight of them as a Cabinet Minister holding senior portfolios, Mr Ahern had no economic strategy to roll with when he became Premier. Nothing happened until March, when Mr Ahern announced he was spending $400,000 of public funds to buy a strategy from private consultants. All other State governments have come up with their own economic development strategies from their own resources and have put them into effect. Mr Ahern has had a run around the State offering a $400,000 reward to discover a strategy and he still has not been able to track it down. In the meantime, Queensland's economic performance is crying out for a comprehensive and coordinated strategy. Mr Ahern and his Government need look no further than contract letting suffered by the Lloyd Group to understand why decent businesses will not touch his Government with a barge pole and as a consequence the Queensland economy is suffering. We need a clear signal that from now on all contracts will be weighed on their merits. There should not be a wink and a nod to mates. One should not need a National Party membership dangling out of the pocket to pick up contracts. A stamp of decency can be placed on government dealings by reviewing the contract arrangements in the Lloyd case. The matter should be investigated immediately. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(1.27) —I wish to raise in these few minutes the question of the New Zealand participation in the Anzac frigate project which has had some publicity today. For some time New Zealand has been backing and filling on this particular project and we see more in reports from New Zealand today where Mr Lange has reportedly warned his Cabinet that Australia is at last getting tough with New Zealand about its participation in this project. It is high time that Australia took a much tougher line with New Zealand on this project. One of the reasons that New Zealand has been soft and will not make up its mind, will not indicate whether it will be there, is that every time it hesitates the Australian Government and the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) in particular say, `Do not worry about it; we will sweeten the pot. We will ensure that you get a preferential deal. We may delay payments. We may offer you no interest payments. We will meet the development costs'. So it goes on and on. If one is sitting in New Zealand and every time one hesitates the Australian Government offers a better deal, of course one will sit back and keep on sitting back and sitting back until finally one might hope that the Australian Government will give the frigates to New Zealand. This is not an acceptable position for this country to be in. The Government should have been much tougher over recent years with New Zealand and told New Zealand that since the days when it opted out of its ANZUS responsibility it simply has not been pulling its weight. It has cost Australia a great deal of money because New Zealand has failed to meet its responsibilities. We have to exercise separately with New Zealand because obviously some of the old ANZUS exercises are not possible. New Zealand has opted out of that and of course America will not exercise with New Zealand. We now have to process information separately so that some of that information that comes to us is reprocessed and then sent to New Zealand. So it already has cost us a great deal of money. New Zealand has opted out of ANZUS virtually without penalty and this is the problem because the present Government in New Zealand has said, `Look what we have done. We have taken this view on nuclear or nuclear capable warships visiting this country. We have given away our ANZUS responsibilities, but we have done it without penalty. Australia has picked up the tab'. It is not just a matter of exercising separately with New Zealand and the extra associated cost. If New Zealand will not meet its ANZUS responsibilities it throws a greater burden on us in Australia to do our share; for example, patrolling in the south-west Pacific. Whichever way one looks at it, the New Zealand failure to meet its responsibilities is costing Australia more and more. Plus the fact that in due course if we are ever in a tight spot in this part of the world, New Zealand under its present Government is regarded as an unreliable ally. I think it is time to speak very frankly to the New Zealanders. It is time to say to them, `You have got to measure up, you have got to bear your own responsibilities'. I find it very sad, as someone who has served in two theatres of operations with New Zealanders, to have to get up in this Parliament and say, `You are not pulling your weight'. I did not think that we would come to this situation with our oldest and closest ally. I do not believe that the majority of New Zealanders agree with the particular approach that the New Zealand Government is taking. I think it is high time, it is beyond time, that the Australian Government said quite clearly to New Zealand, `We are prepared to help to a degree. We want you in this Anzac frigate project and we are prepared to help to a degree'. It is very important that we maintain the closest relationship with New Zealand for the security of both countries. The Government should be saying to New Zealand, `If you keep going down this neutralist, pacifist line, if you will not bear your proper responsibilities, if you will not come into this Anzac frigate project, as proud partners pulling your weight, there is a limit to our patience and our tolerance and there is certainly a limit to the amount of money that Australia is prepared to contribute to subsidise New Zealand in this project'. It is a pity those sorts of words had not been said some time ago and if they had been spoken frankly by the present Australian Government three or four years ago, telling New Zealanders where it stands, we would not be in the mess that we are in today and New Zealand, in particular, would have known that when it opts out of its responsibilities there are penalties involved. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(1.33) —I do not want to make today a bash Queensland day, or at least bash the National Party in Queensland day, but unfortunately the shenanigans that the National Party State Government gets up to at every available opportunity never cease to amaze me. My grievance today concerns the use by the Queensland State Government and, in particular, its Health Minister, Mrs Leisha Harvey, of Federal funds under the home and community care (HACC) program for blatant, cheap, political propaganda purposes. I see the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) at the table. If he cares to listen he will see that it is not only the Labor Party members and the Federal Labor Government which has been shafted, but also the Liberal Party State members in Queensland. So I would suggest that he listen very closely. I am disgusted at the sleazy tactics being used by Queensland Health Minister Harvey in the distribution of funds which are provided jointly by the Commonwealth and State governments for the purpose of home care of the aged and disabled. The home and community care program was set up by this Labor Government in July 1985 to help the more frail elderly people and younger disabled people to stay at home instead of going into residential or nursing care. Funds are provided to the State government departments and authorities, local councils and community organisations to pay for the services. These include home help and personal care, home maintenance or modification, food services-for example, the Meals on Wheels organisation-community respite services and transport services. Since its inception I understand that some $700m has been provided by the Commonwealth under the program and no-one would question the obvious worth and benefit of this excellent scheme. However, as has been the case for many years in my State of Queensland, the National Party State Government, presently embroiled in controversy over allegations made at the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct, is using the program to protect its own discredited political hide. A recent Auditor-General's report found that in Queensland apparent inconsistencies occurred in the way the State Government approved projects against the recommendation of the Federal department. As a result, big grants went to projects and electorates held by, guess who, none other than Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, now no longer holding the seat of Barambah but still around the place I understand, and, of course, his big cohort, Mr Russ Hinze. So moneys were being spent in these areas for obvious cheap political purposes. Mr Deputy Speaker, after the startling allegations by the Auditor-General and, more importantly, after the cronyism exposed at the highest level of the Queensland State Government by virtue of recent revelations at the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct and, in particular, the famous Lewis diaries, one would think that Mr Ahern and his Ministers would have learned something. But no, they have learned absolutely nothing. The reality is that the present Ahern Government in Queensland is no different from the Bjelke-Petersen Government, and no amount of rhetoric by Premier Ahern can ever dissociate him from a government of which he and most of his present Ministers formed an integral part. The honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Courtice), the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Lavarch) and the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Johns)-all my Queensland colleagues-know exactly what I am talking about. The actions of Queensland's Health Minister Harvey in this matter lay testimony to what I am saying. In the 1987-88 year, 60 per cent of all funds spent in Queensland under this program were contributed by the Federal Government. The State Government administers the program on behalf of the Commonwealth, and the State Health Department in Queensland has the job of forwarding the payments quarterly to the respective recipients. Until recently, the usual procedure was for bureaucrats in the State Health Department to issue organisations with their yearly allocations of funds on a quarterly basis. This, of course, is the proper way of doing business. Now this situation has been reversed. If an organisation exists in an electorate held by a Labor member or a Liberal member, it receives the quarterly payments from the State Health Department; but if the organisation concerned is in a National Party electorate, its local National Party member gets to big note himself and hand the cheque over, usually in front of the publicity machine that he has organised. That is disgraceful. Sometimes an oblique reference is made that part of the funds comes from the Commonwealth Government, but in more cases than not no reference to the fact that more than one-half of the funds come from the Federal Government is made. The idea, of course, is to deceive the recipient organisation, its members and its clients that the Queensland State Government is the sole benefactor. This is political sleaze of the worst kind. It is outrageous and it is typical of the way the Queensland State Government has done business in the past, continues to do business at the present and, if allowed, will continue to do in the future. Health Minister Harvey has obviously directed her Department not to forward quarterly cheques to anyone other than National Party members. The cheques are presented quarterly, so that every member in a State National Party electorate gets four opportunities per year per organisation to get his pickie in the paper handing out our dough. To emphasise my point my own electorate of Bowman is in exactly that position. Thankfully, I have only one State National Party member in my electorate; the others are good Labor blokes. The Attorney-General, Mr Clauson, is in fact that National Party member. In three months his face has been appearing in my local newspaper handing out HACC moneys on seven different occasions. I have all the details here. He appeared on 30 August 1988, 6 September, 6 September again-he had two bites at the cherry on that day-30 September, 30 September again, 20 September and 26 October. In the case of one particular recipient-- Mr Ian Cameron —You should be glad that the money is going into your electorate. Mr SCIACCA —The honourable member for Maranoa should know all about this, because he is part of that show up there. In one particular case, obviously the Queensland Attorney-General's media machine mucked it up, because he actually got two stories about the same $83,000 to the one nursing service. I have all the details here. One article says, `Money for meals-a little extra soup'. It is absolutely unbelievable stuff, and frankly, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Queensland State National Party should be absolutely ashamed. What concerns me most is that the continual publicity will cause harm to the fund raising activities of these organisations. The public perception will be that there is no need to buy the raffle tickets or to attend fund raising activities, because they are being well looked after. Not only are the State Government and Mrs Harvey being less than honest, they are harming the organisations simply to pick up a few lousy votes and a lot of unwarranted kudos. The members involved in this charade ought to be ashamed of themselves. I am sick of National Party members in Queensland continually kicking this Federal Labor Government on the flimsiest of excuses and then deliberately using our funds to mislead the community. I am sick of seeing this accident prone and incompetent Minister and her cronies playing Santa Claus with our money. I am particularly concerned that her actions in the administration of funds under the HACC program and in turning this very worthwhile program of helping our aged community and young disabled people into a cynical political exercise simply to gain votes could jeopardise future Commonwealth and State cooperative health funding arrangements. I think that is the sad part of all of this. I have discussed this matter with the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, Mr Peter Staples, who knows that that is going on. He tells me that unless we receive some complaints from the local organisations, under the agreement he has no power to do anything about it at this stage. I can say that I am not going to allow it to proceed. I will be very vigilant in seeing that she does not continue. I call on her to stop this seedy practice immediately and to cease using the elderly, the frail and the disabled as mere political tools in some sort of cynical public relations exercise. I might just say in conclusion that if we are to look at that recent decision by a judge of the Supreme Court or one of the courts in New South Wales that nobody who gives out these cheques can be eligible to sit in a House of parliament, it would seem to me that there would not be one National Party State member in Queensland who would be entitled to hold a seat. The honourable member for Maranoa ought to take note of this, because a constitutional crisis is exactly what he would be looking at. I say to the Queensland Health Minister again, `Do something about stopping this terrible exercise, because all you are doing is making an absolute idiot of yourself and you are using moneys that belong to the Federal Government for purposes for which they were not intended'. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(1.42) —Mr Deputy Speaker, it is very sad to have to come into this House to listen to a whingeing, whining member like the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Sciacca). He does not know what a good government is until he sees one. Of course, the Queensland National Party Government has done more for him and his people in Queensland than the Labor Party Government ever did in the 50 years that it was in government. When we kicked it out of office the whole place was totally corrupted. The reason we have to go around helping people in the hospital area is that this Federal Labor Government will not give us enough funds to look after the people in Queensland. I am very fortunate today in having a delegation down from Roma, out of my electorate, and today I am talking about Telecom. Telecom is one of the biggest organisations in Australia but unfortunately it wishes to rationalise its management. We have in the House today Barry Braithwaite, the Deputy Mayor of the Roma Town Council, Mark McDougall, Dennis Hickory and Brian Reardan and, of course, Peter Mackenzie is the Shire Clerk. They have arranged a deputation today to the Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support, Mr Gary Punch, and I am hopeful that he can stop Telecom rearranging its management program to centralise its systems in Toowoomba. It is 1,500 kilometres from Roma to Birdsville at the western end of my electorate. The area that Telecom people have to look after is bigger than Victoria. It takes two days to get from Toowoomba to Birdsville and two days to get back again, so there is a week taken up to do a day's work. Telecom is intending to move its senior management team from Roma to Toowoomba. This Government, of course, and the Minister are allowing that to happen. That is a disgrace. The National Party and the National-Liberal Party in this House are all for decentralisation. We believe that the management team should stay in Roma. The Roma Town Council believes that and that is where people ought to be, in the inland. Unfortunately Australia is the most urbanised nation in the world and we do everything in our power, those of us who live west of the range and represent those people, to try to get some government and semi-government instrumentalities out into the bush. Land is cheap. There are all sorts of industries going there-wine, wool, tourism, oil and gas. Tourism is booming in that part and we need Telecom there. We need the management there. We cannot understand why Telecom Australia wishes to move its management team into Toowoomba. Apart from that problem, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that no Australian would have a timed local call and yet we see those people under-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will resume his seat. It being 1.45 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 106, as amended, the debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —We hear a lot of things about women. We hear a lot of things about Mrs Thatcher and Mrs Renouf lately. I would like to talk about a woman. Somebody said, `Don't talk about Tasmania, Bruce.' I know I should be a shadow Minister for Tasmania. I have been overlooked ever since I have been here. But that is nothing. I would like to talk about a woman who is my mother-in-law, Marie Dagmar Imogene Grace Counsel, 92 years of age. We have a lot of debate about the elderly. The elderly are not silly. Let me tell members of this House that they know what they are going to do at the next election. They know sincerity. She is 92 years of age and lives in a little country town by the name of St Helens. That is in Tasmania. She rides a pushbike, looks after her own home, cooks her own meals and never complains; never puts her hands out for money from anybody. She is just a wonderful, unselfish woman who has been the best mother-in-law for me that God ever put on this earth. The point I make: I know that she has had good health. I know that she has been one of those lucky people. But she is not like some of the whingeing moaners who come into my office, about 45 years of age, and want everything for nothing. I am always very sympathetic to the elderly. You all know that over the other side, too. I care for them; I love them; I want to help them. But this woman is the epitome of what Australia is all about-a 92-year-old woman, looking after her own home and caring for her children. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr JOHNS(Petrie) —I want to pay tribute today to a parliamentary and Labor Party worker, Sharon Oldfield, who died tragically last week, aged 28. To Cameron Buchanan, her partner of some 10 years, and to her family, may I give my condolences. Sharon worked for both Don Grimes and Neal Blewett over some years and I was privileged indeed to work with her as an officer of the Australian Labor Party National Secretariat in the early 1980s. Sharon made an enormous contribution to the Party through her work at the National Secretariat, especially of course at the many national conferences which she attended and gave her contribution there. She unfortunately died through cancer of the liver, which took her very quickly and very tragically. We mourn her loss and we grieve with Cameron and her family and friends, and hope that they can come to some acceptance and understanding of why such a young and beautiful person as Sharon was taken from us. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein) —Anyone who doubted the effectiveness of the Gleneagles Agreement, imposing sporting sanctions on South Africa, should have no doubt any longer. That remarkable rugby player and administrator, Dr Danie Craven, has gained the support of the banned African National Congress (ANC) to create a non-racial board to control rugby in South Africa, in order to desegregate the sport and to dismantle apartheid altogether. I congratulate Dr Craven. I met him in Cape Town in 1985 and confirmed the strong line taken by both the Fraser and Hawke governments regarding Gleneagles. I recognised the efforts that he had personally made to desegregate rugby, but gave him no reason to believe that rugby tours could be resumed until apartheid had been fully dismantled. There are many obstacles in Dr Craven's path, but all people of good will must wish him and the ANC success. The South African Government introduced politics into sport. Dr Craven has now recognised the reality of that. His initiative and the ANC's response deserve Australia's support. We can only hope that similar initiatives are taken regarding cricket. Gleneagles has been effective and should prove to be even more so. Mr BILNEY(Kingston) —I rise to commend the Federal Government's adviser on the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), Professor Tony Basten, and the National Health and Medical Research Council for their recommendation to relevant State Ministers for a radical trial program to provide heroin on prescription to selected intravenous drug users. Under that plan heroin would be given to users in single-use syringes in a program to combat the spread of AIDS. This is a radical but, in my view, well conceived measure which is bound to create great interest worldwide. Honourable members will know that intravenous drug users are the main bridge between those groups which are known to be at high risk of contracting AIDS and the general community. Blocking that bridge is therefore a key measure to reduce the risk to ordinary people of becoming infected with the AIDS virus. In New York it is the case that something like 85 per cent of intravenous drug users are AIDS infected. Contrast that with a group of intravenous drug users in Liverpool who recently went through a somewhat similar heroin prescription program where AIDS infection remained at levels of only one per cent of those involved. If we in Australia get to the same stage as New York, increasingly the AIDS virus will pass from intravenous drug users to their sexual partners, including their heterosexual partners, and from them into the general community so that ordinary people who have had no direct contact with the drug scene or with other high risk groups will be affected. In this country we have a year, maybe two years at the most, to find a way to stop that happening. It is not a case of prevention being better than cure; there is no cure, so prevention is all we have got. If this program also leads the way to taking the profits of hard drug distribution, it is a good thing too. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PRATT(Adelaide) —Mr Acting Speaker, I wish to express my admiration for two people who have shown their talents through their voices, hands, feet, and bodies, et cetera. My subject today is not a footballer of any code, a golfer, a frontman for a rock band or a soap opera or matinee star. My first hero today is a single mother of three. She is Ms Penny Dowie of Strathalbyn in South Australia who received national acclaim for the beautiful skills that emanated through her heart and mind and through her fingers from paint and pallet to canvas. This talented and skilled woman last week won the Doug Moran national portraiture prize. Imagine her thrill of a trip to Sydney and through that philanthropic generosity of Doug Moran, Penny Dowie was awarded the prize and with it a cheque for $100,000. Before the applause had abated, before the paint had dried, unfortunately there waiting in the wings was the tax man to collect a cool $30,000 of her prize money. Artists are already framed, knowing that the gallery will take 33 1/3 per cent of the sale price for an exhibition. Penny Dowie joins the heroes from Seoul who won the hearts of Australians but are beaten over the head for doing it. The tax man seems to be determined to maintain the image of poor, struggling artists. I am unashamedly biased when I suggest that the Taxation Office has a moral obligation to allow a tax averaging to be applied to the Doug Moran prize winner. The second talent I wish to applaud is another South Australian, Bruce McAveny, the son of Roy and Betty McAveny of Flinders Park. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LEE(Dobell) —We all remember when the Liberal-National Party Government in New South Wales was elected on 19 March. It was claimed that that Government would restore decency and honesty to New South Wales, and I hear a few hear, hears from opposite. I wonder what the people opposite have thought of the recent revelations that members of Mr Greiner's staff have had motor vehicles paid for by some mysterious unnamed developer and I wonder what honourable members opposite think about the report earlier this week, in fact on Monday, in the Sydney Morning Herald that Mr Greiner, the Premier of New South Wales, has been given a $100,000 slush fund to be spent as he sees fit. Mr Sciacca —Sleaze. Mr LEE —Sleaze, as the honourable member for Bowman interjects. I wonder what the people opposite think about this mysterious organisation called Community Polling, which apparently had as its registered office Dr Terry Metherell's State Government funded electoral office and also had people working out of Mr Greiner's office when he was Leader of the Opposition. Many questions perhaps will be investigated in the near future. In the time that is left to me this afternoon, I want to mention one of the many broken promises which the Greiner Government is responsible for. During the election campaign, Mr Greiner promised to establish a national park called Wyrrabalong National Park in my electorate. We have just found out this week that an essential part of that national park, Holly- dell Farm, has been rezoned, in secret, by the New South Wales Minister for Local Government and Planning, Mr Hay, so that Mr Greiner, having given promises on television that he would establish this new national park, has now decided to rezone this farm. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —Mr Acting Speaker, I rise on the question of a ban on allied warships from visiting Melbourne and Victorian ports. The endorsement by the Victorian Premier, Mr Cain, and the actions of the Seamen's Union and the Victorian Trades Hall Council in banning allied ships from docking in Melbourne is damaging to Australia's reputation and membership of the Western alliance. By his failure today to dissociate himself from these actions, the Victorian Premier and the Victorian Labor Government have shown that they are clearly supportive of the actions of the Trades Hall Council and the Seamen's Union in doing all that they can to deter visits by allied warships to Victoria. I call on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to immediately reprimand Mr Cain and to clearly dissociate himself and his Government from the Victorian Government's clear position of hostility to our allies. The Prime Minister should immediately indicate to our allies, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States of America, that the Federal Government will do all in its power to see that allied warships berth in Victorian ports. The Prime Minister also should clearly and unequivocally condemn the unholy alliance of the Victorian Government, the Seamen's Union and the Victorian Trades Hall Council and tell Mr Cain, the Victorian Premier, to stop damaging Australia's reputation as a reliable member of the Western alliance. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke) —I wish to condemn the actions of the Australian Natives Association (ANA) and HBA Ltd health funds in Victoria for having threatened to withdraw funding for long term patients in Victorian bush nursing hospitals. It is not sufficient to take subscriptions for people over their working lives and when they suddenly turn up needing this kind of care in their aged years, to withdraw that funding. I want also to recommend to all young families that they immediately switch to Medibank Private which has not chosen to take these actions and to reiterate that it is totally unreasonable to take subscriptions to these health funds, ANA and HBA, during the years when people are healthy and then when they need their help, when they need the care in their aged years, to threaten to turn them out. So I say to people, turn to Medibank Private which is not taking those actions and boycott ANA and HBA. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I read with interest that there is to be an inquiry into the League of Rights. Fine, I am not a member of the League of Rights but if there is to be an inquiry into the League of Rights, what about an inquiry into the Seamen's Union, which has ruined Tasmania? What about an inquiry into some of these left wing unions? We should fight harder on this issue. We have allowed the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) to institute an inquiry into the League of Rights. I do not know anything about it; I am not a member of it. Yes, I am right wing and I am proud of it but I am not one of them. But why not an inquiry into the Seamen's Union? Why not an inquiry into some of the Socialist Left unions that predominate in Australia today and have ruined Tasmania? They have made our freight not affordable. Why not? We should say, `Right, you are going to institute an inquiry into them, why not an inquiry into some of the socialist organisations, the left wing organisations, that predominate in Australia today?' Mr SCHOLES(Corio) —I want to raise a matter which is of concern to me and my electorate. Perhaps I could suggest to the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) who just sat down that he might remember that his Party started an inquiry into the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, and look what happened to the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party. I want to raise problems of funding of the methadone program in the Geelong area. A number of persons would wish to participate in that program. Unfortunately, there are very few pharmacists who have been prepared to cooperate or become involved. My understanding is that the administration of the program in that area is less than satisfactory. My major concern, however, is that funds are not available in the area at the same levels for treatment as they are in metropolitan areas. I want to raise in this House the need for provincial cities to be considered when these programs are being advanced. Certainly, the four pharmacists who have taken part in the program in a city the size of Geelong are overworked and overloaded and are not prepared to expand the program. I think it is urgent that action be taken to do so. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I wish to continue my complaints against Telecom and also against this Labor Government which has forced Telecom to take out commercial interest rates and has therefore delayed our installation of STD telephones. There are hundreds of subscribers in the electorate of Maranoa who still do not have an STD telephone. Most of that is to do with the fact that this Labor Government has forced Telecom on to commercial interest rates. Of course, commercial interest rates are now running at record levels and it is an absolute scandal. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 106a, the time for members' statements has concluded. Mr WEBSTER —My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer the Minister to his statement last night on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's 7.30 Report that he had sacked eight Aboriginal Development Commission commissioners to ensure a tightening up of the ADC's decision-making. Is it not a fact that the new commissioners he appointed decided to provide new funding packages for at least two of the three most disastrous ventures of their predecessors and that this was done at the Minister's request? Mr Goodluck —I think you had better resign, Gerry. Mr HAND —Never. The question leads to whether I was involved, I guess, in decisions made by the new commissioners, and I take it that the honourable member was referring to the three now famous cases of the Woden Town Club, the Oasis Hotel and the Nardoola pastoral property. I think my position on the Woden Town Club is well and truly known. I should point out for the benefit of the House that the offer, and the documentation of the offer that has been alluded to in the media via the Senate Estimates Committee, has never formally been sent to that organisation. The offer has now been withdrawn and the matter will be reconsidered at the next meeting of the commissioners. In terms of Nardoola and the Oasis Hotel, because of the speculation around the building I will take the time of the House to address briefly both of these matters together, if I may, and the implication in the question about my interference. During the early part of this year I travelled widely around Australia on what is now known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) consultations. Following each of those meetings there would be discussions with community groups, which is the normal practice for Ministers in my portfolio. At a big meeting at Moree-about 200 or 300 people-a reference was made to Nardoola. At Walgett, a reference was made to the Oasis Hotel at the main meeting but there was no discussion about it, because the purpose of the meeting was to discuss ATSIC. Afterwards I met with a large delegation of people. On my return I met with the chairperson of the ADC, Shirley McPherson. That meeting took place at 7 p.m. on 16 March 1988. At that meeting I relayed to her the views that were put to me by both of those groups. On 14 June I wrote to the chairperson, addressing her as `Dear Shirley', raising again the question of Nardoola at Moree and the Oasis Hotel at Walgett. In that letter I said: On my return to Canberra I met with you and outlined the concerns of the community and asked you if the Commissioners would review their decision. Just for the record, I make the point that at my meeting with Mrs McPherson I asked her what was happening about the Oasis Hotel. The response was: We can't give it to the Barwon community because of their creditors. As soon as we give it to them the creditors will pounce. We are looking at putting it out to lease until Barwon get their house in order. I asked: What about the Moree property? The response was: We have asked for it to come up again . . . was originally opposed to it. Mrs McPherson named the person but, for the record, I will not use the person's name- We will probably give it to the Land Council. The reason I have said these things is that a flood of material is beginning to circulate around the place, obviously with the aim of embarrassing me, Mrs McPherson, the old commissioners or the new commissioners. I am not quite sure whom it is intended to embarrass, but someone is attempting to embarrass somebody. It is not uncommon for Ministers in my position to relay-in fact, I hope all previous members who have held this portfolio did this-to the relevant authority, department or statutory body the concerns expressed to them by the Aboriginal community which they are charged with servicing. In my letter I draw attention to the need for economic management to be adhered to and to the need to examine critically the performance of the enterprises, et cetera. Mr Howard —But that was the reason they were proposed. Mr HAND —Just a moment. The fact is that, in terms of the Oasis Hotel, I met with Mrs McPherson on the 27th-I think that was the day after the Estimates committee meeting, last Thursday-and she confirmed our discussion of 16 March. I met with the commissioners on the Monday of this week. Again, she confirmed our discussions. I draw to the attention of the House the fact that an implication has been made by a particular individual that I somehow influenced the change of decision. My letter-- Mr Tuckey —You wrote them a letter. Mr HAND —The honourable member should listen to what I have to say. My letter to the commissioners is dated 14 June. The decision by the new Board was made on 23 May. That decision was: At the Commission meeting it was resolved that no further action be taken regarding the disposal of this property until the matter was discussed in full at the next meeting. I do not back away from representing the views of my constituency to the appropriate statutory authority. If honourable members care to examine other letters I have written in the same vein, with no authority to interfere in the individual decisions being considered, they will note that those matters have been responded to by the Commission, whether they concerned a house someone was trying to purchase, someone's inability to get a loan, a question of rent arrears, et cetera. I refer those matters to the relevant authorities. It is interesting to see that the honourable member for Gwydir, who has an interest in this area, was reported in yesterday's press as having said that the new arrangements concerning the Oasis Hotel are much better than what was in place before. Mr Hunt —Makes the best of a mess. Mr HAND —The honourable member agrees. The fact of the matter is-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAND —If honourable members opposite want to ask these questions, I think it is fair that I get the chance to answer them. The point is that, in respect of my raising the question of the Oasis Hotel with the commissioners in recent times, there was a decision to hand over to a particular community, but that decision depended on certain things; namely, a lease arrangement to a proper management body. I queried with the commissioners whether that proposed lease time was sufficient to ensure that adequate management, the best management, was brought in. The position I put was agreed to by the commissioners and has now been relayed to the relevant group that is dealing with the ADC. There is nothing improper about that, and I make no apology for it. The honourable member for Gwydir quite rightly has shown a very substantial interest in both these properties. I do not depart from my earlier position that both of these proposals have been a financial mess. They have been. But one goes back to 1982-- Mr Ian Cameron —So is the Labor Government. Mr HAND —It was not a Labor government, so let us not try to score too many points about whose fault these things were. Mr Howard —You always become bipartisan when you are in a jam. Mr HAND —Mr Acting Speaker, I can assure you that I am not in any jam at all. That will be reflected in the examination of the ADC by the Auditor-General. I have no fear from my point of view about the Auditor-General's inquiry into the ADC. In terms of the Oasis Hotel, again there has been a long, sordid and bad history. What we are trying to do here, and what the ADC has been trying to do, is to rectify that. I think the discussions that the honourable member for Gwydir had with his constituents yesterday are an example of how we are trying to address these things in a proper way. Mr COHEN —The Prime Minister will be aware of the very considerable concern throughout the world about the damage to the ozone layer that is creating the greenhouse effect. Like most of us, he will be better informed after the fascinating dissertation on the subject on Tuesday by his colleague the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business. Whilst I commend the Government on its initiative in sponsoring an Australia-wide conference on the potentially disastrous impact of the greenhouse effect, I am sure that he will agree that any action Australia may take will have minimal effect unless the whole world is involved. In view of this Government's proud environment record, will the Prime Minister give consideration to sponsoring a worldwide conference in which academics, the business community, politicians, conservationists and the general public can be involved? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. I can assure him, as I think he knows is the case, that the Government attaches a great deal of importance to obtaining a better understanding of the greenhouse effect. I take the opportunity of informing him and the House that the Government has initiated a review to find out exactly what the range of existing research is in this country and the potential in the light of that review for further research. I give the honourable member an unqualified undertaking that if out of that review of what is being done and the potential for further research it appears that more funds should be made available to enhance that research, that will be done. I think the honourable member will also be aware that the Commission for the Future has organised a series of Greenhouse 88 conferences around Australia, which are being held this month. The honourable member may also be aware that at the recent meeting of the South Pacific Forum I made the offer, which was gratefully accepted by the Forum island countries, to finance a study of the greenhouse effect in the region and, in the light of the outcome of that study, to finance the establishment of monitoring stations in some of these countries which, as the honourable member will appreciate, may be particularly susceptible to the effect of rising ocean levels. I made an offer not only to establish those stations but also to undertake the training of people from those Forum island countries actually to man those stations and to analyse data that would be obtained from them. I think the honourable member can see that Australia is therefore taking a prominent leadership role in the region. It is a role which, as I say, has been appreciated by the Forum island countries. I can say to the honourable member that the Government would be willing to consider any proposal that may come from any international organisations to promote further cooperation and understanding of the greenhouse effect and, if possible, responses that would be appropriate to that effect. I say to the honourable member that his proposal for an international conference in Australia has merit but it would need to be considered in the context of the overall efforts to which I have referred and to other possible options for work on the greenhouse effect. I think the honourable member will appreciate that it is quite possible that the impact, and therefore the responses, may be different for countries in the Northern Hemisphere from those in the Southern Hemisphere. I can say to him-and I think he will appreciate this point-that obviously we will be in a better position to consider the merits of hosting an international conference in the light of the review that I indicated I have initiated. I repeat that that review is calculated to give the Government the clearest possible understanding of the range of work that is currently being done, whether in private or in academic or government sponsored institutions. Once I have a clear picture of the actual research and the potential for further work, we will be in a better position, I suggest, to consider the proposal that has been put forward by the honourable member. I thank the honourable member for his proposal. I can assure him that I will keep it in mind in light of the review that I am having undertaken at present. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The Minister will be aware that in a written response which has now been received from a question on notice asked in Senate Estimates Committee E, it appears that none of the acting commissioners of the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) appointed by him, including the Secretary to his Department, has lodged the obligatory declaration of pecuniary interest. The Minister will also be aware that in an answer to another question asked before the Senate Estimates Committee it appears that the Secretary to his Department, quite apart from being the Chairman of the ADC-funded Woden Club, is apparently also a director of another club in Canberra, the City Club, a club which was involved in selling poker machines to the ADC-funded Woden Club. A few moments ago the Minister advised the House of the reliance he is placing on the inquiry into his Department by the Department of Finance and the Commonwealth Auditor- General. In the circumstances of the obvious doubts as to the integrity of the Secretary to his Department in view of the facts to which I have referred, will the Minister now require the Secretary to his Department to stand aside so that there can be no doubts as to the integrity of that inquiry? And if not, why not? Mr HAND —The answer to the right honourable member's question is no. Mr Beale —At this stage? Mr HAND —No. I will make an additional comment, if I may. A series of accusations and innuendos has been levelled against a whole lot of people. I want to draw the House's attention to yet another. In the Katherine Advertiser-- Mr Beale —Just answer the question. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Mr HAND —The Katherine Advertiser stated: Katherine's Aboriginal Affairs Department has been labelled corrupt in `several areas' CLP Senator Grant Tambling said this week. Speaking in Canberra Senator Tambling also linked the Barunga Aboriginal Festival with Cuba and Nicaragua. Mr Tuckey —Mr Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. We are most anxious to see relevance maintained in this place. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Is the honourable member for O'Connor drawing my attention to a standing order? Mr Tuckey —The Minister is referring to a matter that has nothing to do-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. I call the Minister. Mr Sinclair —If you refer to Katherine- Mr ACTING SPEAKER-The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. Mr HAND —I will address the question of pecuniary interests. I will make inquiries and I will inform the right honourable member about that issue in the very near future. Mr Tuckey —You do not have to make inquiries. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr HAND —But I want to stress one point: many accusations have been made about individuals publicly and in the Senate Estimates Committee. Here is another one where the whole of a group of people working in our office have been branded as being corrupt. People have accused the whole of the work force in the Department of being corrupt. I have said, and I will say again, that if an example is brought forward of where corruption has occurred that matter will be dealt with, whether or not it concerns the last person put on the payroll or the Secretary. I will say again: any person who has evidence of corruption, malpractice or any other of these wild accusations should put up or shut up. On the question of pecuniary interest-- Mr Sinclair —We have put up. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. Mr HAND —I will address that question and report to the House. Mr LANGMORE —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. What is the Government doing to ensure that the high quality and effective work of the Public Service receives full recognition and support? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. I hope that the view that I express on this matter will be shared by all honourable members. I think it is a fact that the Government has been singularly well served by the professionalism, dedication and sheer hard work of the Australian Public Service. The honourable member knows as well as anyone-I have at times had to persuade him of the absolute necessity of some of the things we have had to do-that tight budgetary restraint has been an essential element in the restructuring of the Australian economy. In this period of restraint, it should be obvious to everyone, the task of the Public Service has been made much harder. It has had to do much more and it has to do it with less. It is a fact that in the last financial year, 1987-88, we reduced staffing in the Public Service by 1 1/2 per cent while at the same time providing extra resources in priority areas, such as cracking down on welfare fraud and enforcing the tax laws of this country. The efficiency scrutiny process alone, under the magnificent leadership of David Block, led to the introduction of reforms worth a total of some $100m in savings in a full year. I take great pride-and I hope that this is shared by all honourable members-in the fact that the very significant reforms we have made to the structure and the practices of the Australian Public Service have improved its accountability, enhanced its professionalism, led to greater equity within the Public Service, and provided maximum scope for individual initiative. The aim of all these things has been to ensure that the Public Service becomes increasingly an effective instrument for the achievement of the broad economy-wide changes that are necessary in the interests of enhanced economic prosperity and greater fairness in Australian society. There is no doubt that the Public Service of this country-I am talking particularly of that area under our direct control, the Federal Public Service-has responded magnificently to the challenge of working more effectively, more efficiently and more productively. As I said last week in the Garran Oration, we are all singularly fortunate at this time, when the challenge of change is before all of us, that we have a Public Service which has both the character and the capacity to assist us in rising to that challenge. Mr TUCKEY —I address my question to the Prime Minister. I remind him of the remark just made by his Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that any person who says he can produce evidence should put up or shut up. I refer the Prime Minister to his answer to the Parliament last Tuesday when he said that `there was no cover up' of the evidence of `serious allegations of maladministration which may lead to criminal prosecution' referred to in the reports of the inquiry of the Standing Committee on Expenditure into the Aboriginal Development Commission. Given that standing order 340 provides that matters not reported to the House shall not be published by any person unless authorised by the House, how did the Prime Minister arrive at that conclusion without having seen the evidence? Further, how can the Prime Minister keep his promise made on AM the other morning in regard to this matter when he said, `There will be a full investigation of all allegations made', when yesterday his Government defeated on party lines the Opposition motion to authorise disclosure of this information to the Minister and his investigators? Mr HAWKE —In answer to the first part of the question, I was able to give that answer because the simple fact is that the attitude and the policy of this Government have been from day one, and will continue to be for the very long time that we will be in government, that we do not need to cover up anything. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —That attracts the giggle response of the Leader of the Opposition, which is all he is capable of these days. Just keep giggling, John. That will do us fine. It will make sure that he stays on the other side of the House, even if not in the position of leading the Opposition. In regard to the question of full investigation, I have nothing to add to what I have said before. The fact is that there will be-- Mr Sinclair —There will not be a full investigation. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. Mr Sinclair —Well, there will not be. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I warn the Leader of the National Party. Mr HAWKE —The fact is, as will be quite apparent from everything that transpires from this point, that there will be a full investigation of every allegation that is made. The fact that the people on the other side of the House express their prejudices in a particular form is no substitute for evidence or proof. If they delude themselves that some propositions that they may include in some resolution will determine the way in which proper, fair and full investigations are conducted, they have another thing coming. We do not need to learn from them anything about integrity or the conduct of government business. We have had the opportunity of looking back on seven years of their performance in government. Whether we look at questions of integrity, questions of incompetence or questions of relevance, they get zilch out of 10 on every phenomena that we might apply. We will stand on our record. Our record shows, as I have said, no cover-up and no attempt to cover up in any area of the administration of this Government. The fact is that all the issues in question will be investigated. If any action has to be taken, it will be taken. We will do that on our own resources and without any assistance from the bunch of incompetents opposite. Mr O'NEIL —Is the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy aware of the serious drought situation in the Eyre Peninsula and the far west of South Australia? Can the Minister advise the House of the Commonwealth's response to the deprivation and suffering of the people affected by the drought? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable member for Grey for his question. Both he and the South Australian Government, particularly through Mr Kym Mayes, the Minister of Agriculture, quite regularly bring this matter to my attention and that of Senator Walsh. There is a very bad drought in that area, just as there has been a very bad drought problem in some of the marginal wheat areas of Western Australia over recent years. Just as in some parts of Western Australia farmers have had only three crops in 10 years, in some parts of the Eyre Peninsula and the far west coast of South Australia farmers have had only two crops in the past eight years. Parts of Queensland have also been enduring a very bad drought, but not so much in crop growing areas. It is a very serious problem. There is not much chance for diversification. There are no permanent water supplies. Infrastructure costs, by definition, are quite high in that area. With such a drought record, existing mechanisms, quite frankly, cannot cope with the situation and threshold decisions have to be taken as to just how much public money should be expended. At present, parts of the Eyre Peninsula and the far west coast are experiencing one of their worst seasons on record. That has had a very severe impact on a number of families, from both financial and social points of view. People might not like my using the word `marginal', but I do that in a geographic context. Where farms at the margin have no utilisation for agriculture, by definition they are marginal, but that is not to say that many of these areas have not had very good crop records in the past. The Commonwealth Government provides assistance for drought relief under the natural disaster relief arrangements once State expenditure on approved measures reaches a certain level. In South Australia's case it is $8.12m. The approved measures include subsidies for carry on loans and stock and fodder transport. The South Australian Government has decided to use the money available to it under the upgraded rural adjustment scheme that the Commonwealth announced last May to provide long term assistance to viable farmers to improve their operations and to non-viable farmers who decide to leave their farms. Under that new rural adjustment scheme from 1 January there will be additional measures that will help, that will give the State rural adjustment authorities a lot more flexibility. For example, instead of using simple debt restructuring they will be able to enter into capital restructuring of some of the badly affected farms. The South Australian Government has also announced a number of other initiatives, including the waiving of stamp duty on the purchase of non-viable farms, meetings with banks to develop joint strategies, and the provision of emergency household assistance. This represents a comprehensive, innovative package of initiatives by the South Australian Government in keeping with its well-deserved reputation for innovation in the rural assistance area. The Commonwealth is also helping, through the announcement last week of a grant of $33,000 for the far-west rural support group under the rural counselling program. Some of the measures under that scheme will include debt mediation and will give people the chance to get together to see what they can do on their own behalf. I acknowledge the representations by the honourable member for Grey in support of this grant. I also acknowledge the honourable member's representations on behalf of his constituents seeking an upgraded water supply west of Ceduna, through my colleague Senator Cook and the Federal water resources assistance program. My portfolio colleague, Senator Cook, is planning to visit the area to discuss this issue with the local community. It is clear from all these initiatives that the Australian Labor Party, both at the State and Commonwealth levels, is prepared to act in the long term interests of the honourable member's constituents and he deserves a great deal of credit for ensuring that outcome. Mr HOWARD —My question is supplementary to that asked by the honourable member for O'Connor. I ask the Prime Minister: How can the Parliament believe his assurance that there will be a full investigation into the Aboriginal Development Commission matter when his Government is clearly unwilling to look at some of the relevant evidence? Mr HAWKE —It is up to the Leader of the Opposition and those behind him as to what they believe and do not believe. I must say to him that it is a matter of supreme indifference to me what he and his bunch of irrelevants believe. They are characterised by prejudice and irrelevance. What they think or do not think matters not one iota to me or to those behind me. What does matter is that the people of this country can have absolute confidence in the fact that this Government will, as it has said through the Minister and me, conduct every inquiry that needs to be undertaken to investigate all the allegations. That is followed by the undertaking that, whatever comes out of those investigations, whatever action needs to be taken will be taken without fear or favour. That will distinguish this Government from the previous Government. The previous Government set up a royal commission. What did it do with the results of that royal commission? It had the Prime Minister getting up in here, with its full support, and rubbishing the royal commissioner when he indicated that what should have been done was for one of its Ministers to be sacked. It appointed a royal commissioner and then abused him, to protect its own Minister. It was the greatest cover-up in the Federal history of this country. That is what the former Government did: it set up a royal commission and abused the royal commissioner. As distinct from those on the other side of the House, we will investigate the matter and if action is required it will be taken. Mr PRICE —I preface my question to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training by noting, with pleasure, that the Minister will be opening stage 5 of the Mount Druitt Technical and Further Education (TAFE) College in my electorate in western Sydney tomorrow. I ask the Minister whether he is aware of recent reports that the Government will extend the higher education contribution scheme to cover students at TAFE institutions. Can the Minister clarify the Government's position on this matter in the context of its overall policy approach to TAFE and training? Can the Minister inform the House of any recent contributions to the development of policy in this area? Mr Tim Fischer —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 144 (b), secondly occurring, which relates to the announcement of government policy. Clearly, the honourable member for Chifley has referred to the development of government policy. He is asking for an announcement of that policy on a new development. He should be ruled out of order. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Chifley was also asking the Minister a question about the TAFE in western Sydney. The Minister can answer the question as it relates to matters of fact. Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question. Mr Beale interjecting- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin will cease interjecting. Mr Beale interjecting- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Deakin. Mr DAWKINS —It is true that tomorrow I will join with the State Minister for Education in the opening of the new part of the Mount Druitt TAFE. I congratulate the honourable member for his close interest in this project. Of course, this is an example of the Government's policy in action of improving and extending the TAFE system throughout Australia. The honourable member asked me about some suggestions of the extension of the higher education contribution scheme to TAFE. That was a deliberately misleading suggestion by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Deakin. He knows that it is wrong. He knows that the Government has specifically ruled out any extension of the higher education contribution scheme to TAFE. The honourable member also asked me whether there have been any contributions to the debate about TAFE policy. I can refer to one contribution which emerged yesterday. After a year of inaction and four shadow Ministers, we have been promised a frenzy of policy development on the other side of the House. Indeed, yesterday a TAFE policy was produced. It seemed to me to be a little familiar, so I went back to the TAFE policy that emerged 12 months ago. Let me read from the first sentence in the policy. Mr Sinclair —Mr Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. You will recall that when you called the Minister to respond you referred to the fact that he might answer the question so far as it related to a matter of fact. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —And not to matters of announcing government policy. Mr Sinclair —That is correct. The Minister is not now referring to government policy! Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The Minister is-- Mr Sinclair —He cannot be referring to it per se. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! As the Leader of the National Party knows, the Standing Orders say that Ministers should not use Question Time to announce government policy. If the Leader of the National Party listens, I think he will find that the Minister is talking about the Opposition's point of view and contrasting it with his. Mr DAWKINS —I am surprised that the Opposition does not want me to read out its own policy, but let me proceed. The first sentence of its policy of a year ago was: Australia is entering an exciting period of challenge and change. So I went to the first sentence of the new policy and found: Australia is entering an exciting period of challenge and change. It may be that it has passed the Opposition by, but we have had at least 12 months of excitement and change in the area of TAFE policy. That was not the only similarity in the policy. In fact, it is identical in every significant respect. I underlined all the bits that were a dead pinch from the policy of a year ago and as honourable members can see, the entire document is underlined. It is perfectly true that the only thing that was overworked on the Opposition's side in terms of producing this policy was the photocopier. Indeed, I understand that the policy adviser of the honourable member for Deakin is nicknamed Xerox. The point is that not only is this policy purported to be a new one and therefore is at the best misleading and at the worst fraudulent, but it is a reproduction of last year's policy. Because of that it is riddled with the most extraordinary errors. It just has not taken account of the blistering pace of change in which this Government has been involved over the last 12 months. Mr Spender —Mr Acting Speaker, on a point of order: The Minister was asked a question of fact and a question about government policy. We are happy to debate policy at any time-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney has a point of order? Mr Spender —Yes, I have-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —What is the point of order? Mr Spender —and I would like to come to it. We are happy to debate policy at any time-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —What is the point of order? Mr Spender —The Minister is using Question Time for the purposes of abusing-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for North Sydney to get to his point of order. Mr Spender —It is a straightforward abuse and you know it. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr Spender —You will not sit him down- Mr ACTING SPEAKER-The honourable member for North Sydney will resume his seat. Mr Spender —because you do not have the courage to do so. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I name the honourable member for North Sydney. Motion (by Mr Beazley) put: That the honourable member for North Sydney be suspended from the service of the House. The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J..Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Sawford, R. W.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Sciacca, C.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, JohnGrace, E. L. Scott, LesGriffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Hawke, R. J. L. Staples, P. R.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. Uren, T.Jakobsen, C. A. West, S. J.Jenkins, H. A. Willis, R.Johns, G. T. Wright, K. W.Jones, Barry Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ian Pratt, M. P.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Taylor, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours. The honourable member for North Sydney thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Motion (by Mr Sinclair) agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the National Party of Australia moving forthwith: That the Acting Speaker no longer enjoys the confidence of the House. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.49) —I move: That the Acting Speaker no longer enjoys the confidence of the House. In what is an extraordinary event, for the second time in only a few weeks I have moved that this House no longer has confidence in you, Mr Acting Speaker, in the role you temporarily occupy. We all recall that during Question Time today a number of rulings have been given by you. You have sought to ensure that members on this side of the House do not intercede. While that is properly your responsibility, we believe that it should be done only if the same rule is applied to both sides of the House. That demonstrably is not so. When you, Mr Acting Speaker, called on the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), who was answering a question at the time my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) interceded, you will recall, you said specifically to him, `You may answer the question so far as it relates to matters of fact'. The Minister then totally abused the responsibilities that were his. You, Mr Acting Speaker, permitted him to do this in the course of answering the question by allowing him to give a long peroration about policy. Mr Acting Speaker, we believe that the admonition we gave you the other day needs to be very much in your mind when you look not only at your behaviour then-- Opposition members-He is not listening again. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I ask the Leader of the National Party to continue. Mr SINCLAIR —Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. Let me repeat that we on this side of the House believe that the admonition that we gave you the other day resulted temporarily in a preparedness by you to show that you were prepared to lift your game. You might recall that in the editorial of the Canberra Times on Tuesday, 25 October it was properly said that it was necessary that you did so. I will refer to that editorial and its contents in a moment. Mr Acting Speaker, our complaint is threefold. First, you have consistently allowed Ministers to respond, in what must only be seen as a considerable extension of the unwritten rules and the Sessional Orders of this place, to dorothy dix questions, to give answers that relate to policy and to provide answers that should be given by way of statement. Our Standing Orders are clear: statements should be made as statements. Opposition members-He is not listening. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I ask the Leader of the National Party to proceed. Mr SINCLAIR —Honourable members can see what I mean. This is the third occasion on which the Acting Speaker has seen fit not even to bother to listen to the motion of censure. Mr Acting Speaker, I can tell you that we are serious. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I am listening. Mr SINCLAIR —This is not a matter at which you should laugh. It is an extraordinarily serious matter that you have blown it. You blew it on Tuesday when the Treasurer rose and you properly told him to conclude his answer. We have cited a series of references. Mr Acting Speaker is now speaking to the Clerk. I will let him find out what he has to do first. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —For the information of the Leader of the National Party, I was attempting to get some advice to assist him. Mr SINCLAIR —That would be a very good idea, Mr Acting Speaker. You get your advice, and I will wait. Let me know when you are ready. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party can continue when he is of a mind to. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Acting Speaker, I will wait until you have taken advice. It is you whom I am censuring. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I most certainly do not need any advice-- Mr Beazley —Get on with it. Mr SINCLAIR —I am censuring the Acting Speaker and if you do not understand it, it is the man in that chair who has a responsibility to listen when I am censuring him. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the House will not interject across the chamber. As the Leader of the National Party might well know, I do not need assistance to assist him. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Acting Speaker, I well understand. I am allowing you to get that assistance. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party might get on with his contribution. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Acting Speaker, this matter arose because you took action against one side of the House-namely, the Opposition-and ignored totally your responsibility to take similar action against honourable members on the other side of the House. As far as the Government is concerned, the last occasion that I rose to speak on this issue was because you failed, after five successive affronts to your position by the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), as Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support, to terminate his answer and to stop interdicting in a manner that suggested that he did not have proper respect for the Chair. On Wednesday this week the Treasurer (Mr Keating) refused to accept your direction to terminate his answer. Mr Acting Speaker, you had it made on Wednesday. If you had been prepared to take action against the Treasurer we would have known what it was all about. However, the reality is that you did not. Having told the Treasurer to terminate his answer, you allowed him to continue speaking in a way that was really a matter for ordinary debate in this place and not the subject of a question without notice. Mr Howard —He is frightened of getting bounced again. Mr SINCLAIR —As my colleague said, the Acting Speaker is frightened of getting bounced. That really brings us to the point of this censure motion today. Mr Beazley —You have got only 15 minutes to go. Mr SINCLAIR —The Leader of the House need not worry; he probably is not subject to Mr Vaughan in the way the Acting Speaker is. We all know that Bryan Vaughan happens to be chairman of the New South Wales ALP credentials committee-the ALP star chamber. He is sitting up in the gallery today. The whole performance today was to show him that the laws of the New South Wales Right apply in this Parliament in the same abusive way as they did in New South Wales until Mr Unsworth and his ilk were properly thrown into opposition. Mr Acting Speaker, the point is that there have been successive occasions when you were properly able to exercise the responsibilities that are yours. I said to you the other day that you alone hold responsibility for maintaining the status of this Parliament. You alone can ensure, by the dispassionate exercise of your responsibilities, that we on this side of the House accept your rulings, that we follow the Standing Orders and the Sessional Orders. We will accept that only if you apply your admonitions equally and impartially to both sides of the chamber. The problem is that you have blown every chance you have had. We understand that, of course, there are occasions when you need to discipline honourable members. We are not saying that there should not be occasions when honourable members are suspended. What we are saying is that we will not accept, as the proper exercise of your responsibilities, your allowing Ministers such as the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, as he did a moment ago, to make statements in this place which should be properly made as statements instead of as answers to questions without notice. Mr Acting Speaker, we will not accept that you are properly exercising your responsibilities when you allow the Treasurer to attempt to protect the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), who is under a great deal of suspicion-largely because his colleague the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) apparently made such an absolutely disastrous mess of that portfolio that he was sacked not only from it but also from the portfolio of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Mr Acting Speaker, in not admonishing the Treasurer on Wednesday and telling him to sit down, you blew what chance you had of picking up what the Canberra Times simply described as the `Referees' lifting `their game'. I will refer for a moment to that article because I think it is important. In this new chamber for the first time we have about 1,000 people watching every Question Time. We have an audience out there around the country listening to the radio, albeit a reduced audience at the directions of the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Be that as it may, the Canberra Times editorial stated: The Treasurer, Mr Keating, was reported in 1986 to have verbally `bounced' the Deputy Speaker, Mr Leo McLeay, `around the walls' for not affording Mr Keating enough protection during a debate in the House of Representatives. Mr Acting Speaker, was that the reason you did not take action against the Treasurer on Wednesday? Was that the reason you were prepared today to take action against the honourable member for North Sydney? Was that the reason you were not required to call on the Treasurer to sit down? Was that the reason you did not call on the honourable member for Charlton to sit down, as you should have? Is that the reason you did not name him? Is that the reason you did not name the Treasurer? Are you sitting up there and saying, `I do not have to name members of the Government because if I name members of the Government I am either going to be verbally bounced around by the Treasurer or I am going to have Mr Vaughan, the chairman of the ALP credentials committee saying, ``Leo, you are not good enough''.'. Mr Acting Speaker, we do not worry about your preselection. We really do not worry if you are prepared dispassionately to exercise your responsibilities in respect of members on either side of the House. However, by suspending the honourable member for North Sydney today and failing to suspend the Treasurer on Tuesday and the honourable member for Charlton a couple of weeks ago, you have shown that you are not a fit and proper person to be sitting as Acting Speaker in this place. These are not matters that can be taken lightly, for as the Canberra Times said: The `referee' of Parliament must be just that. As with schoolchildren, warnings are no good unless carried out. Of course, they have to be carried out against both sides of the Parliament. The article continued: If the occupant of the chair warns a member then threatens expulsion if the warning is not heeded, that expulsion must come quickly and cleanly if the member transgresses again. The honourable member for Charlton was warned five times. What happened? He went back and sat down when he was ready. What happened to the Treasurer? He was told to sit down. He just continued on. In fact, not only did he continue; he extended and distorted his response to make sure that it was purely a political debate and nothing to do with answering a question without notice. Frankly, this is not good enough. Above all what we need, as the Canberra Times said, is a `week's worth of consistent treatment'. That is what it is all about. Be consistent; be prepared if you need to be to act swiftly and firmly; but it must be done dispassionately. We on this side of the House do not accept that it is appropriate that you would name the honourable member for North Sydney and allow the Minister for Employment, Education and Training to persist in refusing to accept that he should answer the question in the way you put to him. We do not accept that it is proper for him to use questions without notice to make statements and we certainly do not accept the manner in which you allowed the Treasurer on Wednesday, and the honourable member for Charlton a couple of weeks ago, to behave without requiring them too to be expelled from this House. The point is that there is a problem in this Parliament. More than ever, we feel that the status and dignity of this place have been prejudiced by the manner in which the Government conducts Question Time. Question Time, more and more, is the vehicle by which people see the atmosphere of this place. They understand where the Government is up to. What is happening is that we have been having fewer questions. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his colleagues are quite prepared to give long and extended responses in a way that should properly be a matter for statements before the House. Why? Merely to try to protect the flank of some of their weaker colleagues. This is a particularly important week. We all know that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is under pressure. It is quite apparent. Every time we listen to a news bulletin and every time we see him try to answer a question in here, he runs for cover. He is trying to cover up. He is trying in some way to ensure that the proper and full inquiry that we seek just is not undertaken. He is trying to ensure that the Secretary to his Department is covered from any criticism. In that climate it is even more important that you allow questions without notice to be conducted in a proper way. I know the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) will get up here and say that we on this side of the House always make a great noise. I can tell him that the noise we on this side of the House make is proportionate to the degree to which there is an impartial jurisdictional attitude taken by you as the-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party might address his remarks to the Chair rather than the rear of the chamber. Mr SINCLAIR —I am addressing you, Mr Acting Speaker. I would be delighted if you used exactly the same admonition to the Prime Minister. During Question Time today he turned around over here and my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), said that he could not hear him. Did you call on him to address the Chair? You did not. That, in itself, is another indication that you are prepared to be partisan in your rulings. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party took some time before to tell me that this was an important motion that he was moving against me. So he might take the common courtesy to address me about this motion. Mr SINCLAIR —I would be delighted to look you in the eye, Mr Acting Speaker, but I hope that you, having made that ruling, will understand that you failed to take an identical position when called on to do so by my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition during Question Time. The Prime Minister, in an attempt again to cover up for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, deliberately turned away and spoke to his colleagues, and nobody over here could hear what was going on. You did not tell him to address the microphone, or to address you. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I do not think that he was moving a no confidence motion in me. Mr SINCLAIR —I have no doubt, the way you are going at the moment, that he will. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Well, let us get on with it. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Acting Speaker, I find it incredible-- Mr Rocher —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. Since when has it been the prerogative of someone in the chair to interject on someone who is speaking in the way that you just did? If you cannot conduct yourself with a little bit of proprietary, why do you not go out and have a Bex and a lie down? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —As honourable members would be aware, a no confidence motion is an important motion and particularly the person who is having that motion moved against him should be able to understand what the motion is about. I want to be able to hear what the Leader of the National Party is saying. Mr Shipton —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is supplementary to the point of order raised by the honourable member for Curtin. My point of order concerns the position of the Chair when a censure motion of this nature has been moved against the Chair. Can I say, with respect- Mr ACTING SPEAKER-Will you get to your point of order? Mr Shipton —My point of order is that you are in the position of being subject to the debate in the House. The question of your participation in the debate raises great matters of principle. I suggest that you should not participate in this debate on a matter of principle. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Higgins will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the National Party. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Acting Speaker, let us go over the facts again: it was in the week beginning 24 October that the last censure was moved against you. We are all concerned that Madam Speaker is not able to be back in this place. Mr Acting Speaker, you have a unique responsibility. You had a golden chance this week. During this week's proceedings on Wednesday you-for the first time, as I recall-told the Treasurer to terminate his remarks during Question Time. We accept-if you tell somebody on that side of the House to behave, we will do the same thing. But if you do not tell them to sit down or to terminate their remarks or, as is more often the case, you ignore them altogether, you cannot expect us on this side of the House to sit impassively by and say that you are properly exercising your responsibilities. We all saw the other day some remarks by a visiting member of the House of Commons who commented that he found it very disappointing to find that a person sitting in your position was not quite obviously apolitical. This is an important subject. I find it quite incredible that, having failed to admonish the honourable member for Charlton, having this week finally summoned up the courage to tell the Treasurer to terminate his remarks, today you take the course of action you have. The question to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, having been queried by my colleague the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), he put to you a question on whether or not it was a question on policy. You said that, provided he answered with respect to fact, he could answer the question. The next we hear is a long diatribe about coalition policy on technical and further education colleges. Mr Acting Speaker, it would have been proper for you to say to the Minister, `The honourable gentleman will draw his answer to a close'; or alternatively, `The honourable gentleman will answer in accordance with Standing Orders'. It would at least have been proper for you to have told him, after he continued in a way which we saw as grossly abusive of the responsibilities of a Minister at a time of answering questions without notice, to respond to the general climate of our Standing and Sessional Orders. You did not do so. What you did, when the honourable member for North Sydney tried to turn your attention to the concerns we had about the matter of the answer, was immediately to warn him, name him and expel him from the House. We accept discipline if it is applied equitably; we do not accept it if it is applied inequitably. I say to you, `Today you did not apply discipline to the honourable member for North Sydney equitably'. Not only that, but sadly we have had that other instance on Wednesday when frankly I felt very disappointed in you and in the way in which you could have brought together again the responsibilities of this Parliament. On Wednesday, for the first time, you had summoned up courage to tell the Treasurer what a lot us felt you should have done ages ago; that is, tell him to terminate his remarks. I know it is difficult and I know that you might have pressures out there. I know the Australian Labor Party star chamber tells you from time to time, `You have got to be strong, Leo'. I know they tell you, `We want you to be a fit and proper member of the right wing machine'. But it is more important for you to be Speaker. You are the Acting Speaker in this place. You are the person to whom we turn. You are the person who must ensure that in the exercise of your responsibilities you apply them equitably. Sure, we make a noise on this side of the House occasionally, and so do those opposite. The point, Mr Acting Speaker, is that, if you censure us, you censure them. We do not accept that, in the course of your behaviour today, on Wednesday and in respect to the honourable member for Charlton, you have exercised your responsibilities properly. Mr Acting Speaker, I do not intend to go on. In my view it is extraordinarily serious that you understand the responsibilities that you exercise. It is extraordinarily serious for the status of this place. We are in a new building; we are in a new climate. We are in a position where we expect you to maintain the dignity of the Parliament, and I trust you do so in future. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Is the motion seconded? Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(3.09) —I second the motion. A record unfortunately was established today in that we have seen the first member ejected from these new premises. Another record is that you, Mr Acting Speaker, are the first Speaker in history to have a censure motion moved against him twice. There is a good reason for that: you have been grossly unfair and unreasonable in your umpiring of this House. The Opposition is very concerned that it must constantly criticise you for the way you look after the rules in this chamber. If one checks the record, it is interesting that on Tuesday in this place the Government generally played to the rules. It answered questions which were asked in brief, and generally answered factually. Only one point of order was taken, when a question should obviously have been put to another Minister. The Minister for Primary industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) should not be called upon to answer matters relating to taxation in this place. But again, you ruled that the matter was in order. More importantly, there were practically no interjections, there was practically no noise, because the Government was playing the game. Admittedly, that made it easy for you. Later on this week, of course, things started to change. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) felt that having the teeth of rhetoric withdrawn from the Government put it in a bad light. Historically, we find that on all of these occasions your Ministers start to look very average, as does the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) and another Minister sitting in this place-the Minister for non-answers. The reality is that matters get out of hand in this place when the Government breaks the rules and you allow them to do it. In the light of today's exercise, in the light of your decision to name the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), let me read to you from the record. The Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown) was answering a question and received an interjection: Mr Lloyd —Why don't you compare the first three years of the Hawke Government with the last three years? Not a very insulting interjection. The Hansard record reads: Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member is a lunatic. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Mr ROBERT BROWN —That fellow down there is mad. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw that remark. Now let us note the defiance of the Chair and the remark to which you failed to respond: Mr ROBERT BROWN —Can I say that he is certifiable? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw both of those words. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Unbalanced? . . . . . . . . . Mr ROBERT BROWN —I will withdraw that and just say that he has a couple of kangaroos loose in the top paddock. There was not even a response from you to his previous defiance of your ruling. The record continues: Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw unqualifiedly- your back started to stiffen up, Mr Acting Speaker- Mr ROBERT BROWN —I will withdraw and say that if they persist in that way they should be chained up. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw unqualifiedly. Opposition members then started to interject. Was that surprising after you had allowed that situation to progress to that level? I go on: Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member on my left will resume his seat. The Minister will withdraw the remark . . . Mr Tuckey —I take a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. You are being completely insulted by this Minister. I thought that I should help you on the matter. Apparently you had such a thick hide that you did not know the extent to which an honourable member of this place-qualified specifically, of course, as a Minister of your Government-was completely defying your ruling and denigrating this place to a degree that you would not tolerate minutes ago from the honourable member for North Sydney. Hansard goes on: Mr Tuckey —I am sorry; I have not finished- you were about to stop me talking because I am a member of the Opposition- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Does the honourable member have a point of order? Mr Tuckey —If you were to name him and if these people were to support you, it would be the first time in the history of this place. You nod your head, and I am not surprised. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I was bowing to the honourable member who left the chamber. Mr TUCKEY —The debate goes on. We are now up to the third typed page of Hansard and we still have no warning from you: Mr ROBERT BROWN —Do not intimidate me! Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw . . . And the Minister withdrew. But there was no warning-nothing. Compare that to the very proper point of order made by the honourable member for North Sydney today. His point of order was that the Minister was not being relevant to the question. Standing order 145 says simply that answers shall be relevant. More importantly, the reason he said that the Minister was not being relevant is that the Minister was talking about Opposition policy. Under the Standing Orders there is considerable doubt as to whether that is allowed. Furthermore, there is an excellent authority on that. On 9 September 1981, as recorded on page 1063 of Hansard, Mrs Child, then a backbencher in this place, said to then Speaker Snedden: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, I draw you attention to the Hansard of 27 August. You ruled: The Minister will answer the question and not engage in irrelevancies, such as contrasting the Government and the Labor Party. In reply Speaker Snedden said: I think it was a very sound decision. I ask the right honourable gentleman-- meaning the Minister- to draw his answer to a conclusion. Compare today with how the place was run under a real Speaker. There is further evidence that that Speaker had the support and the confidence of his colleagues. Shortly, we will be hearing in your defence from this very new Leader of the House (Mr Beazley). When we do, I would like him to be a little bit more specific and advise the House categorically that the first time you do name somebody from his side of politics in this place-and please remember that also will not exactly be a record-and he moves a motion that that honourable member be removed from the House, that will be a record. Only Speaker Cope, having had a Minister of the Crown say to him, `I don't give a damn what you think' had the temerity, as a Labor Speaker, to name somebody of the Government side. Your Prime Minister of the day, Mr Whitlam, stopped the then Leader of the the House, Mr Daly, from even moving the motion. Fifty-nine members of the Labor Party, including the present Speaker, Mrs Child, came in and voted the Speaker down. I know that is your fear; I sympathise with you. But it does not remove your responsibility, as the Canberra Times said, to lift your game. The Opposition has time and time again demonstrated in this session that it will ask questions seeking information and wherever possible the questions will generally be brief. The Government keeps breaking the rules with your assistance. It has to stop. You will find this place almost boring but I recommend that you try it because it is in the interests of good government. I remind you the other day of the third component. When this Leader of the House gets on his high horse of rhetoric very shortly, he too might address some of his thoughts to that other side of this Australian political scene, namely, the Australian people. There is a lot more to this place than having personal victories between the Government and the Opposition. We are unfortunately too often judged for our theatrics. Forty-five minutes are allocated to Question Time each day-not for the Government to lord over the Opposition; not for the Opposition to try to trap the Government. It is a time when the Australian people should get some information and evidence of how this Government is administering their affairs. We are presently doing that. We are saying to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that it would appear that many millions of dollars are being wasted. It is interesting that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) today almost verged on suggesting that such an inquiry was racist. The traditional insult went right up to the wire. I will bring it to your attention in a minute. The Acting Speaker was the chairman of the committee that is significant in this debate. I will tell the Leader of the House that the Acting Speaker was equally bad and unprincipled during the chairing of that committee. That is one of the reasons why the Government has the problems it now has. It commenced a cover-up of a committee through the then chairman, Mr McLeay, now the Acting Speaker. It commenced a cover-up of a severe embarrassment four years ago. Consequently it has denied itself, as a government, the opportunity to stop the waste of many millions of dollars. The Government heard the people of Toomelah. They sent you the message and said, `We do not want the hire cars, we do not want the million dollar hotel; we would just like some houses please. We are living 20 to a house with dirt floors and bits of tin'. To quote the radio interviewer, the particular place is worse. Mr Cunningham —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. The motion before the House is a censure motion on the Chair; it has nothing to do with the Aboriginal community, and the honourable member should be referring to the-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for McMillan will resume his seat. A censure motion is usually a wide-ranging motion. The honourable member for O'Connor might get back to censuring the Chair rather than mentioning other matters before the House today. Mr TUCKEY —I apologise to the Government Whip for so embarrassing him with the evidence of the foul administration of his Government in terms of Aboriginal people and the millions of dollars the Government has wasted and has allowed to be wasted. The Minister, in his role at that time, organised a cover-up of evidence to ensure that the Government was not embarrassed by promoting the then Chairman of the Aboriginal Development Commission to Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, in fact putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. The reality, Mr Acting Speaker, is that you have done your job very badly because you have been unfair and, to quote that member of the House of Commons, you are not impartial. That is what we are about here today. The only person in this place who can guarantee good order is the Speaker. There is a view on your side of politics that you are going to achieve that by bullying people. You took a decision last night-I do not know whether you were involved in the discussions, but the Press Gallery was well aware of them this morning-that you were going to get tough with the Opposition. Let me tell you that you can also lead by example. You conduct this place fairly, you convince these people opposite that there is more to government than talk, that questions can be properly answered, and I will tell you what will happen: you will get the full cooperation and support of this side of the House, as we have demonstrated in recent times on the days that you have let it happen. I remind you again of what happened on Tuesday. You may recollect that it was a perfectly quiet and proper day. Why? Because the Government in particular played the game. Yesterday the Treasurer (Mr Keating) completely defied, not for the first time, your timid request-made only once-to bring his answer to a close. Of course I will not tolerate the excuse that might be made that there is something wrong with the Standing Orders. I remind you again that 45 questions were answered in an hour in the Canadian Parliament under practically the same Standing Orders. There is no time limit on questions there. But the Speaker, of course, ensures that the questions are in order and that the answers are in order. No possible objection can be sustained. We are not altogether political fools; we know that we will be castigated if we do not maintain a reasonable standard. But you leave us no solution. We have not got the numbers to vote you down; we can only make a noise if you will not play the game, and it is time you did. The authorities are there. Your boss, your Speaker, when she was a back bencher, felt it necessary to remind the Speaker that it is not the role of government to be spending all its time on Opposition policy. Let me tell you that the Australian people are not too worried about the history of the other day. They are very worried about the present and they are extremely worried about their future. They would like to know whether the Government is going to give them some tax cuts. They would like a few little factual things like that instead of the talk that we are about to get from the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley). The reality is, Sir, that you deserve this censure. I hope you will demonstrate to us in the future that you can be fair and you will be the first Labor Speaker to put out a Labor Government member when he is wrong. I suggest to you that the evidence I have given you today is ample evidence for doing that. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(3.24) —Mr Acting Speaker, you do not deserve this motion being moved against you, and nor do you deserve the strictures that have been given to your chairmanship in the course of this. What is more, the Opposition knows that you do not deserve it. The Opposition also knows, though the public outside, listening to this debate may not know, that in the course of a censure motion on the Chair, the Chair is not able to defend himself or herself in his place; that must be done by other people in this place. So it is no doubt galling for you to have to sit in the chair and hear the unctuous nonsense delivered by the two chief perpetrators of disorder in this House over the last couple of weeks as they hector you for doing your duty. But it is to your credit, Mr Acting Speaker, that in all the 35 minutes of unctuous, hectoring, spurious nonsense that has come from the Opposition in censuring you, there has not been an argument against your actions that produced this censure motion, and that was whether your decision to warn and then name the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) was correct. That is, after all, the act in this House that has brought on this censure motion. In the 35 minutes of smarting, semi-tearful waffle from the Opposition, there has not been one word of criticism offered for your actions in that regard. There has been a schoolboy smarting, the reactions of small boys dragged kicking and screaming from the tart shop after they have had a rap over their knuckles. That is what the reaction of the Opposition has been here. The Opposition has come in here and behaved on this matter like a rabble of worthless schoolchildren. What we have had from the schoolboys opposite is not a criticism of your actions in this place. They have just said, `You should have said something about what so and so did or something else about what someone else did. It is terribly unfair that you should come into this place and assert some form of order. We will go back through the activities of the Government front bench and say you should have done better', and on that basis you get your second censure motion in the course of the last couple of weeks. The reality is, in addition to that childish smarting of an Opposition that is totally unable to restrain itself in this place, that its gall and its galling behaviour are the product of a strategy frustrated. Indeed, since the Opposition is so keen on commenting on press comment on the state of disorder which has occasionally arisen in this House over the last couple of weeks, I will go to some press comment on the last time that an attempt was made to censure you in this place-unsuccessfully as it turned out-because the circumstances are very close to these circumstances. And I suggest that the same sort of article will be written about this tomorrow. It says: How we reached that result- that is, the censure motion- is probably best explained as the culmination of a tactical line adopted by the Opposition some weeks ago. The Liberal and National parties decided to attempt to destabilise the Government by disrupting Parliament at its most visible point, Question Time. It had become clear that the Opposition front bench was being regularly defeated on a man-for-man basis in almost every portfolio area . . . Mr Tuckey —Yesterday and today and Garry Punch-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. Mr BEAZLEY —The article continues: The theory behind the new approach was to divert attention from this fact. Mr Tuckey interjecting- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr BEAZLEY —This is a very accurate observation, I am afraid to say: After all, out there the Government probably gets at least as much blame as the Opposition for mayhem in Parliament, and the tactic could just rattle a Government that was seen to be going through a rough patch. The honourable member for O'Connor, the Uriah Heep of this Parliament, comes in here in his quiet, sulky, smarting, modulated tones says, `Oo-ee; I'm ever so good, ever so 'umble. All I want to do is get up in here and ask a little question to elicit a little information. That is all I want. Me, the poor innocent victim of brutal activity by the Government front bench-all I want to do is to get in a little question.'. He did a little dance with it as he asked it. What we get is what we get from the Opposition spokesman-the Uriah Heep of this Parliament. The fact of the matter is that what he is pursuing in this place-and everybody knows it-is a deliberate strategy to disrupt the proceedings of this House. In that, he has been assisted by the Leader of the National Party, who moved this motion. Nobody around this place is fooled. Indeed, we saw the Leader of the National Party continue that hectoring attitude when he made his speech to you, Mr Acting Speaker. Mr Acting Speaker, you called on the assistance of the Clerk, a normal thing for a Speaker to do in any circumstances. It was a totally appropriate action on the part of the Clerk to come forward on request and give advice to the Acting Speaker. The Leader of the National Party decided that he would have a portentous pause in his peroration. The Edmund Burke of the contemporary Australian Parliament felt that this was so significant that he could not possibly proceed with his remarks until the Acting Speaker had ceased taking advice from the Clerk. What unctuous rubbish! That act by the Leader of the National Party is simply a further example of the deliberate Opposition strategy in this place of trying to disrupt proceedings. The action which ultimately produced the suspension from this place of the honourable member for North Sydney was, of course, a culmination of that Opposition tactic, because he, along with the two people I have been discussing, has been one of the most prominent in his efforts to disrupt this House. I go to another article on this matter which was published today. It deals with the behaviour yesterday of the honourable member for North Sydney, which was almost identical to the circumstances which caused him to be suspended. The article says: Even the Boys' Own Buccaneer (BOB), the one who simultaneously affects a swagger and a limp, was relatively subdued in pursuit of tactical objectives. Unfortunately Mr Spender, like BOB, finds rules like the Standing Orders little more than an irritant when applied to himself. Thus the Acting Speaker, Mr Leo McLeay, officially warned him for something he has been doing consistently for months- not just the last couple of days when you, Mr Acting Speaker, have been in the chair; it is something he has been doing consistently for months- . . . speaking on deliberately and provocatively after being ordered to resume his seat. The article continued: When he was once again told to sit down, he turned from the dispatch box and said, sotto voce to Mr McLeay: ``Because he put you there, that's why''. That has been the consistent pattern of behaviour of the honourable member for North Sydney over the last several months-in fact, for the life of this Parliament. He has been tolerated, to this point, by the occupants of the Chair, and the reward for that tolerance is that when discipline is finally exerted in this place we get this smarting schoolboy performance from the frustrated Opposition. Honourable members opposite fear that if there is discipline in this place they will have to find some other means of not having policy debates in this House and of not having information given in answer to questions. There will have to be some other way in which to organise disruption. After all, we had the perfect example of why they need to do that in the question which produced the circumstances which ultimately produced this motion; that is, when the Opposition brings out policy and says, `behold, all things are new' and we discover indeed that it is 12 months old. We find that nothing has been learned; nothing has been affirmed; nothing of relevance has been put forward in a major policy area. There is simply a reiteration of what happened 12 months ago. That is the way policy is being dealt with by the Opposition at the moment. Mr Tuckey —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for O'Connor, on a point of order. Mr Tuckey —You will resume your seat. Sit down, fat boy! Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I call the honourable member for O'Connor on a point of order. Mr Tuckey —Mr Acting Speaker, there were several points of order as to the relevance of my remarks. The Minister is now running all over the place. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Mr BEAZLEY —This really illustrates the point. The honourable member for O'Connor has been doing this persistently. I have not been replying to his heckling in the course of this speech, because it would merely put his trivia in Hansard. But he has been constantly heckling in the course of my speech, which illustrates the attitude of honourable members opposite to the seriousness of this debate. Mr Downer —The seriousness of your defence. Mr BEAZLEY —The Leader of the House is defending the Acting Speaker on a censure motion which honourable members opposite tell us-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I call the Minister to order for a moment. The honourable member for Mayo is interjecting. Other members have interjected-- Mr Goodluck —I'm not; I'm going to sleep. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —And the member for Franklin has interjected and has been called to order. When a censure motion is being moved on the Chair, it puts the Chair in an extremely invidious position to exert some discipline in the House against those members who persistently interject. But I will say to members on both my left and right that if there are any more persistent interjections in the debate I will deal with the people who make them. Mr BEAZLEY —The point about the unfairness of those interjections is that in making this speech I am mounting the defence of the Acting Speaker in this supposedly portentous and terribly serious debate. One gets an understanding of the Opposition's attitude when one reviews the fact that honourable members opposite are prepared to sit here and persistently heckle me. Well they might, because this matter is regarded with exactly the same seriousness by them as all their other wretched parliamentary tactics over the course of the last three weeks-no seriousness at all. As I said, it is concealing policy. The honourable member for O'Connor, who was the seconder of this motion of censure of you, Mr Acting Speaker, is doing what he is doing at the moment largely because he has been deprived of policy responsibility. He made a thundering mess of the development of health policy, so he has been shifted aside from any area of sensible responsibility that an alternative Minister might be prepared to contemplate and he has been put in as a sort of deputy chief rabblerouser in this House. That is all that the Opposition regards him as fit for. Unfortunately for you, Mr Acting Speaker, as a result of that, you and others who are responsible for order in this place will be largely the subject of the attention of the honourable member for O'Connor. The people who will not be the subject of the attention of the honourable member for O'Connor are those responsible for devising and detailing policy in this House. The people who also will not be the object of the attention of the honourable member for O'Connor-no matter what his unctuous pretensions are here as he comes in with knitted eyebrows and hectors us-are the people of Australia, because the people of Australia expect several things. They expect policy from government; they expect that policy to be implemented; they expect reasonable criticism from opposition of that policy; they expect the development of alternative policies by opposition; and they expect order in the House from both government and opposition. That is what the people of Australia expect. They do not expect Uriah Heep performances from Opposition spokesmen coming in here smarting because discipline has been exerted in this House. Honourable members opposite have said in debate that somehow or other all this is a product of the last couple of weeks. It is not. If one gives simple attention to the way in which points or order have been raised in Question Time in the life of this Government-not just in the last few weeks-one sees ample evidence of the fact that honourable members opposite have set a course of disruption in a way no other Opposition has done but fully reflective of the fact that, unlike any other opposition, this one has no policy alternatives to offer the Government. Honourable members opposite are contemptible. This motion is totally contemptible. It will be rejected by this House and should be discussed no further. I move: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Kent, L.Beazley, K. C. Kerin, J. C.Beddall, D. P. Kerr, D. J. C.Bilney, G. N. Klugman, R. E.Blanchard, C. A. Lamb, A. H.Bowen, Lionel Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Crawford, M. C. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, JohnGorman, R. N. J. Scott, LesGrace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Jakobsen, C. A. Uren, T.Jenkins, H. A. West, S. J.Johns, G. T. Willis, R.Keating, P. J. Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Moore, J. C.Brown, N. A. Nehl, G. B.Burr, M. 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.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McCFischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J.Goodluck, P. J. Taylor, W. L.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Jull, D. F. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put. The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. Macphee, I. M.Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ian Pratt, M. P.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J.Goodluck, B. J. Taylor, W. L.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Baldwin, P. J. Kent, L.Beazley, K. C. Kerin, J. C.Beddall, D. P. Kerr, D. J. C.Bilney, G. N. Klugman, R. E.Blanchard, C. A. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Bowen, Lionel Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Crawford, M. C. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, JohnGorman, R. N. J. Scott, LesGrace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Jakobsen, C. A. West, S. J.Jenkins, H. A. Willis, R.Johns, G. T. Wright, K. W.Keating, P. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer) —Mr Acting Speaker, I rise under standing order 152 and the convention laid down by Speaker Snedden to ask you a question with regard to your administration. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr TIM FISCHER —This is a deadly serious matter. It is certainly very serious for those of us who are prone to suffer from skin cancer and those of us who have to sit under the magnified direct sunrays through the dome above us. Mr Griffiths —Wear a hat. Mr TIM FISCHER —In accordance with Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice, I might well wear a hat next week. Honourable members are entitled to wear hats into this chamber. Mr Acting Speaker, I ask that you have this matter reviewed because of the magnification which is occurring. It is all right for the Clerks to wear wigs. I do not propose to wear a wig, but would you have the matter examined and report to the House? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I will examine the matter and report back to the House. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield) —Mr Acting Speaker, I seek your indulgence to ask you for an opinion about the parliamentary broadcasts. It has been brought to my attention that, during the grievance debate today and, I presume, during the 90-second statements, the proceedings of this House were not broadcast. It has also been brought to my attention that it is not possible for Canberra residents to discover the program for parliamentary broadcasts because there is no list of parliamentary broadcasts in the Canberra newspapers. I wonder whether you could inquire as to the broadcast procedure and report to the House. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I will arrange for that to be done. Mrs HARVEY(Hawker) —Mr Acting Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mrs HARVEY —I do. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mrs HARVEY —It has been brought to my attention that twice this week the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Pratt) has continued his series of gratuitous personal attacks on me, during which he has grievously misrepresented me at least twice. On Tuesday night he claimed that I had once said, `Why should pensioners get special treatment?' I have never said this. Mr Downer —It is in the Hansard. Mrs HARVEY —An examination of the Hansard of 30 August this year indicates that I said, by way of interjection to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), `Why should they have special treatment?' The `they' referred to the group to which the Deputy Leader had just referred himself; namely, the 33,000 people who the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) had said would be affected by changes to the guidelines for assessment for social security. I was asking why that 2 per cent of pensioners should be treated differently from the other 98 per cent and was in no way reflecting, as the honourable member for Adelaide has implied, on pensioners in general. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member might get to where she was misrepresented by the honourable member for Adelaide. Mrs HARVEY —That is how I was misrepresented, Mr Acting Speaker. The honourable member implied that I was referring to pensioners in general. Last night the honourable member for Adelaide implied that I had been remiss in my handling of petitions from my electorate. I see it as my duty to submit to Parliament any bona fide petitions which are given to me, and I have always done this. I do not, however, see it as my duty to pervert the petition process by initiating petitions for my own purposes and then hawking them around my electorate. Mr BEALE(Deakin) —Mr Acting Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BEALE —I do. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr BEALE —In answer to a dorothy dix question in Question Time today, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) tried to imply that the Opposition's technical and further education (TAFE) policy, released yesterday, was unchanged. That is not so. It is not unchanged. Of course, parts of it reflect our 1987 policy, which was a very good one. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member will get to where he was misrepresented. Mr BEALE —The Minister said that our policy was unchanged. It is not unchanged. Parts of it reflect the mess that the mob opposite have made with TAFE, with still- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin will not debate the matter. He will tell the House where he was misrepresented. Mr BEALE —Mr Acting Speaker, I am not debating the matter. I am saying that I was misrepresented when the Minister said that our policy was unchanged. It has been changed. It has been changed to reflect the mess that the mob opposite made of it. The Minister cannot read. He should go back to his school-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I think the honourable member has made his point as to where he was misrepresented, and he will resume his seat. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 10 November 1988. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for Monday, 7 November 1988. The report read as follows- Report relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 10 November 1988 Pursuant to sessional order 28d, the Selection Committee has approved the items of private Members' business listed below to be accorded priority on Thursday, 10 November 1988. The order of precedence and the allotment of time determined by the Committee for each of the items is shown in this list. The committee recommends to the House that the time for presentation and consideration of reports from parliamentary committees and delegations be extended to enable statements to be made on each of the reports listed below for the times indicated. Committee report Statements upon presentation Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Personnel wastage in the Australian Defence Force [The Selection Committee has determined that statements on the report may be made-all statements to be made within a total time of 60 minutes.] Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure Efficiency Audit Review: Australian National's Commission Traffic [The Selection Committee has determined that statements on the report may be made-all statements to be made within a total time of 20 minutes.] Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration A Tale of 3 Cities-A Review of an efficiency audit of the Australian Taxation Office: Taxpayers in unincorporated businesses. [The Selection Committee has determined that statements on the report may be made-all statements to be made within a total time of 20 minutes.] Private Members' business Order of precedence Item Time allotted *1 MR LANGMORE: To move-That, in view of the massive stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, conventional and other types of weapons and of the continued technological escalation of the arms race, notably into space, this House calls on the Government to use every possible means to encourage disarmament through measures which would enhance global security including: 45 mins (1) continuing to advocate a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty; (2) continuing opposition to research on, or deployment of, space weaponry; (3) supporting establishment of a permament, effective international verification organisation; (4) supporting strengthening of international disputes settling procedures through mediation or adjudication under international law; (5) supporting establishment of permanent United Nations peacekeeping forces; and (6) seeking permanently reliable sources of revenue to fund these activities. (Notice given 17 May 1988. *2 MR HICKS: To move-that this House notes with concern the problems confronting nursing homes, aged persons hostels and other aged persons facilities as a result of the most recent changes to Commonwealth funding of those facilities. (Notice given 2 November 1988) any remaining private Members' business time * The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in Hansard and the Votes and Proceedings. The schedule read as follows- An Initial Evaluation-Government Response to the Report of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. Witness Protection-Government Response to the Report of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. Department of Administrative Services-Annual Report 1987-88-section 25 of the Public Service Act 1922. Papua New Guinea Superannuation Scheme-Annual Report 1987-88-section 21 of the Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Act 1973. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Howard) agreed to: That leave of absence for one month be given to the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) on the ground of parliamentary business overseas. Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That leave of absence for one month be given to the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) on the ground of parliamentary business overseas. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Mr Acting Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The devastating effect on low income families caused by interest rate increases. 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 DOWNER(Mayo)(4.00) —The Government is a government of excuses-a government which has an excuse, usually levelled at the international community, for everything that has gone wrong with the management or our economy: our balance of payments crisis is the fault of foreigners; our increased inflation rate is the fault of foreigners and our declining living standards are, apparently, the fault of foreigners. The Government's response is to blame others and to exercise the use of only one very blunt policy instrument and that is the instrument of tightening monetary policy. By tightening monetary policy, as it has been doing particularly since the Oxley by-election, it is increasing interest rates. Increased interest rates have a deleterious effect on the living standards of ordinary Australians and place undue hardship on the living standards of low income Australians. If the Government had taken the initiative and moved towards economic reform, if it had deregulated the industrial relations and wages system, if it had instituted real spending cuts at the Commonwealth level-not just at the State level-and if it had provided tax relief for ordinary Australians, it would not have been necessary to pursue the blunt instrument policy of increasing interest rates. By increasing interest rates the Government is simply destroying the living standards of our low income families-not the families of Warren Anderson or Kerry Packer but of the thousands upon thousands of Australians who simply cannot afford the increasing costs brought about by high interest rates. Without any doubt at all, those affected the most are low income people who are simply unable to afford housing now. In our society housing is as basic to people as food and something to drink. With this Government's single policy of high interest rates it is the low income people who are being crippled by rising interest rates. In the last couple of weeks the National Australia Bank Ltd, the Advance Bank, Citibank Ltd, the State Bank of South Australia and two banks in Queensland have increased their home loan interest rates. The opportunities that leaves people with, particularly young families, to buy their own homes are very few. Unless those young families are very wealthy they are out of the home ownership stakes. That is a disaster for those families; it is bad for the social structure of the country; it is bad for our stability; and it is bad for people's morale. The Government has broken the dreams of thousands of families by pursuing a high interest rate policy. When one looks at the recent statistics produced by, for example, the Housing Industry Association and the Commonwealth Bank, one sees how low income families are being driven out of the dream of home ownership. Looking at those figures, which were based on a 14 1/2 per cent home loan interest rate-honourable members must remember that the rate has now gone up to 15 per cent-one sees that home affordability in Australia has reached its lowest level since records were kept. That means that thousands upon thousands of people who might otherwise have been able to afford homes cannot do so now because of the high interest rates that this Government has imposed on them. What is the Government's response to this problem? We have a Minister for housing-many people may wonder who the Minister for housing is-whose silence is deafening. We never hear of him. He never puts out a press release to explain the Government's policy or position. He does not have a word to say. One has to prod him to see whether he is alive. In the last few weeks he has been like a kangaroo stunned into inertia by the headlights of a passing car. He will soon be flattened by the fast moving high interest rate policy of the Government. Mr Peacock —Who is the Minister? Mr DOWNER —Who indeed is the Minister for housing? Even as the shadow Minister for housing, I find it hard to remember who that man of silence is. Mr Peacock —Seriously, what is his name? Mr DOWNER —The honourable member for Kooyong seriously wants to know. The answer is that Mr Staples is the Minister for Housing and Aged Care. That is incredible, is it not? No-one knows who he is. The man who does all the talking on housing is not the Minister for Housing but Senator Walsh. He says some pretty rough, callous and insensitive things. He does all the talking on housing because the Minister for Housing is completely invisible. That Minister has allowed policy to drift and he has done less and less for low income families. While the costs of housing and interest rates have continued to rise, what have the Minister for Housing and the Labor Government done to help low income families afford their own home? In 1984-85 the Government spent over $300m helping first home owners buy their own home. This year the figure will be slightly over half that. In 1984-85 the first home owners scheme covered about 11 per cent of the price of the average family home. Now it covers 5 per cent. What the Government is doing is reducing, as a proportion of its Budget, the amount of money made available to people to purchase their own home. The consequence is that, with higher interest rates and higher housing costs, fewer and fewer people are able to buy their own home. However, the Australian Labor Party has never cared about home ownership for low income families. It has not really cared about the 50,000 people who just last night had to sleep without shelter or the 200,000 people who are on waiting lists for public housing. Whenever it has been said that there is a housing crisis in Australia in the last couple of weeks, the response, as I pointed out, has come from Senator Walsh. His response has been that the housing crisis is a beat-up-those are his words-by real estate agents. Senator Walsh should go and tell the 50,000 people without shelter, the 200,000 on waiting lists for public housing and the 600,000 who do not own their own home that this is a beat-up. Those people know that it is not a beat-up. They know that Senator Walsh is a man who is callous and has complete disregard for the falling living standards of low income families. Let us look at what is happening in the political heartland of the Labor Party-the northern and western suburbs of Melbourne. Labor holds all the seats in the western suburbs of Melbourne and, I think I am right in saying, the seats in the northern suburbs. Who holds those seats? The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) holds one; the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones), who is responsible for the housing industry, holds another; the so-called Minister for Housing and Aged Care represents another; and the Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis) holds another. Those people represent seats in the western and northern suburbs of Melbourne. Let me repeat what people in those suburbs are saying. The Sunshine Council Community Services Manager said last week: The whole housing area is a disaster. That man was talking about part of the electorate of the Minister responsible for the housing industry, Mr Jones. A St Albans community housing program worker said recently that, during the last month, her agency had turned away 101 people seeking emergency accommodation. She went on to say: On one day we received five calls from families-involving 18 people . . . In those situations, people will end up sleeping in a car or, if they haven't a car, they'll go to the railway station, or post office, or anywhere there is shelter. Those comments are from people on the ground, who know what is happening, who are in touch. Members of the Labor Government, such as Senator Walsh, who are out of touch, are going around saying, `This is a beat-up by real estate agents' when people have nowhere to sleep and when thousands upon thousands of people are facing what the Sunshine Council describes as a housing disaster. Those are the people who are in touch. The Government is calling that a beat-up. It is simply disgraceful that a government should so callously disregard such fundamental problems. On top of that, with interest rates rising, we all know that more and more people are being pushed onto the public housing waiting list. It is something of a scandal that fewer than 15 per cent of low income families have any access to public housing, and it is a scandal because so many people in public housing can afford to buy their own home. For example, in New South Wales 22,0000 families living in public housing earn more than $500 a week. As we well know, two people who are in this category are Senator Dunn from New South Wales and Senator Devlin from Tasmania, a member of the Labor Party, which professes to have so much compassion. These people who are living in public housing are taking places away from those low income families who have no chance whatsoever of buying their own home because of the Government's interest rate policies. They cannot get into public housing either because, for example, in New South Wales 22,000 families earning more than $500 a week are taking up those places. We could blame the Wran Government or the Unsworth Government for doing nothing about that situation. I am glad to say that the Greiner Government is trying to do something about it. The fact is that the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement makes it very hard for any State government to do anything about it. The Commonwealth does not want Housing Commission or Housing Trust tenants to buy their own homes. It wants to keep high income people in public housing. It is compounding the housing crisis that it caused by the Government's high interest rate policies. The simple fact is that under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement the Federal Government demands that public housing be sold, if it is sold at all, at replacement cost. For example, in my electorate a couple who live in a Housing Trust house had the house valued at a market price of $55,000. The Commonwealth is insisting, under its agreement, that the State government sell that house for nothing less than $77,000. That is a complete rip-off. Why should that couple buy it? That is one of the reasons why I say that the Government is compounding this housing crisis through stupid policies, policies that do not make sense and that need to be changed. The Government does not care about the effects of its high interest rate policies on the living standards of low income families. It does no care about the housing crisis that that has caused. What better evidence is there to use than the words of Senator John Button on Melbourne radio 3AR last Wednesday? Whatever honourable members may think of Senator Button, from time to time he does come out with these rather revealing and truthful statements about the heart of the Government. He said that home ownership was not a priority for the Government. That is rather revealing. He went on: Even if first homes are becoming out of reach of ordinary Australians, there's little the Government can do. The Government does not care; it will not do anything. It does not matter to the Government that low income families are suffering. That is just too bad. As long as it can remain in office, nothing else matters. However, Senator Maguire-a senior senator in the Labor Party from South Australia-has said it all. In the Adelaide Advertiser, which is not often read by non-South Australian members of this place, he was reported on 2 November as saying that the Government had been ignoring the housing crisis that was confronting ordinary Australians. He said more than that. Effectively, he said that the housing Minister, who few of us can remember, should resign. According to the journalist who wrote the story Senator Maguire `believed the housing portfolio should again be handled by a senior Minister to ensure it was given priority treatment within the Government'. In effect, Senator Maguire is saying that the present Minister is no good, that he has done nothing to help low income families and that we should get rid of him. I agree. Let us get rid of him. Let us get a Minister and a government who have some decent initiatives which will help low income families and will help government overall to reduce the interest rate burden. We need macro-economic policy changes to address issues such as a deregulated industrial relations and wages system. We need macro-economic policies that will reduce government spending and provide tax relief. Those things will lower interest rates and make housing, and indeed many other things, more affordable to low income families. We need a bigger proportion of Federal funding for housing to be directed towards helping first home owners. We need policies that will provide for more urban consolidation in our capital cities and more persuasion, particularly, of local and State governments, to follow that path. We need substantial reform of public housing programs in this country to ensure that public housing is directed to people who need it and not to Senators Devlin and Dunn and the 22,000 New South Wales families who can afford to own their own homes. This Government has a long and sorry record of condemning low income families to greater and greater poverty and it ought to be ashamed of itself. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(4.15) —Today's discussion focuses on the question of the living standards of low income families, and particularly interest rates. I will come to interest rates shortly. I want to focus on the humbug, cant and hypocrisy of the approach that has been purveyed in this place today by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer). Firstly, we ought to look at the situation as it exists and the approach that has been taken by the Government to take account of it. We all know that Australia has been through a difficult period of adjustment. During such a period of adjustment when a country loses, as we did, over $8 billion of its national income, changes have to occur and the belt has to be pulled in. Australia has done that. In these circumstances a government-a Federal government in particular-has a responsibility to negotiate a very delicate path to ensure that those who are least able and least protected from these shifts can protect themselves. Let us look at the priorities of the Government as we have gone down this path. The first priority for any government concerned with the living standards of low income families has to be employment and jobs. The simple fact is that, whether interest rates are 5 per cent or 15 per cent, if one does not have a job one cannot pay for anything. The first priority has been to turn around a situation where a million Australians were unemployed and get the country back to work. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, Australia was in a crisis where ordinary families were hurting the most. There was unemployment and the problem of low income as a result of a lack of opportunity. One of the very big factors in the strategic approach taken by the Government has been to increase the opportunities for families to earn a second income, and particularly to increase the opportunities for women to enter the work force. While it may not be usual in a debate like this to focus on the substantial emphasis on providing assistance in an area such as child-care-which might not seem related, on a superficial look as put forward by the Opposition-the increased emphasis on child-care places enabled many women in Australia to have the choice of re-entering the work force and thereby assisting their families in both acquiring their homes and bridging the savings gap. Another major step has been taken in the reform of the taxation system. This is something I want to talk about before I come to the interest rate crisis. As we all know, no country can survive if its people do not have confidence that everyone is paying his or her fair share. The honourable member for Mayo talks about the contribution that ought to be made by the Federal Government in the public housing sector via the first home owners scheme and in other ways. Of course a Federal government has a responsibility in those areas. But the first thing it has to do is find the funds to pay for these things. When a government inherits an economy that is $9.5 million in the red because it has a tax system that is being rorted out of this world under a Liberal-National Party administration, one of the key priorities is to turn that system around. It is the turning around of that system that now guarantees that in the Federal Government's Budget provision can be made for the sorts of things that are now occurring in public housing funding, in the first home owners scheme and elsewhere. Every single penny or cent and every single item of revenue raised through the introduction of measures such as the capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax and the increases in corporate tax raising have been directed back to the living standards of those who most needed protection. As a Federal government, we have to look at a safety net. We have to look particularly at low income families who would otherwise be less protected. We have to ensure that there is a safety net in place for those people. We have to look a measures such as increasing the rent assistance program. We have all seen a dramatic increase in rents. We cannot just leave people paying rent needing to find the money from somewhere. Government has a responsibility to increase rent assistance. That has been a substantial part of the safety net program implemented by this Government. No discussion such as this can go by without a reference to the Federal Government's family allowance supplement program. An amount of $600m was provided directly in the last Budget to assist the very families that the honourable member for Mayo comes in here and purports to be talking about. We have spoken about people in the safety net such as pensioners. When we came to office the leaders of the pensioners' groups around Australia were pressing for pensions to be increased to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. As we know, at that time under the previous Liberal Government pensions were less than 20 per cent of average weekly earnings. They are now 24.7 per cent of average weekly earnings. That has a very direct effect on the capacity of these people to maintain pace with inflation and with general increases in the cost of living which otherwise they would not be prepared for or protected from. In recognition of that, the pensioner groups are looking at changing their policy priority, pressing for pensions set at 30 per cent of average weekly earnings. I do not have any problems with that increase being part of their policy. They now recognise that we have almost reached the 25 per cent target and can now look further ahead. Let me say that there can be no question that the Government, in the manner in which it has addressed these issues, has not had the interests of low income families, particularly in regard to providing a safety net for them, as its key priority. Let me signal now as we progress to the wage-tax trade-off that the negotiations that will take place over the next few months about tax cuts and wage increases-all the targeting-will be directed specifically at ordinary families, lower and middle income families, the families which need the assistance. There will not be tax cuts for the high fliers, as honourable members opposite have called for. There will be a direct emphasis on the interests of ordinary families. Let us turn now to interest rates and public housing. Of course, interest rates are a key element in this regard but I think we ought to face up to the issue honestly. When I was working in the banking and finance sector, before being elected to this House, interest rates in our economy were around 14 and 15 per cent. The housing interest rate at the time was jammed up against a ceiling of 12.5 per cent. Honourable members opposite were then planning to deregulate the housing mortgage rate ceiling so that the banks and other lending institutions could lift the housing interest rate. Not once in these past eight years have honourable members come into this House and accepted that the Government has been right in demanding that that ceiling on housing interest rates remain. They have not accepted that once. They have skirted around it. They have not been prepared to change their policy that the ceiling be scrapped completely. They do not care about the banks being disciplined. With all this cant about interest rates, when have we seen members of the Opposition come in here and complain about the Bankcard interest rate of 22 per cent and small business interest rates at 16 and 18 per cent? When have honourable members opposite come in here and seriously addressed the interest rate problem? Mr Duncan —Or any problem? Mr O'KEEFE —Or any problem, as the Minister says. The fact of the matter is that honourable members opposite are not into addressing these things. They are soft at the edges when it comes to facing up to the banks and the attitude they have taken to the ordinary Australian. I very much welcome the announcement in the press today of the arrangement negotiated between the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and the State Bank of Victoria which will mean that Australia-wide trade union members, ordinary workers with families, will now get discounted banking rates through the buying strength of the trade union movement. I welcome that initiative. This is a case where the ACTU has had to step in to try to improve the buying power of ordinary families. What will be the reaction of honourable members opposite? We will hear honourable members such as the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) complaining about trade unions bullying the banks. That is the reaction we will get. That is all honourable members opposite care about. All honourable members opposite care about are the profit sector and the high fliers while we are interested in low income families. Honourable members should not come in here with their cant and nonsense. Let us look at the housing industry. When we came to office the housing industry had been subjected to a total boom-bust cycle during all the Fraser years. It was a case of fine if it is flying but who cares if it is in a bust cycle. By 1982 the housing industry was reduced to 92,000 new home starts in Australia. This year the figure will be 160,000 new home starts, almost double the number of new homes built in Australia in 1982. That was the situation we inherited. This increase has come about through a very carefully managed policy using the first home buyers scheme, emphasis on savings programs and, most importantly, monitoring an industry which is at the heart of the Australian economy-monitoring it in a way that takes out the booms and the busts because it manages the growth in the industry. I say to honourable members opposite that I live in an electorate which is experiencing substantial growth. Everywhere I go people complain to me that they cannot get a builder anywhere. This is because we have an overheated industry. This is one of the problems we have. When we reduce interest rates we enable people at the lower end of the market, people with lower incomes, to borrow and get into the housing market. That is very desirable provided the housing industry has some capacity to handle it. If it has not got the capacity to handle it, what happens? Prices get jacked up and the inflation cycle starts all over again. This is the very inflation cycle that those honourable members opposite were not able to contain or do anything about. The very people who make a quid out of that are the real estate agents and the property speculators who depend on inflation in the building industry. These are the very people honourable members opposite cite here today. We must have a managed policy and we do have a managed policy. This discussion cannot end without reference to the issue of public housing expenditure. Last year, just before the Federal election, the Opposition prepared a secret plan of action that was to be its election manifesto. It was published on the front page of the Australian Financial Review and listed a number of cuts that the Opposition would make if it were elected to office. The policy stated also that the document was to be kept secret because no-one was to know about it. Some of the issues listed in that document included a complete scrapping of the commitment to public sector housing; scrapping the first home buyers scheme; and scrapping Medicare. It was the whole box and dice. Everything assisting low income families was to be scrapped under this secret plan. The Opposition has proposed a matter of public importance today because it purports to care about low income families. It is cant. It is drivel. The fact of the matter is that the people of Australia understand where the priorities of this Government are. These are the priorities of the safety net and managing the economy in such a way that we ease our way through to the light at the end of the tunnel. In the process we will ensure that we have a safety net for the very people that this debate is about-the low income families of Australia. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(4.30) —I assure the House that we on this side certainly are concerned about the low income earners in Australia and that is why we have brought forward this matter of public importance for debate today; namely, the devastating effect the Labor Government policy is having on the poor and needy families throughout Australia. I am very pleased to be talking on the matter of public importance today because it is the first in my eight years in Parliament-and I hope it is not the last. Mr O'Keefe —Haven't you cracked a draw yet? Mr IAN CAMERON —I think two or three pulled out before I was asked again to do it today. I am not exactly a full bottle on housing, but I am a full bottle on interest rates in general. Mr Deputy Speaker, you know too well what this Government is doing to your interest rates: not just in the lower housing sector but right across the board, because of the policies of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), we see a substantial increase in interest rates yet again. We are seeing record levels of borrowing and record trade deficits. The Treasurer told us in August that we had a $5 billion surplus. He told us that interest rates would fall. What happened? Interest rates fell all right. But for how long? For about three weeks interest rates came down 2 per cent and 3 per cent. What have we seen since then? We have seen a skyrocketing rate of interest. Yet this Treasurer and this Government have taken $5 billion out of the economy. They tell us that they have not been borrowing the sort of money that they have borrowed in previous years to finance their massive Budget deficits. This Government has been borrowing huge sums of money overseas. This country now owes up to $9 billion to the nations from which we borrow money. This Treasurer came into the House and said that housing interest rates and other interest rates would fall. That just has not happened. As I said, it happened for two or three weeks and now we see this increase-over and above the 13 1/2 per cent level. As we know, previous governments fixed first home buyers' interest rates at 13 1/2 per cent; they have been fixed for many years. But when this Government came to office, the great freer of all things, the Treasurer, the freer marketeer and the Minister for housing, who is not in here today, which is a great pity- Mr Downer —There isn't a Minister for housing. Mr IAN CAMERON —There is not one specifically, but there is meant to be a Minister looking after a range of portfolios, and he is not in the chamber. I wonder where he is. We have the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan) and a backbencher sitting on the Government side. It is a disgrace. That just goes to show how concerned the Government is when it comes to these people. It has no concern at all. It is a disgrace. As honourable members know, the financial grants to the States were cut by this Treasurer by $650m last year. We have seen a $676m cut this year. Of course, those funds are used to help in the State's housing programs and to help the needy into housing. We in Australia have always believed that housing is one of our rights. We have a huge land and we have plenty of room to build on. We have always felt it was one of our rights to own a house on a block of land. Yet every day that goes by this Government makes it harder and harder for people to put their funds aside and to build their dream home and set up families. There is no help for the family. It is only this side of politics that really supports the family unit. We have been doing this for many years; we are really strong on the family unit. To have a good family unit there has to be a good home. When a couple get married the first thing they do is build a home and then start raising a family. This Government is making it very difficult for those people to do that. People who want to build a house today have to borrow $50,000; that is the figure that is required today, because interest rates are not the only thing adding to inflation. The Treasurer again came in here on Budget night and said, `We are going to have a 4 1/2 per cent inflation rate for Australia for the next 12 months'. Mr Downer —What a joke. Mr IAN CAMERON —What a lot of nonsense. Within two months the inflation rate is already running at nearly 7 1/2 per cent, and that is based on city prices. In electorates like Maranoa, which I represent, there is an indexed excise charge on fuel and fuel prices are going up every six months and people have to cart every bit of timber and all the products with which to build their homes from the capital city, where it is manufactured, out into rural Australia; and this makes building costs astronomical and prices go through the roof. Mr Braithwaite —The index is well above the 7 1/2 per cent. Mr IAN CAMERON —As the honourable member for Dawson says, it is well above the 7 1/2 per cent. But we have these horrific freight costs on top of the average city building cost. The consumer price index increases are based on capital city prices. But rural Australia is really slugged with the extra burden of having to build homes in isolated areas. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe), mentioned the great revamp of the tax system. What have we seen this Government do? We have seen it introduce the fringe benefits tax. But what did that do? It drove up the price of houses. Companies in inland Australia and isolated mining communities were prepared to give their workers subsidised housing. But what did this Government do? It introduced a fringe benefits tax. Now these workers have to pay absolutely astronomical prices for their housing compared with what they were paying before. It has been suggested that the capital gains tax has helped. What a lot of hogwash. The family home has been exempted from capital gains tax. What have we seen happen to the price of housing throughout Australia? Not only have prices for flash houses around Sydney Harbour gone through the roof, but every home in Australia has increased in value because this Government has introduced a capital gains tax. I would put it to the Treasurer, if he were here, that the first thing he should do to bring down the price of housing is to withdraw that capital gains tax. It is an absolutely iniquitous tax to have on a young country such as Australia. We should not be paying a capital gains tax. The people who are really being hit, because the family home is exempt, are those who are trying to build their first homes. Right across the board, in any suburb that we like to go to, we are seeing housing costs and prices of houses at auction sales go through the roof. The reason in may cases is that the family home has been exempted from capital gains tax. This Government, since it has been in office, has done absolutely nothing to help the family home buyer. I think it is an absolute disgrace that the Treasurer is using monetary policy. Because there is no incentive in this country to produce, because there are write-offs on depreciation, because $1 billion of support has been taken out of primary industry and we are depending practically solely on primary industry to boost our exports and bring down our balance of trade, we are seeing the Treasurer again using monetary policy and high interest rates. We have to have the highest interest rate in the world to attract funds into this country to balance our balance of payments. It is a disgrace. Our dollar is held up artificially high by the Reserve Bank of Australia. The Reserve Bank made a $2 billion profit the year before last and it made a profit last year by wheeling and dealing in currency so that our dollar and our interest rates would be held up. If those on the other side of the House do not believe me, they should tell me why interest rates are now creeping up again to record high levels. What is the reason? There is no reason other than the fact that this Government, the Labor Government, has allowed this country to deteriorate into a banana republic, as stated by the Treasurer. It is an absolute disgrace to think that in this day and age we have allowed our trade balance to get into this position. We are losing $1 billion a month on our trade. That is what these high interest rates are about. It is the workers that are paying. They are being forced to pay 15 per cent in interest rates today. First home buyers and anybody wishing to build or buy a house have to pay at least 15 per cent. A lot of the loans would be higher than that, but 15 per cent is the starting point. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would know how difficult it is to purchase a home. Paying even 5 per cent is hard enough, but to have to pay these very exorbitant rates of interest that are being brought to bear by the Treasurer, by the responsible Minister and by this Labor Government is an absolute disgrace. Before concluding, I wish the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) well but, if it enters into anything like the previous business arrangements that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was involved in when he was the President of the ACTU, I just wonder how it will offer lower interest rates and subsidies to these people. It seems to me that it has had to get involved with its own Labor Government to help it out of the mess it is in and, as was reported in the paper today, is offering a scheme. I wish it well but, if it is anything like the previous scheme, it will go broke. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(4.40) —Honourable members may be surprised to learn that the matter of public importance we are debating today is: The devastating effect on low income families caused by interest rate increases. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) makes a unique contribution to this House. He certainly takes himself seriously: I doubt whether many other people do. This is a very important matter raised by the Opposition. It is the second matter of public importance on interest rates. The Opposition has posed the question: Where is the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples)? He is in the House. Because this concerns interest rates, I ask: Where is the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock); and the shadow Minister for Finance, the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson)? Neither of them is in this place. We are talking about housing statistics. I was very interested to listen to the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer). I quote from this morning's Australian Financial Review: Housing approvals continued to climb in September to a 15-year high, but the building boom shows signs of peaking. It goes on to say: Yesterday's figures gave the Government's principal housing advisory body, the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry, no reason to revise its recent forecasts for housing starts of between 158,000 to 162,000 in 1988-89. The point I make is this: housing starts are at a record level. Does the honourable member for Mayo believe that these are phantom houses and that people do not move into them; that they are somehow ghost houses and people do not live in them? If the honourable member for Mayo is concerned about this level of activity, does he believe that the figure should be crunched up to 170,000, 180,000 or 190,000? At no stage during his contribution did the honourable member for Mayo refer to the extraordinary record 15-year high level of housing activity. The Government is a little concerned about it because we do not want the troughs and peaks which occurred during the seven years of the Fraser Government. We inherited 105,000 housing starts when we came to government in 1983. We need a sustainable level of construction in the housing industry. It appears that this latent built-up demand for housing will flatten out at a sustainable level. The honourable member for Mayo also selectively quoted, I believe, from a Ross Gittins article in the Sydney Morning Herald. He pointed out that in New South Wales some 22,000 people in housing commission homes are currently earning more than $500 a week. He made the point that Senator Irina Dunn is one of those people. The real thrust of Gittins's article was that the State conservative Government in New South Wales has now entrenched the right of those people to stay in those houses, provided they pay market rates. What is the position of the honourable member for Mayo? Does he support Minister Schipp's action to entrench those rights of people to stay in them, or is he arguing that he disagrees and that those people should move out? I have a high level of housing commission tenants in my electorate. I am very pleased to have them and I am proud of them. We in the Labor Party often get into debates about the rights of tenants to purchase their housing commission homes-I happen to favour this-as opposed to an equally valid contrary view that the stock of public housing commission homes available for tenants should be preserved. It is a very difficult and sensitive question of public policy. I say this about the housing commission areas in my electorate: when the honourable member for Mayo is developing his policies and when the State Government is looking at its policies, they should not create man made problems, the planner design problems, that we have had in Mount Druitt. I welcome the initiative of, for example, Frank Walker, who brought privately built housing in private estates and made them available for housing commission tenants. I strongly believe in what is usually called integrated communities where people with different experience and different financial backgrounds blend in to make one community. The honourable member for Mayo talked about the affordability of homes and the plight of the unemployed in relation to housing. Let me confess to a real frustration I think many members on this side of the House have in relation to the activities of State housing Ministers; that is, every time we grant a pension increase, State governments immediately increase the rent paid by public housing tenants. Mr Duncan —I think it is more the State Treasurers. Mr PRICE —Yes, it really is a cause of frustration. When one talks to pensioners one often wonders whether it is really worth while increasing the pension. What is the real issue about public housing and housing for low income earners at the moment? It is this: it is well and truly within the State government corner. A pent-up blatant demand which has built up over the years is causing this current burst of activity. We also have a serious deficit on the supply side of housing lots available. If the honourable member for Mayo wanted to make any constructive contribution, he would be looking at what State governments can do to make more building blocks available so that people can purchase their homes and land prices can be stabilised and even dropped. I summarise by saying that it was unfortunate that the honourable member for Mayo selectively quoted the Gittins article. In effect, the New South Wales State Government has entrenched the rights-this seems to be totally opposite to what he is saying-of income earners of $500 or more a week to remain as tenants in public housing. My colleague the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) made the point that we did not hear anything on policy from the honourable member for Mayo, the shadow Minister. During the last Federal election important schemes that had proved themselves to allow low income earners to move into housing-for example, the first home owners scheme-were going to be scrapped by the Opposition. Let me tell the House a little bit about that scheme. Some 298,000 Australian families have been assisted under this scheme since 1983. This Federal Government has spent about $1.3 billion on the first home owners scheme. In my electorate there are some 3,422 families who have benefited from the scheme and who are now in their own homes because of the scheme. The value of the first home owners scheme to those families has been some $15.139m. What would the honourable member for Mayo and the Opposition do? They would scrap it. It is regrettable that we have not heard more from the honourable member for Mayo about policy. He talked about the need to provide tax cuts to low income earners and said that this was a macro-economic policy that we had to follow. What a lot of garbage! Who believes that the Liberal Party would provide tax cuts for low income earners? He talked about the need in macro-economic policy to move on industrial relations. If one reads the letter of the shadow Minister for finance to the Australian Financial Review on 5 October, one sees that, paragraph after paragraph, he argues that interest rates should indeed be higher, not lower. Why does the Opposition not come out and tell us what it really believes? The honourable member for Mayo believes that interest rates are too high, yet on 5 October we had a contradiction when the shadow Minister for Finance said publicly that they should be higher. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Sales Tax Assessment (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1988 Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1988 Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(4.50) —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: Bandiana redevelopment, stage 1, Victoria. The proposal now before the House is the first stage of the redevelopment of the Bandiana military area. This two stage redevelopment will extend for perhaps 10 years or more. The proposal is consistent with the initiatives highlighted in the Government's defence policy information paper of 1987 to rationalise and modernise working facilities and to substantially improve living accommodation. Bandiana, located four kilometres south-east of Wodonga, is a major defence installation and has contained military logistic and training units since the 1930s. At present it is home to two major logistic units, two major training establishments and three minor units. Of these, the 31st Supply Battalion is one of the Army's more significant supply installations and holds the major proportion of the Army's armoured fighting vehicle stock. The 4th Base Workshop Battalion is the primary repair workshop for these Army vehicles and also conducts ongoing apprentice and trade training. Between them the two major training establishments conduct nearly 100 different courses a year with some 2,700 students last year. The Royal Australian Army Ordnance Corps Centre conducts courses in clerical and store trades and Army management. The Royal Australian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers Training Centre provides highly technical courses such as the repair of radio and electronic equipment and optical systems. The Bandiana complex now comprises a mix of modern permanent facilities and old temporary structures. Many of these latter facilities do not meet the current standards of accommodation, health and safety codes or advanced requirements of modern equipments, warehousing and repair systems. Further, the availability and suitability of instructional facilities has not kept pace with the requirement for more intensive and lengthy training of personnel to higher skill levels. The existing Bandiana complex is geographically divided into four distinct areas. However, the existing functional divisions are not consistent with these geographical divisions. Master planning of the Bandiana area is being developed concurrently with this proposal to achieve better functional coordination and more efficient land use, site planning and building design. The objectives of the proposal now before the House are: to provide the more urgently needed logistic, training and administrative facilities; to provide permanent living accommodation to Department of Defence services' scales and standards of accommodation for both living-in personnel and students; and to provide area physical training and recreational facilities. A second stage of the redevelopment is planned. This stage will include the replacement of upgrading of the remaining facilities to consolidate functions in accordance with the zone plan. The timing of stage 2 will be determined by resource allocation and defence priorities. The proposed work now before the House will include: new and upgraded administration, training, working and storage facilities; new and upgraded living accommodation and recreational facilities; and associated new and upgraded engineering services, roads and landscaping. These proposed stage 1 works have been grouped into two phases. The phases reflect financial programming restraints and the Army priority for works to meet the immediate objectives of the proposal. The bulk of the administrative, training and accommodation works are in phase A, with phase B consisting primarily of store and maintenance facilities which will form part of a new logistic complex. The estimated cost of this proposal is $68m at August 1988 prices, comprising: $50m for phase A and $18m for phase B. Subject to parliamentary approval, it is intended to commence construction of the phase A works-that is the $50m component-in mid-1989 and the phase B works in 1992-93. Construction of all the works in the first stage of the redevelopment is planned to be complete by mid-1995. This redevelopment will enhance Defence Force capability by improving Army's logistic and training efficiency and effectiveness. I table selected plans of the proposed work and I commend the motion to the House. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(4.56) —The Opposition welcomes this allocation of funding that is going into the Bandiana area. Parts of Bandiana have been very badly neglected in the past. In fact some of the married quarters are probably the worst in the whole of the Australian Defence Force, and that is saying something. Many of them have been condemned by the local authorities, yet service men and women are still living in them, which is some sort of indictment. Without pushing the point, which must be obvious to everyone, there is neglect of servicemen by this Government. The proposal also raises the question of the 4th Base Workshop Battalion in the Bandiana area. The 4th Base Workshop Battalion has been in some sort of limbo for probably two or three years, not knowing whether it is going to survive, what its work program is or what its future is. I note with some interest that the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron) and the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) are both going to Bandiana on 17 November as part of their continuing interest in the Defence Force, particularly in that area, to talk to people there and, I think, to talk particularly to the 4th Base Workshop people. The problem is that the 4th Base Workshop would be central to any refurbishment program that the Army wants to undertake in respect of the M113 armoured personnel carriers (APCs). This project has been on again, off again, on again and now it looks as though it is off again because the Government cannot make up its mind just what it wants to do. One of the reasons it cannot make up its mind is that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has another pet project under his bonnet, like flying training in New Zealand, which neither the Royal Australian Air Force nor the New Zealand Air Force wants, or the participation of New Zealand in the frigate project. He has got this bee in his bonnet that what he is going to do with the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, a reconnaissance regiment, is equip it with wheeled APCs before it moves to Darwin, probably by 1992. He is going to buy those wheeled APCs from overseas. We know of no trials going on and there will be nothing in it for Australian industry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! I remind the honourable member that we have a restricted debate before us and we are dealing with the allocation of money for this development. Mr WHITE —I understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, but can I just explain the point? It is this: If the Minister is going to proceed, of his own volition-and no-one supports him-in buying wheeled APCs from overseas then the future of the 4th Base Workshop, which the Government has promised on and off could refurbish the existing M113 APCs in Australia, looks very grim indeed. Here we are spending all this money in Bandiana, which is very necessary, but at the same time rather than the Government coming to a decision on whether the 4th Base Workshop based in Bandiana is to have a program of work-with the jobs of all the people there depending on it-the Minister is apparently going to buy wheeled APCs from some foreign country. That is the relevance. So I ask the Government to come to some decision on that upgrade for the 113s so that the people who work in this Bandiana area will know whether they have a future. I also ask the Minister to abandon his stupid proposal to go off willy-nilly and buy some wheeled APCs without trials because he thinks they would be good in the north. Mr EWEN CAMERON(Indi)(5.00) —The military establishment in the Bandiana area is in the electorate of Indi, just outside Wodonga. It forms part of an extended military area which includes Bonegilla, the Latchford Barracks, the Army Apprenticeship School and the Survey Corps Training School. There are also military establishments across the river in the electorate of Farrer. It is true that the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) and I maintain a very strong interest in those areas. We will be making an official visit on 17 November. I welcome the Government's move in this planned expenditure of $68m over the period from mid-1989 to mid-1995. It is interesting that next week we will debate in this House a report from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade on personnel wastage in the Australian Defence Force. This is a matter that has worried me considerably in recent times and I know it affects this Bandiana area. A great many dedicated Army personnel have been resigning from the forces because of dissatisfaction with working conditions and accommodation. Hopefully, this measure will help stem the tide. Because I know that a considerable number of people from that area will be listening to us today, I thought it would be interesting to outline briefly and quickly some of the new facilities that will be established. There will be a new district support facility and military police facility, a physical fitness centre, a Royal Australian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (RAEME) training centre headquarters and a corps training wing. There will be a Royal Australian Army Ordnance Corps (RAAOC) centre headquarters and an instructional wing. There will be a central instruction facility and a RAAOC centre training warehouse. There will be a new fire station, a receipts and issues and access control facility and a production control facility. There will be a distribution centre and a self-serve warehouse. There will be a RAEME training centre, electronics and electrical training wing and upgraded rank and file accommodation. That is very welcome. There will be a RAAOC centre Q store and vehicle compound, and a RAAOC officers and senior non-commissioned officers mess-once again, very welcome. I am sure the honourable member for Farrer and I will be invited along when it is completed. There will be upgraded accommodation, new accommodation, an ancillary trades workshop and a vehicle repair workshop. There will be a B vehicle workshop and an access control and duty room. We look forward to the completion of this program. Just before sitting down, I would like to support the comment by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) on the attitude of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) towards the refurbishment of the M113 personnel carrier, because that was to be a vital part of the retention of this very efficient 4th Base Workshop in the Bandiana area, which employs not only a large number of Army personnel but also a large number of civilians. They do the maintenance of the Leopard tank, and a very high standard of workmanship is carried out at the 4th Base Workshop. The M113 personnel carrier has been for quite a while the backbone of the infantry. It would be a great shame if it were abandoned. These machines can be refurbished very satisfactorily. It would be a great shame if that program were not carried out. I would like to support the honourable member for McPherson in his appeal to the Minister to reconsider his attitude towards this program. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(5.04) —I would like to add but two things to the excellent comments made by my colleagues the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) and the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron). Firstly, the fact that this motion is before this House at all is due in part to the breakthrough achieved under the previous coalition Government when the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) and the Cabinet Ministers at the time saw fit to upgrade the whole of the Albury- Wodonga military area and to bring about some transfers of key units from Melbourne to a decentralised location at Albury-Wodonga. I welcome the fact that the Government is now building on that progress with these capital structural changes and improvements to the value of some $68m. The second thing I would like to say is that, in fact, this program represents one of two big breakthroughs along the border area. This program applies to the area just over the border in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Indi. The second one is, of course, at Mulwala. I refer to the REFA project, in which the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West), who is at the table, has also been involved. This project is classic decentralisation at its best, at a time when the word `decentralisation' is out of favour. I tell the House and the nation that combined with, and not unrelated to, this work there is an $80m Rationalisation of Explosives Factories Australia (REFA) project going ahead at Mulwala which will see the transfer of the explosives factory at Albion in Melbourne to Mulwala, just north of the Murray River in the electorate of Farrer. There will be a construction force of some 200 people over three years and subsequently a permanent boost of some 75 people to the work force at the huge, efficient Mulwala explosives factory. So along the border-Murray Valley area, in a quite heavy industrial sense and in a key defence sense, much progress has been made. I acknowledge the role of the Government in that regard. I point out that it is building on a basis laid down by previous governments. I welcome both this project at Bandiana, the subject of this motion, and the continuing progress being made with Mulwala where the official construction and tendering process has already commenced. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 2 November. Clauses 1 to 101-by leave-taken together. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(5.09) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 58, page 35, after subclause (4) add the following subclause: ``(5) Application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal by a complainant for review of a decision of the Commissioner that the complainant is not entitled to compensation or expenses.''. (2) Page 36, after clause 63 insert the following new clause in Division 4: Action for breach of privacy ``63a. An interference with the privacy of an individual taking place after the commencement of this Act shall give rise to an action at the suit of the individual for breach of privacy.''. (3) Page 36, after proposed clause 63a insert the following new clause in Division 4: Action may be brought against agency or tax file recipient or both ``63b. An action for breach of privacy may be brought against an agency or a tax file recipient or both.''. (4) Page 36, after proposed clause 63b insert the following new clause in Division 4: Court may award damages, grant injunction etc. ``63c. In any action under section 63a or 63b, the Court may: (a) award damages; (b) grant an injunction; (c) order the defendant to deliver up to the plaintiff any document brought into existence in the course of the interference with the privacy of the plaintiff; or (d) make any other order as to the Court seems just.''. (5) Page 36, after proposed clause 63c insert the following new clause in Division 4: Right of action not in derogation of any other right etc. ``63d. The right of action conferred by this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of either any right conferred by this Act to make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner or any other procedure in the course of which the privacy of an individual may be examined.''. I was about to say I will move two amendments. The technicalities being what they are, there are in fact more than two. But, in substance, there are two amendments that I wish to make to the Privacy Bill. The first amendment, as can be seen, seeks to give an additional right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal from proceedings before the Privacy Commissioner. Honourable members will recall that this Bill establishes a Privacy Commissioner, and amongst the several functions of the Privacy Commissioner is to investigate complaints concerning interference with privacy. Clause 58, in effect, provides an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a decision of the Privacy Commissioner must include the determination of two things. So the appeal may take place, firstly, if the Privacy Commissioner decides to award compensation to the complainant for loss or damage that he has suffered as a result of the interference with his privacy and, secondly, if the Privacy Commissioner awards compensation for expenses which the complainant has suffered. In those two cases there may be, in effect, an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. But, as I understand it, there is no right of appeal or right of review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where the complainant, the citizen if you like, has been unsuccessful. In other words, a citizen who is not awarded compensation and expenses that he has incurred does not have the right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, even though he may have won in terms of his complaints about interference with privacy that he has taken before the Privacy Commissioner. That seems to be a very odd situation which, in our submission, should be rectified by this amendment to the Bill. If the Government-and this is in substance what the position will be-has a right of appeal to try to cancel compensation and expenses that have been awarded so that it does not have to pay up, to put it bluntly, surely it follows that the unsuccessful citizen should have the right to appeal if he misses out as a result of his proceedings before the Privacy Commissioner. So, in our submission, it would seem only fair that the Bill should be amended in this way. I also notice-and perhaps it is relevant to mention this here-that that right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in any event is governed by the provision at the beginning of division 3 which is to the effect, when one reads all of the clauses together, that the appeal procedure exists only in those cases where there is a breach of the information privacy principles. That is to say, it would seem, on my reading, that it does not apply to a breach or an interference with privacy that arises because of a matter concerned with the tax file number. So it seems to be limited to that extent. But in any event, the main point is that if it is good enough for the Government to appeal where compensation and expenses have been awarded, in our submission it is good enough for the citizen to have the right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The amendment proposes that there should be an action for breach of privacy. As I have already said, and we all know, where there is an interference with privacy the complainant, the person whose privacy has been interfered with, may go off to the Privacy Commissioner and pursue his or her complaint there. Compensation and expenses may be awarded, and that is fair enough. I have already complimented the Government on that procedure. But there is no right to sue in the courts. There is a right in some cases to apply for an injunction in the Federal Court. But there is no right to sue for damages. We would have thought that this was appropriate. Indeed, there would be additional incentive to people, governments and others, not to engage in acts that might invade other people's privacy because if they did they would face the prospect of being on the wrong end of a writ for an invasion of privacy. We have proposed this amendment which creates an action for breach of privacy. The amendment provides that an action for breach of privacy may be brought against an agency-that is, in effect, a government body-and also against a tax file recipient or against both. The amendment also provides that the court may award damages if a case is made out and an injunction may be granted. The amendment also enables the court to order that documents that have been brought into existence be delivered up to the plaintiff. Documents will be brought into existence when an invasion of privacy takes place. The amendment also gives the court power to make any other order which seems to it to be just. It also makes clear that this right that it seeks to confer is in addition to and not in limitation of the rights that people have to make complaints to the Privacy Commissioner and have them pursued. I hope that the Government accepts this amendment. It will not do any damage to its Bill. The amendment gives additional rights to people, and surely we should start off with a presumption that that is desirable. Really, it is very difficult to see why there should not be a cause of action of this sort. This provision will give people extended rights and it will keep government departments, agencies and others on their toes. We are sailing into uncharted waters in regard to the tax file number system. Because the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) was not here yesterday, I repeat that we have come a long way in amending this Bill as a result of agreements. I say without any qualification that officers of the Attorney-General's Department should be congratulated and complimented on the professional work that they have done. That should be said without any qualification. But we can take this extra step and add this additional benefit to the legislation which is now about to be passed. The Attorney-General has a reputation for robust commonsense and goodwill. I hope he demonstrates those qualities on this occasion. In fact, since he has taken to tripping around the world signing extradition treaties his reputation is international. He can put an additional gloss on to his reputation by agreeing to this amendment which will expand people's rights but which will not do any damage to the Bill. He can look upon this, if he wishes, as a bicentennial monument and achievement. He can even call it the Bowen cause of action if he wants to. But whether we are looking at this matter from the point of view of history or from the point of view of simply providing the machinery for people to enforce their rights and further protect their privacy, there is in our belief a case for having such a cause of action. I trust that the Government will accept this amendment. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.18) —I want to thank the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) for his contribution, particularly the praise that he properly gave to officers of the Attorney-General's Department. I thank him for that on their behalf. It is not often that the Department's hard- working officers are recognised. The honourable gentleman was quite correct in saying that this is an interesting piece of legislation. He said that we are going into new waters which perhaps are a little uncharted. Nevertheless, the privacy issue that we are talking about relates to matters that basically come under the area of human rights-namely, sex discrimination and race discrimination. Certainly, privacy seems to fit into that area. These two forms of discrimination are determined by conciliation and arbitration. Of course, an award can be made in this respect. In terms of the honourable member's views about the amendment to clause 58, we do not want to depart too much from the procedure that applies now in respect of the two matters that I have mentioned which are concerned with human rights-namely, race or sex discrimination. The honourable member properly identified a reference in clause 52 to the fact that a declaration can be made that a complainant is entitled to a specified amount by way of compensation. But this sort of thing has never been done before. The amendment seeks to provide a new remedy for any damage in respect of privacy principles. The honourable member is also correct in saying that clause 52 (3) relates the question of a complainant being entitled to costs. This assumes, of course, that the complainant at that stage has had a win. The Government would face a difficulty if the award were of an amount that was deemed to be excessive by the appropriate Minister. Only with the consent or leave of the Minister would an agency be entitled to say, `We want that amount reviewed. We are not looking at the issue'. We do not want to provide for a general review of the situation. Ministers who might give leave in this matter would be subject to parliamentary accountability. A review would be sought only on the basis of quantum and only from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which would provide a quick method of dealing with the matter. We are not anxious to provide a different form of procedure from that which operates under the Sex Discrimination Act and the Racial Discrimination Act. I am also reminded that an unsuccessful complainant can use the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act to challenge a decision on a question of law. The honourable gentleman himself adverted to the fact that people are also given the opportunity, in clause 98, to go to the Federal Court to obtain an injunction to prevent a breach. I make the point that an agency is given the opportunity to seek a review of an award because of the extraordinary width of the Privacy Commissioner's powers, but that can be done only with the leave of the Minister. So whilst the honourable gentleman was anxious to persuade me to agree to this amendment on the basis that it might have my surname in the title, I certainly cannot be persuaded. I welcome the fact that the honourable member noticed that I have been absent from the Parliament overseas. I remind him that I took 16 flights in 22 days, so I do not think he would think I was not working. On that point we are ad idem. That was the only part of his speech that I can agree with at this stage. The honourable member then went on to talk about providing for an action for breach of privacy, which was the subject of his second amendment, his third amendment being supplementary to the second and consequential on it. I cannot accept the amendment because, if we are going to provide for an action for breach of privacy, I do not see why, with the greatest respect to the honourable gentleman, we should be going through the process of appointing a Privacy Commissioner, with all the actions he can take. If a complainant feels that he would rather go to court and take action by way of suit, that would be having a second bite and would create further difficulties. He might well use the Privacy Commissioner and then decide to take action, using the Commissioner as one of his witnesses. We are trying to establish a system whereby people can have matters looked at legitimately in the same way as an Ombudsman does. We do not want to encourage litigation which would be outside the control of the Privacy Commissioner. As I said, he could well be a witness. In fact, any evidence he might have got could then be used to further a particular action. I acknowledge that there ought to be a remedy for damages. I think the remedy provided in the legislation is adequate. We think remedies are already provided through the Privacy Commissioner. The rights for people to get injunctions and to recover damages for a breach of privacy are major reforms. This method provides a remedy, and we do not want to widen it. We hope that the appointment of the Privacy Commissioner will lead to a resolution of the problem. The honourable gentleman suggested that clause 58 did not relate to the tax file number. It does not; it relates to the privacy principles. The tax file number legislation is a separate Bill. If, as suggested, an action for breach of privacy were to encompass the lot, it could mean that a small employer who is duty bound to keep all sorts of records relating to tax file numbers would have the further difficulty of being sued for breach of privacy because somebody else had got hold of the tax file numbers and matters of that nature. We would be opening up that whole area. For those reasons, we are unable to agree to the honourable gentlemen's amendments. Whilst we can see merit in them, we think they are premature at this stage. The honourable gentleman at one stage asked whether there might be a tort for privacy. I noticed that that was the subject of the Law Reform Commission's considerations. It said in its report that it was not persuaded that it was appropriate to create a tort. I am not saying that the honourable member suggested that there be a tort, but an action for breach could well relate to that. That was acknowledged in the Younger report, the report of the United Kingdom Committee on Privacy. I noticed that the Law Reform Commission referred to that report and supported the majority view of that Committee, which was not persuaded that it was appropriate to have such an action because it could be vague and nebulous, would lead to the courts having to grapple with an extraordinary number of situations, and might well affect the freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom of information, and therefore decided against it. I hope the honourable gentleman can see the merits of what we are about here. It is to give a right of action for breach of privacy. It is novel. It is something that will be used. It also gives this Parliament an opportunity to set the pattern whereby human rights and civil liberties are given recognition. I think the Bill as it now stands adequately meets that charter. I do not think the amendments, while well meaning, would assist. The emphasis is, as I said, on the Privacy Commissioner being able to solve matters, having extraordinary powers in the form of access to all documents and the ability to make determinations. Accordingly, I advise the honourable gentleman and the Committee that the Government is unable to accept the amendments proposed. Amendments negatived. Clauses agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.28) —by leave-I move: (1) Schedule 2, page 60, proposed paragraph 3.1 (c), before ``the penalties'' insert ``make staff aware of''. (2) Schedule 2, page 61, omit proposed guidelines 7.2 and 7.3, substitute the following guidelines: ``7.2 `Investment body' means a person who is an investment body for the purposes of Part VA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. ``7.3 `Employer' means an employer to whom a person may quote a tax file number in relation to their employment.''. These amendments are consequential on the fact that the tax file number legislation was passed last evening. As to the first amendment, schedule 2 at present talks about the penalties for unauthorised acts. It should read, `make staff aware of the penalties'-a defect that should have been noticed at the time of drafting. As for the second amendment, proposed new guideline 7.2 flows directly from the tax file number legislation. I think the amendments are self-explanatory. Amendments agreed to. Remainder of Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.32) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to make a number of important amendments to the Copyright Act 1968. The amendments will: legitimise home audio taping by introducing a royalty on blank recording tape to recompense copyright owners; protect performers from unauthorised recording or broadcasting of their live performances; enable educational institutions to copy television programs off-air; streamline the existing licences to educational institutions to photocopy, and institutions assisting the handicapped to make `talking books' and other useful materials; remove protection for most industrial articles from the Copyright Act provisions on artistic works; streamline the statutory licence for record manufacture; and make other miscellaneous amendments. As a companion measure, I am also introducing the Circuit Layouts Bill 1988 to provide sui generis copyright-style protection for plans for computer chips. Background These major amendments are the third stage of this Government's reform of the copyright law. In 1984, we introduced amendments to make it clear that computer programs, and other works in invisible computer memory, were protected against unauthorised copying. In 1986 we introduced amendments to substantially strengthen the anti-piracy provisions and to give the handicapped greater access to copyright materials. The amendments I introduce today are the result of extensive consultations by the Government with consumers, educators and industry participants, particularly in the last two years. The Government's aim is to provide a fair, certain and effective copyright law which will properly reward innovators and reflect modern consumer practice, while taking account of the legitimate practical considerations that affect particular groups such as educational institutions and institutions working for the handicapped. The need to amend the law so frequently is the direct result of advances in technology. Copyright, as much as-or even more than-any other area of the law, is vitally affected by technological developments which allow copyright material to be used in new ways. Within the last century, the introduction of the record-player, films, broadcasting, photocopying and cassette and video recorders and, more recently, computer programs has transformed the manner of use of copyright material. The amendments introduced by this Bill will update the law to reflect technological advances and ensure continuing protection for copyright owners. I will now address the more significant of the measures in this Bill in more detail. Blank Tape Royalty Scheme for Home Taping For some time the Government has been discussing with relevant industry participants a possible legislative scheme for the home-taping of audio materials. Home-taping is widespread in the community. Under the present law this practice is in breach of copyright. Yet, clearly, it cannot be controlled by copyright owners either by technical means or by legal action. The Government has been anxious to find a solution which would acknowledge the current practice yet also ensure that copyright owners are compensated for the use of their material. In the process, the Government consulted not only with copyright owners and consumer groups, but also with blank tape manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and retailers. The scheme contained in the Bill accommodates the concerns of both consumers and copyright owners. Important features of the scheme are: Consumers will be able to home-tape published recordings, directly or off-air, for their private and domestic use without infringement of copyright. In return, owners of copyright in the recordings will receive remuneration through a royalty to be levied on blank recording tape. The royalty will apply to audio tapes with playing times in excess of 30 minutes and will be calculated by reference to the length of the playing time. The actual amount of the royalty will be determined by the Copyright Tribunal having regard to relevant matters such as, for example, the extent of home-taping of eligible copyright material and the value to copyright owners of the material so taped. In the interests of minimising the administrative costs of royalty collection, the duty to pay the royalty will be imposed on the first sellers; that is, importers and manufacturers, of blank tapes in Australia. Copyright owners will be able to receive royalties only where they are members of a single, authorised collecting society, the rules of which have been approved by the Attorney-General. The collecting society will operate along similar lines to existing copyright collecting societies and will be responsible for the collection and distribution of the royalties. The Government will therefore not be involved in the running of the scheme and will not receive any part of the royalty. Copyright owners who will benefit from the scheme will include composers, lyricists, authors, music publishing companies and record producers. Very importantly, the recording companies have agreed that a substantial share of the royalty will be passed on to performers under their contracts. This would ordinarily amount to one-third of the royalties collected by the society. The Government would be anxious to ensure that this share was not eroded and will be monitoring this aspect closely. These features are consistent with recommendations in the McLeay report on Commonwealth assistance to the arts released in September 1986. That report recommended a levy on blank tapes. In addressing the impact of home-taping on copyright, Australia is ahead of many comparable countries. However, a number of European countries have already introduced or are proposing to introduce a blank tape royalty scheme in one form or another. The proposed royalty will be payable on all blank tapes ordinarily used for recording audio materials, including digital audio tapes (DAT). The superior quality of DAT, equivalent at least to that of compact discs, has led to calls here and overseas for bans on equipment not incorporating an `anti-copy' or spoiler device. However, the Government does not favour controlling home-taping by such means. The Government acknowledges that not all blank tapes are used for recording material in which the copyright belongs to others. The Bill therefore includes specific provisions to enable institutional users-for example, schools and institutions for the blind-to purchase tapes free from the royalty. Individuals or organisations who buy tapes on which the royalty has been paid, and who do not copy others' copyright material, will be able to obtain a refund of the royalty. One aspect of the scheme the Government has examined very closely is how to treat foreign-owned copyright material. The Government has been concerned to prevent outflow of funds from Australia to foreign countries which do not reciprocate with similar benefits to Australian copyright owners. For this reason, the royalty will be collected for the benefit of only `relevant' copyright owners; that is, owners of Australian audio copyright materials and owners of audio copyright materials in countries which have similar schemes which provide comparable benefits to Australian owners. This will ensure that Australia adheres to the spirit of the relevant international copyright conventions without providing a windfall to foreign owners in countries which have not addressed the problem of home-taping. One very important feature of the scheme is that 15 per cent of the royalty raised will be set aside by copyright owners for the benefit of those people in the Australian music industry most in need of assistance. The Government is gratified that the music industry has agreed to provide part of the royalty to the Australian Contemporary Music Development Co., recently established by the Government, to foster Australian contemporary music and, most importantly, young, up-and-coming Australian musicians. Moreover, the 15 per cent will be increased in the event that other substantial music exporting countries introduce similar reciprocal blank tape royalty schemes under which Australian copyright owners could benefit, thereby offsetting some of the potential outflow of funds from Australia. The blank tape royalty will free home-taping from the unsatisfactory status of an infringing activity on terms that meet the convenience of the public and are acceptable to copyright owners. It will also indirectly secure fair recompense to copyright owners for lost sales resulting from the ever-increasing spread of home-taping. Performers' Protection The Bill will create new civil remedies and criminal offences for the unauthorised use of performers' performances. Performers, including actors, singers, musicians, puppeteers, dancers and variety artists, have long advocated the need to have greater legal control over uses of their performances. This Government referred their claims to the Copyright Law Review Committee (CLRC) in 1983. The CLRC's report to the Government on performers' protection clearly expressed the need to provide performers with protection from commercial exploitation of their `unfixed' performances, that is, their live performances-as opposed to recordings of performances. This need has arisen because technological developments have created very effective means of commercial use of performances, namely, recording, broadcasting and diffusion by cable. These developments make it increasingly difficult for performers to effectively control the dissemination of their performances. As recommended by the majority of the CLRC, the amendments will not confer copyright protection, that is, property rights, on performers. Instead, they will create unassignable civil rights of action which also have counterpart criminal offences. The new provisions will complement the 1986 amendments made to the Act in relation to piracy and will also indirectly provide performers with greater bargaining power when negotiating contracts. Complementary regulations which are proposed will extend the operation of the new provisions to citizens, nationals and residents of countries which are members of the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations of 1961 and also to performances in those countries. These amendments, together with other proposed regulations which will extend copyright protection to foreign broadcasts, will enable Australia to meet the minimum requirements of the Rome Convention. It is the Government's intention that steps be taken towards accession to this important Convention in the near future. Educational Copying Access to the literary, musical and artistic heritage is fundamental to the role of the educator and that means access to a wide range of copyright material. The Government is therefore concerned that teachers have available to them any material of educational value circulating in both the print and audio-visual media. However, this should be achieved in a manner which ensures that relevant copyright owners are justly remunerated for use of their material. It has been a great challenge to educators and copyright owners alike to reach agreement on this issue of educational copying. The proposed statutory licences for copying by educational institutions contained in the Bill recognise the need for educators to have easy access to copyright material for teaching purposes. They also recognise the need for copyright owners to be remunerated for the use of that material. While copyright owners should not be called upon to subsidise the educational needs of the public, there should be as few obstacles as possible to access to educational materials. The statutory licensing schemes will provide the appropriate mechanisms whereby the interests of copyright owners will be balanced against the interests of educators in the most efficient manner possible. These statutory licensing schemes are also consistent with the requirements of the international copyright conventions. Statutory Licence: Audio-Visual Copying by Educational Institutions The Bill will amend the Act to establish a statutory licensing scheme which will allow educational institutions and institutions assisting handicapped persons to make off-air copies of television programs in return for payment to copyright owners. The need for these provisions is clear. Television programs are widely used by schools in the course of educational instruction. Copying enables programs to be shown at a more convenient time and to be retained for repeated use. Under the Copyright Act at present, however, off-air copying of television programs by educational institutions is an infringement of copyright unless permission is obtained from relevant copyright owners. To avoid breaching copyright, it is necessary to obtain permission to copy a program from each copyright owner who has copyright in the program. There may be a number of separate rights in each program and, consequently, separate permissions are required with respect to the script, sound recording, background music, film-if pre-recorded-and the broadcast itself. This is an extremely onerous task for an institution wishing to copy a television program. In the time normally available it is practically impossible. The scheme introduced by this Bill follows recommendations in the 1986 report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts on audio-visual copying by educational institutions. It represents the result of extensive discussions between copyright owners, educational interests and the Government. I believe that it achieves a fair balance between the respective needs and entitlements of educational institutions and copyright owners, and I have every confidence that it will provide an effective and workable solution to the problems in this area. One of the major advantages of this scheme will be its flexibility. Educational institutions will be able to make off-air copies, for educational purposes, of all television programs whether or not the programs were specifically made for educational purposes. Copyright owners will be able to claim payment for the copying of their material through a single collecting society approved by the Attorney-General. The amount payable to copyright owners will be as agreed between the parties or, in the absence of agreement, as decided by the Copyright Tribunal. Institutions will be able to elect to pay for the right to copy either by way of an amount per student, or according to actual material copied based on full record keeping. In the latter case, institutions will be required to send records to the collecting society at specified intervals. Statutory Licence: Photocopying by Educational Institutions The amendments in this Bill will also revise the existing educational photocopying scheme. The present scheme has proved to be extremely cumbersome to operate and costly to administer because of its complex record-keeping requirements. Following expressions of dissatisfaction from both educational institutions and copyright owners, the Government examined the feasibility of a revised scheme which could operate along the same lines as the scheme for copying of television programs. Whilst substantially preserving the range and extent of materials that may be copied, the revised scheme is based largely on voluntary agreements already entered into between Copyright Agency Ltd-the authors' and publishers' collecting society-and a substantial number of educational institutions throughout Australia. Cooperation in this regard has largely been achieved by abandoning the record keeping requirements of the present scheme under which payments are required for actual copying. Instead, payment is being made on the basis of agreed sampling schemes whereby estimates can be made of the amount of copying and payment made on a per student basis. The amendments proposed by the Government facilitate these voluntary arrangements and ensure that they can operate effectively under the legislation. The revised photocopying scheme will adopt the flexibility of the television copying scheme. It will provide for the establishment of a collecting society representative of copyright owners-or a defined class of copyright owners-and will enable schools to elect to pay for copying on a per-student basis or, as at present, by full record keeping. However, if full record keeping is opted for, records will now be required to be sent to the relevant collecting society for assessment. This will avoid copyright owners having to carry out time consuming and costly record inspections at the thousands of schools spread around the country. The criminal penalties in the Act for offences relating to record keeping have understandably been the subject of concern on the part of teachers. These have been substantially omitted from the revised scheme. For the teachers who will have recourse to it on a daily basis, the revised scheme will in practice be much simpler to comply with. It will also substantially improve the means of remunerating copyright owners for the use of their copyright materials. In keeping with the proposed changes to the educational photocopying scheme and the new provisions dealing with copying of television programs by educational institutions, the Bill also includes new provisions which will streamline copying by institutions assisting handicapped readers and intellectually handicapped persons. Copyright-Designs Interaction The Bill will update the protection given to artistic works that are either registered as designs under the Designs Act 1906 or are industrially applied without registration. Manufacturers, artists and designers of a diverse range of articles experience problems with the excessive copyright protection of `industrial' products by the Copyright Act, the uncertain operation of the legislation and its often inequitable effects. The legislation has also attracted criticism from both legal commentators and the courts. Last year the Government published a discussion paper that canvassed various options for reform, and received submissions from copyright owners and industry. The preferred solution was to remove the possibility of copyright protection for three dimensional industrial products. It is considered that these products should be protected only under the designs legislation or other appropriate law. The Designs Law Review Committee report on the law relating to designs in 1973 also reached this conclusion. The amendments introduced by the Bill will amend the Copyright Act accordingly. In addition, the so-called `non-expert defence' in the Copyright Act is to be repealed. It provides a qualified defence to infringement of the copyright owner's right to reproduce an artistic work in a different dimension. It has not operated as intended and has been the subject of much adverse judicial comment. These changes will not affect copyright protection for artistic works reproduced on the surface of an article, such as a T-shirt, or for buildings or works of artistic craftsmanship for which a design has not been registered. Thus, protection by copyright will continue for these essentially artistic creations, for example, tapestry or certain craftwork. As well, the changes will not affect designs for articles excluded by regulation from registration under the Designs Act. Computer Chips The Circuit Layouts Bill 1988, which I will be introducing subsequently, protects computer chip layouts from unfair copying. It is the second part of the Government's copyright reform package. The Australian computer chip industry is small but important and growing. Australian chips, for example, make bionic ears and heart pacemakers work, detect messages from space and from the ocean and convert sunlight to power. Importantly, our specialised products have found valuable markets overseas. A consequence of the copyright-design reforms already mentioned is that copyright will be of very limited use to chip designers to protect their products against piracy. The Designs Act may apply to some parts of chip layouts but, like copyright, designs monopoly protection is not suitable for chip layouts because it is excessive. Chips are essential products in modern society. Innovators need to be able to stop unauthorised copying in order to protect their investment. However, that protection should not be at the expense of proper availability of the product for use in machinery and consumer appliances. The Circuit Layouts Bill will repeal inappropriate and uncertain Copyright Act and Designs Act protection, and provide protection for original chip layouts along the lines of the laws passed recently in the United States, Japan, Scandinavia and European Community countries. The Bill is also consistent with the major elements of the World Intellectual Property Organisation's draft Treaty on the Protection of Intellectual Property in respect of Integrated Circuits. I expect this draft Treaty to be finalised at a diplomatic conference in Washington in May 1989. It is highly desirable that this Bill be law before that conference to ensure Australia's negotiating position is equal to that of the other countries which already have chip protection laws. In the unfortunate event that the conference does not agree on a treaty, Australia will need to enter into bilateral arrangements. As a result of this Government's representations, Australian chips have been protected in the United States since mid 1985. However, that protection is only interim, and ends in May 1989. Enactment of the Circuit Layouts Bill is needed to obtain permanent protection for Australian circuit layouts in the important US market. The Circuit Layouts Bill provides modified copyright protection. It grants to the creator of an original chip layout the exclusive rights to copy the layout; to make a chip in accordance with the layout-in copyright law terms `to make a three-dimensional copy of a two-dimensional work'; and to exploit first commercially the layout or a chip made in accordance with such a layout. The rights will, like copyright, arise automatically. This is a simple, low cost form of protection involving no red tape, which is welcomed by industry and the Government. As well as a short term of protection-minimum 10 years, maximum 20 years, from making-the Circuit Layouts Bill includes several significant departures from traditional copyright because of the short market life of chips; the need to preserve fair competition between innovators; and the fact that Australia imports most of its chips, either inside consumer products or for installation in products made here. Accordingly, importation of legitimate chips may not be prevented by the rights owner; a pirate layout or chip innocently acquired may be on-sold by the purchaser even after he or she knows of its infringing status, provided the purchaser pays a fair fee to the rights owner; and copying for `reverse engineering' is permitted, and a layout or chip made on the basis of this reverse engineering will not infringe rights in the first layout, provided it is also original. There are three other matters which need to be mentioned. First, at the request of industry, the Bill provides only civil claims as remedies for infringement. This is because chip piracy has not been a problem so far in Australia. However, should this position change, we would need to look again at introducing criminal sanctions and customs controls. Secondly, unlike some foreign laws, this Bill is not limited to current chip technology. For example, there is no requirement that masks be used to make chips, and protection is not limited to layouts for `semiconductor' chips. It may be, however, that the Australian chip industry develops in a way not covered by this Bill. If those developments were threatened by piracy, the Government would of course give consideration to further reforms. Finally, I note that the proposal to introduce this legislation has been the subject of consultation with industry since 1985. A detailed outline of the legislation was circulated to over 40 companies and industry organisations in July this year. If Australia is to obtain protection for its designs in the vital United States and European export markets-either under the proposed treaty or as a result of reciprocal arrangements-Australia must have a law, such as this Bill, in place as soon as possible. The Australian computer chip industry is recognised by this Government as an important, innovative and growing one. The Government is committed to fostering its development. The Circuit Layouts Bill is a significant and timely demonstration of this commitment and Australian companies. Both innovative producers and users of computer chip technology will benefit from legal certainty provided by this special legislation. However, the Government also recognises that in this fast moving area, its commitment must be responsive to the needs of the industry. Thus, after enactment of the Bill, it will be important to consult broadly with industry participants to ensure that the legislation achieves the desired result of providing appropriate intellectual property protection in Australia and in key export markets for the chip industry. The Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce will co-sponsor a program of consultation with industry during the first year of operation for this purpose. Statutory Licence for Record Manufacture The Copyright Act presently contains a statutory licence for the manufacture of recordings of musical works. The relevant provisions specify conditions upon which the licence operates and a mechanism for changing the rate of royalty payable to music copyright owners. This mechanism requires the Attorney-General to determine that the current rate is inequitable. Then there is an inquiry and report by the Copyright Tribunal. Any variation of the rate is by regulation. The Government considers that the preliminary requirement for the Attorney-General to determine the current royalty rate to be inequitable is an undesirable and inappropriate role for government. It is also an inappropriate role for the Governor-General to have to consider a tribunal report and make regulations, where appropriate, to vary the rate. In 1979-80 this matter proved a very controversial one for the Attorney-General of the day. Accordingly, the Copyright Amendment Bill will introduce a simplified scheme, based solely on a Copyright Tribunal determination of the rate in the absence of agreement, which will be consistent with other schemes in the Act-for example, the compulsory licence for broadcasting music. Such a scheme will have industry support and will remove unnecessary government involvement in the industry. Miscellaneous The Copyright Amendment Bill will also introduce a number of other reforms which will extend the right of the Australian Archives to copy works in its archival collection, standardise rights of review under the Act by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and facilitate copyright protection for choreographic works made in the form of film or video. Financial Impact The Copyright Amendment Bill 1988 will have a minimal impact on Commonwealth revenue and expenditure. There may be some increase in revenue due to a slight expansion of the sales tax base resulting from introduction of the blank tape royalty. The statutory educational copying and blank tape royalty schemes are largely self-administering. The Bill will therefore not directly lead to any increased cost to the Commonwealth. However, there is a possibility of some increased costs to the Commonwealth in relation to funding of the Copyright Tribunal, in that greater demands may be placed on the Tribunal to hear applications under those new statutory licence schemes. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.58) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Circuit Layouts Bill 1988 will provide sui generis, copyright-style, protection for original computer chip layouts. This Bill is necessary because of the amendments to copy right protection of artistic works industrially applied included in the Copyright Amendment Bill 1988 which I have just introduced. In the second reading speech to the Copyright Amendment Bill I gave an explanation of the background of this Bill and what it proposes to do. Financial Impact The Circuit Layouts Bill 1988 will have no direct impact on Commonwealth revenue or expenditure. The impact on the integrated circuit industry, however, should be positive, encouraging investors and creators in this field. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(6.00) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill I am introducing today is to amend the Arbitration (Foreign Awards and Agreements) Act 1974 to implement the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) model law on international commercial arbitration; and include minor additional provisions to facilitate arbitral proceedings. Background The model law provides a legal framework for the conduct of international arbitrations. It was adopted by the UNCITRAL in 1985 as part of its work in promoting the unification of international trade law. In 1986 the Government established a working group to examine the model law. The working group comprised representatives of the State and Northern Territory Attorneys-General, the Law Council of Australia, the Attorney-General's Department and the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. The working group recommended adoption of the model law, together with related minor additional amendments to the Arbitration (Foreign Awards and Agreements) Act 1974. The working group's recommendations were considered by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in 1987. This Bill, which implements the model law, will not replace the present domestic law on arbitration. It will supplement the existing system by enabling international arbitrations to be conducted in accordance with the model law. The Bill will also allow the States and Northern Territory to enact identical legislation should they so wish. To date, the model law has been adopted by Canada, Cyprus and California and is under active consideration by the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and New Zealand. Content of the Bill I refer now to some of the more salient features of the Bill. The Bill will implement the model law by amending the Arbitration (Foreign Awards and Agreements) Act 1974. The Act currently gives effect to the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards-the New York Convention-which establishes rules governing the recognition and enforcement, in Australia, of international arbitral awards and agreements. Implementing the model law by amendment to this Act will ensure that all relevant Commonwealth laws relating to international arbitration are comprised in the one instrument. In the event of any conflict being found to exist between the provisions of the model law and the New York Convention, the latter will take precedence. The Model Law The model law provides an internationally agreed legal framework for the conduct of international arbitrations. It regulates the arbitration agreement, the composition of arbitral tribunals, the conduct of arbitral proceedings, the recognition and enforcement of awards, and recourse against arbitral awards. International recognition of the model law means that its adoption should assist Australia's efforts to establish itself as a centre for international commercial arbitration. In this regard I note that both Melbourne and Sydney have facilities for conducting international arbitrations with the establishment of the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration in Melbourne and the Australian Commercial Disputes Centre in Sydney. The model law also complements the UNCITRAL arbitration rules, which are increasingly being used in the conduct of international ad hoc arbitrations. In a more general context, party autonomy is respected and facilitated by the model law. Parties will no longer be frustrated by unknown provisions of national laws which may conflict with their intentions in respect of their arbitration. While the law in Australia at present is relatively modern it may be unfamiliar to some foreign parties and may be perceived to be undesirable by them. Another aspect of the model law worthy of mention is the delimitation of court assistance and supervision. While the model law recognises the supportive and corrective role to be played by the courts, it will limit judicial intervention and supervision of an arbitration to a greater degree than under present Australian law. I will now mention some of the supplementary matters provided for by the Bill. The first of these is the manner in which the model law is to be implemented. The Bill will implement the model law on an `opt-out' basis. This means it will apply to all international arbitrations unless parties agree, in writing, to exclude its operation. The facilitative provisions of the Bill will however apply on an `opt in' basis. In this regard the Bill will clarify and increase the powers of arbitral tribunals in respect of matters such as the payment of interest on awards, costs, and the consolidation of arbitral proceedings. In relation to consolidation, arbitral tribunals will be able, at the request of a party, to consolidate proceedings where, for example, they deal with a common question of fact or law or where the relief claimed arises out of the same transaction. The Bill will thus enable parties to an international arbitration to choose the model law to govern their arbitration, with no additions or amendments, or the model law with all or any of the additional provisions. Financial and Regulatory Impact Statement The International Arbitration Amendment Bill will have no direct impact on Commonwealth revenue or expenditure. A favourable indirect impact on Commonwealth tax revenue may be expected as the provisions may increase the attractiveness of Australia as a centre for international arbitration, though the extent of this is difficult to quantify. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(6.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. In the 1988-89 Budget context the Government released the document A New Commitment to Higher Education in Australia, which marked the culmination of an intensive 12-month process of discussion and review of the future of higher education in Australia. The statement addressed this Government's plans for substantial growth in higher education over the next three years, the associated resource requirements of the higher education system, measures to improve equity of access to higher education, and the means by which the total resources required for growth can be provided. The expansion and funding strategy, the cornerstone of the Government's higher education package, is one of the most substantial in the history of Australia's higher education system, ensuring that the system will have been substantially expanded over the 1989-91 triennium. The Higher Education Funding Bill 1988 gives effect to the decisions announced in the Budget statement, with adjustments to take account of the Government's policies on cost supplementation. To support its growth plans, the Government will significantly increase in real terms the funds available to higher education institutions over the next triennium. Funds will be increased over 1988 grants by $141m in 1989, $275m in 1990 and $427m in 1991. This represents a total real increase in resources over the next three years of $843m. The main thrust of the higher education package is the creation of more higher education opportunities, particularly for young Australians. Taking into account pipeline effects of funding increases, an additional 40,000 places will be created by 1991. This new growth will be funded at a substantially improved average rate of $8,000 per place, up 14 per cent in real terms from 1988. Special recurrent funds have been earmarked to promote access and equity. The higher education equity projects program, first introduced in 1985 and currently expending $1.2m each year, will be boosted by a further $2m in each year of the new triennium. One million dollars will be used to provide seeding grants to assist institutions to incorporate proven pilot initiatives into their programs. A further $1m will be used to provide additional child care places for higher education students. Provision has also been made to earmark 200 of the annual intake increases over the triennium for Aborigines under the Aboriginal participation initiative, bringing to around 3,000 the total number of higher education places for Aboriginal students by 1991. The growth in higher education planned by the Government will need a substantial increase in capital facilities. As a result, there will be a significant injection of capital funds during 1989-91. Capital funds will rise from $78.5m this year to $126.7m in 1989, $145.4m in 1990 and $177.2m in 1991. Included in the 1989 grant is a special injection of $19m for the urgent renovation of higher education buildings. Institutions will also be assisted by the introduction of rolling triennial funding, enabling them to undertake long term planning with confidence. The introduction of a single operating grant to replace the existing general recurrent, equipment, minor works and special research grants will enhance institutions' flexibility in the use of their recurrent funds. To help finance the substantial expansion in the funding of higher education that was announced in the Budget, the Bill makes provision for the establishment of the higher education contribution scheme (HECS). HECS will apply to study in award courses undertaken in higher education institutions from 1 January 1989. People who benefit from participation in higher education will be required to make a small contribution towards the cost of their study. The scheme will replace the existing higher education administration charge (HEAC) which required a payment by students on enrolment. The key features of the contribution scheme are: an annual course charge of $1,800 per year of equivalent full-time study for study in award courses; pro rata charges according to the actual proportion of an equivalent full time load being undertaken; payment arrangements based upon personal capacity to pay; and a choice between lump sum payment with a 15 per cent discount at the time of enrolment each semester or payment through the taxation system once a person's taxable income reaches $22,000; that is, around the level of average earnings in the Australian work force. If people choose to pay through the taxation system, the required annual repayments of HECS liability, once the scheme is fully operational, will be: nothing for personal taxable incomes below $22,000; one per cent of personal taxable income for incomes of $22,000 to $24,999. Two per cent of personal taxable income for incomes of $25,000 to $34,999; three per cent of personal taxable income for incomes of $35,000 or more; and no further payment once debts are discharged. These repayment rates will be halved for the current financial year in view of the introduction of the scheme on 1 January 1989. The annual course charge, the outstanding debt and the personal taxable income levels above which payment is required will be indexed to keep pace with inflation. These arrangements will ensure that those paying the charge will pay the same amount in real terms, regardless of how long they take to do so. The scheme will cover all higher education students-both new and continuing-and study undertaken from 1 January, 1989, except for: students enrolled in fee-paying postgraduate courses; students in non-award courses; students in recognised bridging and supplementary courses; overseas students subject to payment of the overseas student charge, full fees or who are subsidised under a foreign aid program; students enrolled in basic nurse education courses will be exempt until 1993, when the Commonwealth takes over full responsibility for funding these courses, unless State and Territory governments ask the Commonwealth to collect the contribution on their behalf before 1993; students undertaking industrial experience as part of a course will not be liable for that proportion of their course spent in industry; and students receiving a postgraduate scholarship exempting them from liability. Adult and continuing education students and technical and further education (TAFE) students, including those studying higher education courses provided wholly by TAFE institutions, are not covered by the scheme. With those exceptions, the scheme will apply to all students enrolled in higher education institutions from 1 January 1989. There is no liability for studies undertaken prior to that date. To encourage participation in postgraduate courses, especially those relevant to the national research effort, a system of postgraduate scholarships will be introduced providing exemption from liability under the scheme for a given year of study. To be directed particularly at full-time higher education degree students, these scholarships will be allocated by institutions in accordance with government guidelines. Institutions have already been advised of their allocation of scholarships for 1989. A special allocation of postgraduate awards will be incorporated under this arrangement to assist in the professional development of teachers. The Government will establish a higher education trust fund to receive all the higher education contribution scheme funds collected by the Australian Taxation Office. These funds will help finance the expansion of the higher education system. The trust fund will operate as follows. The Commonwealth, under its benefits to students power, will make direct payments from the trust fund to higher education institutions each semester to fully discharge students' course charge liabilities for that semester. These payments will amount to about 20 per cent of total operating grants to institutions. The trust fund will be financed in part from HECS payments made by students through the taxation system, and in part from a reallocation of general operating grants for higher education which would otherwise be paid to institutions via the States. The remaining 80 per cent of total funding will continue to be paid via the States in line with current arrangements. All students who are liable under the scheme will be offered a choice of payment arrangements each semester. They may choose to pay their liabilities in a lump sum directly to the institution, in which case a discount of 15 per cent will apply. Alternatively, they may ask the Commonwealth to pay their contribution to the institution and agree to repay the Commonwealth through the taxation system. Students who thereby incur higher education debts to the Commonwealth will also be required to notify the institution of their current tax file number or, where they do not have one, make written application for a tax file number. The provisions of this legislation relating to the use of tax file numbers for purposes of the scheme are based upon, and are generally consistent with, the corresponding provisions in the Government's general tax file number legislation currently before Parliament. Normal taxation secrecy provisions will protect the privacy of a student's taxation information, including the tax file number. In addition, the provisions of the Government's Privacy Bill relating to the use of tax file numbers generally will apply equally to the use of the tax file number for the purposes of this scheme. The higher education contribution scheme is an essential part of the Government's plans for expansion and development of the higher education system. In financial terms it will raise more than one-third of the additional funding for the 1989-91 triennium allocated to higher education in this Budget. The size of this contribution will grow in future years. Just as important, the scheme will increase the fairness of funding arrangements for higher education, ensuring that the total burden of funding does not fall entirely on the taxpayer. For these reasons the Government believes that the introduction of the scheme must be a pre-condition for implementation of the other aspects of its higher education package. It has framed its legislation accordingly. In the event of significant amendments or outright rejection of those provisions of the Bill giving effect to the higher education contribution scheme, the Government will have no alternative but to curtail its plans to expand higher education. Without HECS, the higher education administration charge will be retained and indexed, and the funding of higher education institutions for the next three years will be held at a level consistent with the maintenance of 1988 funding levels in real terms together with pipeline effects for funded intakes prior to 1989. The unfortunate consequence would be that many Australians would then be denied the opportunity to participate in higher education. The Budget announcements on higher education were followed by a series of consultations between officers of my Department, individual higher education institutions and State authorities. This process, which enabled the Commonwealth to identify priorities for the allocation of resources according to State and regional needs and the agreed educational profile of each institution continued during September and October. Advice on these matters has also been sought from the Higher Education Council of the National Board of Employment, Education and Training. As the Government's policy statement on higher education made clear, Commonwealth support will be directed mainly towards those institutions which form part of the unified national system of higher education. The letter of invitation to all higher education institutions requested a response by 30 September, but the Commonwealth agreed to accept a response by 30 October in line with the publicly expressed wishes of some institutions for more time for consideration. Decisions on final membership of the unified national system will be made during November. Because of the timetable for consultative processes and membership of the unified national system, the Government was faced with severe time constraints in the drafting of funding legislation for the triennium. As a result, whilst this Bill incorporates system-wide funding levels, it has not been possible to include details of the allocation of grants to individual institutions. The Government proposes instead to table before both Houses of Parliament a report which will give details of the majority of institutional grants for each year of the triennium. It is anticipated that this report on higher education resources for 1989-91 will be available for tabling at the time this legislation is introduced into the Senate. The Government will then table determinations in early December which will give legislative effect to its decisions on institutional grants. I seek leave to table the social justice impact statement on this legislation. Leave granted. Mr DAWKINS —I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and before commending the Bill to the House I add that it is not always necessary to thank those responsible for drafting legislation but this was a very complex task, and I think the officers and the advisers who were involved in it deserve our very sincere thanks. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(6.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The second reading speech introducing the Higher Education Funding Bill 1988 outlined the Government's proposals for funding of higher education during the 1989-91 triennium. It also made clear the Government's intention that successful introduction of the new higher education contribution scheme should be a pre-condition for the program of expansion and development which was announced in the 1988-89 Budget. Consistent with this intention, the Higher Education Funding Bill itself makes no provision for the appropriation of funds to finance the growth initiatives covered by chapter 3 of the Bill. Subject to successful passage of that Bill, however, this Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill is designed to amend the provisions of sections 115 to 119 of the principal Act to allow for the payments authorised under Chapter 3 to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund or the Loan Fund, as appropriate. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(6.21) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Overseas Students Charge Act 1979 to fix the overseas students charge rates for the 1989 academic year. The levels of the charge are indicated in the Bill. Charges for higher education courses will remain at the current percentage rate of the full average cost of a place to the Commonwealth. Charges for technical and further education courses will remain at the current percentage of the Commonwealth contribution to a TAFE place. The actual increases in the charges reflect the increase in cost to the Commonwealth. The increase in the secondary charge reflects the movement in the consumer price index. A further purpose of this Bill is to extend charge liability to an overseas student who is enrolled as a casual higher education student undertaking miscellaneous studies not for award. This is expected to raise $3.6m in 1988-89. The overseas students charge raised $56.7m in 1987-88-the higher education administration charge not being included-and is expected to raise $70.3m in 1988-89. The Bill also makes some changes to terminology to be consistent with that of the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988. I commend the Bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(6.23) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Overseas Students Charge Collection Act to extend charge exemption to a tertiary student who enters Australia under an approved reciprocal organisation exchange. This will bring exemption provisions for tertiary exchange students into line with current provisions for secondary students and is estimated to cost around $200,000 in 1988-89. A further purpose of this Bill is to ensure that an overseas student enrolled as a casual higher education student is subject to the same provisions as an overseas student enrolled in a prescribed course. The Bill also makes some changes to terminology to reflect current administrative arrangements and to remove sexist language. I commend the Bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(6.25) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is to set in place the next four years of the Government's historic eight-year general recurrent funding scheme, by providing guaranteed real increases in general recurrent funding for both government and non-government schools for the 1989-1992 funding period. The Bill also appropriates funds for 1989 for the specific purpose and capital programs at the same real level as in 1988. The ethnic schools program continues to receive funding at the same money level as in 1988. As announced in the May statement, from 1989 there will be changes to some elements of the Government's planning and funding policy for new non-government schools designed to ensure the best use of available resources and a coordinated approach to planning. The new minimum enrolment requirements have already been determined under the former Act and will continue under this Bill. For established schools not covered by sections 6c (1) or 7c (1) of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1984, the minimum enrolment requirement will be one for each level of education provided by the school. In addition, new non-systemic schools will be funded at categories 1 to 6 only and establishment grants will be discontinued from 1989. Schools currently receiving establishment grants, however, will continue to receive them under the previous arrangements. The Bill also implements the Government's decision that requests for a review of recurrent funding category will be considered only on the ground that there has been a significant change in the need for financial assistance resulting from factors outside the school's control. There has been a significant simplification to the language and structure of the schools legislation. The former Act has proved to be unnecessarily complex and has made difficult the efficient administration of the Commonwealth's programs for schools. One effect of this has been the removal of the detailed financial conditions which have appeared in the legislation to date. The Bill now requires States and non-government school authorities to enter into an agreement with the Commonwealth before payments can be made. These agreements will include the normal accountability requirements that were previously included in the Act. Under the previous Act, resource agreements with State governments and with non-government school system authorities have applied only to the real increases in general recurrent grants provided since 1985. This Bill will provide the flexibility to enable agreements from 1989 to apply to the total general recurrent grant each year and to reflect more closely the educational objectives of the Commonwealth, the States and non-government school authorities. Some concern has been expressed about the nature of the objectives to be included in agreements and possible penalties for failure to meet those objectives. Let me assure school authorities that the form and content of the agreements will be fully negotiated. For government schools, I have already had detailed consultations with State education Ministers. Broad national goals for schooling are being identified and these will serve as a basis for cooperation and collaboration and will assist in the further development of specific objectives and strategies by each government school system. Agreements with the States will reflect this process. There have also been detailed consultations with non-government school authorities on the form and content of agreements. These agreements will reflect the above-mentioned broad national goals for schooling. They will, however, recognise that non-government systems will be asked to provide a statement of their objectives and priorities and the strategies they will be adopting to address those objectives. There will be no question of schools being penalised for failing to achieve their objectives. The explicit process of identifying objectives and articulating strategies will lead to better education for Australia's children. This Bill also recognises that schools and systems are being faced with real increases in their operating costs arising from the implementation of the 3 per cent productivity superannuation agreement and provides appropriate supplementation to grants to assist in meeting these costs. The financial impact of this Bill will be to appropriate an estimated $1,913m for 1989 programs, $1,533m for general recurrent grants in 1990, $1,574m for general recurrent grants in 1991 and $1,611m for general recurrent grants in 1992. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Earlier today the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) drew my attention to the intensity of the lighting entering the chamber through the skylight, and in so doing perhaps posing a risk to members susceptible to sun cancers. The skylight, as honourable members will be aware, has louvres which are controlled by light sensors, and it is likely that one or more of these have malfunctioned. I will ensure that the honourable member for Farrer has his problem brought to the attention of the engineers in the building and I will provide the honourable member with further details on this matter when they are available. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Earlier today the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) drew my attention to the fact that he needed information on a number of aspects of the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. On 22 October 1987, the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings agreed to a delay in broadcasting of General Business and Grievances on Thursdays until 3.45 p.m. the following day. This decision was taken with the support of the party leaders and was well received by the public. With the transfer of the broadcasts to standby transmitters on a trial basis, the broadcast of General Business and Grievances is now broadcast live. During the trial period, Parliament is also broadcast on Radio National, and General Business and Grievances are therefore still being re-broadcast at 3.45 p.m. on Fridays. The Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis) recently sought an extension of the trial transfer to standby transmitters to allow further consultation with members. Newspaper radio program guides are finalised well in advance, and I have been advised that the extension of the trial meant that some program information was incorrect. If the trial is considered successful and the transfer to standby transmitters becomes permanent, General Business and Grievances will in future always be broadcast live. I hope that information is of value to honourable members. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(8.02) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The primary purpose of this Bill is to adjust 1988 grants to government and non-government schools in the States and Northern Territory, in line with the Government's policy of providing retrospective cost supplementation for the Commonwealth's programs for schools to meet price increases that have occurred during the year. Included in this adjustment for price increases is an amount of $5.6m which will be allocated to those non-government schools and systems which have had an increase in their operating costs in 1988 arising from implementation of the 3 per cent productivity superannuation agreement. The Bill also implements the decision announced in the May statement that proposed new non-government schools no longer need to be able to demonstrate that they have reasonable prospects of financial viability prior to receiving approval. The total amount of supplementation to be provided by this Bill is $21.6m. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(8.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill 1988 gives effect to the Government's Budget decisions on Commonwealth assistance for TAFE in 1989 as announced in TAFE 1989 Commonwealth Programs and Priorities which I released on 24 August 1988. The purpose of the Bill is to provide the legislative basis for the distribution of Commonwealth funds for technical and further education in the States and the Northern Territory for 1989. The Bill provides $313.152m for technical and further education for 1989. The allocation of these resources reaffirms the Government's commitment to the directions set out in Skills for Australia in 1988 and reflects the new agenda for technical and further education and the Government's continued commitment to establish a framework for the future development of TAFE. Against the background of the macro-economic reforms already in place, and the increasing focus on structural adjustment policies, the Government's broad objectives for technical and further education are to achieve: further increases in participation in vocational education and training; improvements in the relevance of TAFE provision; productivity improvements and efficiency gains in the use of existing resources; greater industry involvement in TAFE; and an enhancement of the labour market prospects of the unemployed and other disadvantaged groups. In 1988 the Government moved from a system of earmarked grants for TAFE to the provision of a general recurrent grant subject to resource agreements with the States. The Commonwealth maintained a substantial infrastructure program, providing around 65 per cent of the total Australian investment in TAFE buildings. The negotiation of resource agreements provides a mechanism for an integrated approach to Commonwealth and State priorities for TAFE, a new flexibility in the use of Commonwealth funding and a new emphasis on performance and outcomes. In 1989 the Government will continue to place a strong emphasis on the national development of TAFE, through both the general recurrent program and the infrastructure program. Expanding participation in vocational education and training is fundamental to the Government's plans for economic growth and social justice. While TAFE's role as a significant provider of further training, designed to facilitate the development and maintenance of a highly skilled and efficient labour force, will continue, emphasis in 1989 TAFE funding will be given to expanding opportunities for Australians to undertake entry level education and training in pre-vocational, trade, certificate and para-professional courses. The Government will continue to emphasise also the importance of strengthening relationships between industry and TAFE in relation to curricula, staff development, delivery arrangements, equipment and use of facilities. The joint venture equipment initiative introduced in 1988 will be enhanced in 1989 as a means of providing an increased incentive for industry to contribute to the purchase of equipment for TAFE and generally promoting links with industry. Despite significant developments during the past five years, the access of disadvantaged groups and women, especially sole parents, to education and training remains a problem. In 1989 the Government will, consistent with its other Budget measures, begin an attack on two of the major barriers to the participation in TAFE of Aborigines and women with children, particularly sole parents. During the next three years the Government will commit $10m from the infrastructure program for the construction of facilities directed towards enhancing the participation of Aboriginals in TAFE. The provision of child-care has been identified as one of the barriers to the participation of women in TAFE. Accordingly, the Government will commit $6m from the infrastructure program during the next three years to expand the provision of child-care facilities for TAFE students. The Government will provide for 1989 an infrastructure program of $186.065m. Within this program the Government will give consideration to projects that meet its priorities for economic and social development, in particular those that: generate additional capacity in areas of strategic economic importance; are directed towards the training of Aboriginals or provide additional child-care facilities; and enhance the capacity of TAFE to respond to the training needs of young Australians, including trainees under the Australian traineeship system. The Commonwealth will continue to provide a level of recurrent funding for TAFE that meets about 9 per cent of the total recurrent expenditure. The Bill provides for a general recurrent program of $120.434m. This includes funds to maintain those courses provided by the New South Wales and Queensland TAFE authorities that were previously funded under higher education arrangements. Special grants for advanced English language courses for migrants will be maintained in real terms at the 1988 level to enable TAFE to continue the provision of courses which migrants will need to develop the more advanced English necessary for occupational purposes or for further study. Grants for adult literacy and for non-government adult education are also maintained in real terms. The Bill also provides for the subsidies payment provided to non-government business colleges; it gives effect to the phasing out of the scheme as detailed in TAFE 1989: Commonwealth Programs and Priorities and also provides an additional $1.5m to assist colleges in the first half of 1989 to adjust their financial bases following the withdrawal of the subsidies and meet commitments already made to students in respect of 1989. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Beazley, and read a first time. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(8.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to make an amendment to the Naval Defence Act 1910 to enable persons employed at Garden Island Dockyard to be transferred to Australian Defence Industries Pty Ltd. I announced last August that the Office of Defence Production (ODP) would be converted into a government-owned company in March 1989 in order that the defence production establishments could become more commercially competitive. This step involves the transfer of 10 defence factories and Garden Island Dockyard to the newly established company, Australian Defence Industries. Over the last two years the Office of Defence Production, as part of an ongoing rationalisation of its operations, has reduced its work force by 25 per cent while increasing productivity by 30 per cent. This does not include the loss of employees resulting from the sale of Williamstown Dockyard and the conversion of the Government Aircraft Factories into a company, Aerospace Technologies of Australia Pty Ltd. The overall aim has been to improve delivery and financial performance. It has been successful in saving the defence budget, and ultimately the taxpayer, about $150m per annum. The Government's 1987 White Paper on defence emphasised the need for ODP to be as efficient as possible and set out the Government's objectives to use competition as a spur. Implicit in the White Paper was the understanding that ODP would need to be structured in a way that would enable it to compete successfully for defence and other work. The policy of progressively opening up more defence work to competition means that more and more defence orders which once went to ODP will now be open to competitive bids from industry. Unless this organisation is able to adopt more commercial practices it will not survive this competition. This Bill inserts into the Naval Defence Act a provision to enable the blue collar employees at Garden Island dockyard to be transferred to the new company. The remaining employees of the Defence Establishments are employed under the Supply and Development Act and the Public Service Act, and will be transferred under similar provisions contained in these Acts. Over the past two years Garden Island Dockyard has undergone a major restructuring of its total work force, in line with industry generally. Improvements in efficiency and productivity were necessary if the dockyard was going to be able to survive as a viable government enterprise. The dockyard has been operating on a full cost recovery basis for some time and considerable effort has been put into restructuring of awards. It was thanks to the dockyard that HMAS Cook was refitted in time for use by the Duke and Duchess of York in the Bicentennial Naval Salute in Sydney. This refit was brought forward for the occasion and was completed on time and on target. The proposed amendment is not expected to have any significant financial impact. I commend the Bill to honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Howe, and read a first time. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(8.14) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill contains amendments to the Social Security Act 1947 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to implement several decisions announced in the 1988-89 Budget Speech, to make minor amendments to the Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and to revise the social security reciprocal agreement with New Zealand. This Bill contains the most fundamental restructuring of the system of rent assistance since its introduction for pensioners. For the first time the rent assistance system will acknowledge the additional housing costs of families with children. For the first time that system will acknowledge the additional cost of large families-families with three or more children. There will be parity in levels of rent assistance for pensioners and beneficiaries. Among low income individuals and families, those who rent in the private market are the least well off. As part of a far-reaching housing assistance package and in special recognition of the plight of families in the private rental market, the maximum rate of rent assistance for people with dependent children is to be increased by a special $5 child add-on. This increase will apply from June 1989 to families who qualify for family allowance supplement or additional pension or benefit payments for their children. Further rent assistance increases will be introduced in December 1989 and June 1990. In December 1989, beneficiaries without children will receive a $5 increase to bring their entitlement to the same $15 a week level that is payable to pensioners without children-providing parity of treatment for pensioners and beneficiaries. Then, in June 1990, the maximum basic rate of rent assistance payable to all recipients will rise by $5 a week and the child add-on component will be raised to $10 a week where there are three or more dependent children. People without children will then receive a total of $20 a week, those with one or two children will receive $25 a week and families with three or more children will be paid $30 a week. The rent assistance threshold will also rise in June 1989 from $15 to $20 a week. This threshold is the minimum amount of rent a person must pay before becoming eligible for rent assistance. The increase means that more assistance can be given to people in greatest need paying higher rents. From June 1989, rent assistance eligibility is to be modified to remove an anomaly whereby the payment is currently available to pensioners and beneficiaries in respect of the rented premises that they occupy, although they may also own a home which they do not occupy. Certain home owner groups will remain eligible-people who move into nursing homes or other approved institutions, those who sell their homes and are likely to use the proceeds for re-purchase within 12 months and those who pay for the use of a site or mooring of a mobile home or vessel. The eligibility of people who acquire a right or interest in a principal home in a retirement village from today may also be affected by this rent assistance modification, depending on how much they pay for their right or interest. They will be ineligible for rent assistance if they pay an entry contribution of more than the difference between the assets test limits for property owners and non-property owners. This is an indexed amount currently standing at $64,000. An acquisition of this type and amount gives a person security of tenure broadly comparable to that of someone living in his or her own home. People paying $64,000 or less will still be eligible for rent assistance. This change removes the incentive for village promoters to deny security of tenure to residents even though they have made substantial investments. From June 1989, pensioners and beneficiaries who apply for rent assistance in respect of their board and lodging accommodation will have their assessable rent calculated on the basis of two-thirds of their board and lodging costs rather than the full amount. Existing board and lodging rent assistance recipients will be phased into the new arrangements-they will continue to receive the same amount of rent assistance they would have received before June 1989 had the new $20 threshold applied, until they either stop boarding and lodging or become eligible for payment at a higher rate under the new conditions. These wide ranging amendments will enable a redistribution of rent assistance support to the areas of greatest need. To complete the housing measures and in recognition of their special circumstances, ex-prisoner rent assistance claimants who have no children will have the 26-week waiting period during which they would normally have had to be receiving unemployment benefit reduced by the length of time they have spent in prison. A cornerstone of this country's social security system is a fair means test. An essential element of a means tested system is an income test with integrity. An environment in which some in the investment industry have developed and marketed products for the purpose of enabling avoidance of the income test requires constant monitoring. This Government has given a clear undertaking that it would act to counter devices or schemes designed to circumvent the income test for pension and benefit eligibility. This Bill closes a significant loophole in the income assessment of certain investment products in the interests of a fair and equitable income test which does not favour one group of investors over another. Growth on market-linked investments, which is currently assessed on realisation or maturity, will now be assessed on an ongoing basis. From 1 December 1988, pensioners and beneficiaries who, on or after 9 September 1988, invested or invest in institutionally managed market-linked investments which yield capital growth will have a rate of return calculated on their investments and counted as ongoing yearly income. There will be a statutory rate of return on all market-linked investments of 11 per cent or such other lower rate not below zero per cent as is specified by the Minister from time to time. Any such specified rate lower than 11 per cent is to be subject to disallowance by Parliament. In fairness to investors, the costs necessarily incurred by an investor in establishing and maintaining an investment will be taken into account-by deducting them from the amount determined by applying the rate of return to the amount of the investment. This change from a realisation basis to an accruals basis for the income test removes a significant disincentive for retired people to access their savings, helping to achieve a more rational retirement incomes system. Applying the flat, deemed rate of return is the only point at which the investment is subject to the income test. Investors can be confident that the realisation of their investments will be irrelevant to the operation of the income test: there is to be no double counting of the return on an investment. The fact that the system is based on a flat, deemed rate of income provides a strong incentive for fund managers to improve their products' rate of return to attract investors in this category. Any improved return over the specified rate will not affect the pension or benefit. The Secretary to the Department of Social Security will be able to decrease the deemed rate of return in respect of particular products either of his own volition or following a written application by the fund manager or a natural person who is an investor in the fund. If satisfied that the rate of return on the particular product is at a lower level than the specified rate, and if that lower level is clearly assessable, the Secretary will determine a new product rate of return for that product. The Secretary will not then, however, be obliged to determine a further variation within a period of three months. The fund manager of a particular fund or a pensioner or beneficiary who has invested in a particular fund will have a right of appeal to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal against the product rate of return deemed appropriate by the Secretary in respect of that product. The Government recognises the need for certainty in the provisions determining eligibility for pensions and benefits. It also recognises that any system which has gaps in eligibility criteria enabling people to make investments the returns from which avoid the income test before they are cashed in or mature is unfair and, in the longer run, economically irresponsible. The procedures and rules to apply under this Bill have taken account of consultations with pensioner bodies and investment fund associations. The Government will keep in close contact with these groups once the new provisions are in operation. The procedures and rules should lead to a situation where pensioners, potential pensioners, fund managers and investment advisers will see clearly what the applicable rate of return is for each investment product. Variations in the rate will depend on the performance of the particular product. The Bill will make some amendments to the Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. These amendments are necessary to correct minor errors which occurred in the drafting of the Act earlier this year and to ensure that the Act, when it comes fully into operation on 1 December, correctly reflects the intentions of Parliament. This Bill also revises the reciprocal social security agreement with New Zealand. Since 1973, Australia has paid its pensions into New Zealand under domestic law. However, as New Zealand does not pay its benefits into Australia, a financial imbalance developed in the agreement. This imbalance has been exacerbated by recent large increases in the number of people moving from New Zealand to Australia. Following negotiations earlier this year, the New Zealand Government agreed to reimburse Australia for pensions paid to former New Zealand beneficiaries. It will reimburse the cost of all Australian age, invalid, wife's and widow's pensions paid to people in Australia who leave New Zealand on or after 1 April 1989 and who were in receipt of New Zealand national superannuation, invalid's or widow's benefits when they left New Zealand. The reimbursement payment will be made annually in advance between 1 April and 30 June and is estimated at around $A8.8m cumulative per annum. This amount, less a small administrative expense, will represent a direct reduction in future Australian social security expenditure. I commend this Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr McGauran) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr West, and read a first time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(8.25) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is intended to provide the legal procedures that will apply to government acquisition activities in the transition from the operation of the current Act, the Lands Acquisition Act 1955, and the commencement of the Lands Acquisition Act 1988. Provision is also made in the legislation for amendments to be made to existing Acts where necessary so that the existing powers and functions of authorities under their enabling legislation is not affected. In my second reading speech to Parliament on the Lands Acquisition Bill 1988 I identified significant benefits to individuals that can be expected to occur as a result of the passage into law of the new lands acquisition legislation. Honourable members will be aware that the legislation in general provides for the acquisition process to be more open to public scrutiny; to provide individual landowners rights of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of the decision to acquire the land; to require that Commonwealth acquiring authorities meet set time limits in carrying out acquisition activities; and to provide landowners recourse to more comprehensive compensation provisions in respect of Commonwealth acquisition activities. The Lands Acquisition Bill 1988 has the interests of individuals as its primary focus. The Government is concerned that the benefits of the new provisions of that Bill should be applied as soon as possible to landowners affected by Commonwealth acquisition initiatives. This Bill has been drafted to give effect to that intention by applying the provisions of the new Act as much as possible to acquisitions initiated but not completed by the Commonwealth under existing legislation. I would like to take the opportunity to comment on some provisions of the Bill which most exemplify the Government's intentions in this area. Clauses 7 and 8 are probably the most significant clauses in the Bill. They provide that, where the Commonwealth has initiated action to acquire an interest in land but negotiations have not been concluded and the interest has not been acquired by the time the 1988 Act commences, then those acquisitions will be undertaken according to the 1988 Act. This applies to acquisitions both by agreement and by compulsory process and implies, for example, that the property owners would be issued with a pre-acquisition declaration giving them the right to appeal the decision to acquire their properties. Clause 8 of the Bill also provides that where an owner's land was compulsorily acquired after 25 May 1988, even if the acquisition had been completed under the Lands Acquisition Act 1955, compensation will be assessed according to the provisions of the 1988 Act. If compensation has already been assessed and paid according to the 1955 Act and the owner would be entitled to a greater amount of compensation under the provisions of the new legislation compared to the amount applicable under the 1955 Act, then this additional amount will be paid to the owner. The specified date in this provision is pertinent because it was on that date that the Lands Acquisition Bill 1988 was introduced into Parliament identifying the proposed new compensation entitlements. Clause 9 of the Bill provides that persons whose land the Commonwealth had entered onto and/or temporarily occupied in the three-year period prior to repeal of the 1955 Act will be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 1988 Act. When the Commonwealth compulsorily acquires property in some instances the former owner is able to remain in possession for a time. This is provided for in a general way in the 1955 Act but the details of any agreement are typically arranged between the Commonwealth and the former owner on an individual case basis. The 1988 Act makes specific provision for this to happen and clause 11 of this Bill provides that persons in possession of such land under an agreement with the Commonwealth immediately before the commencement of the 1988 Act will have extended to them the protection of the more detailed occupancy provisions of section 47 of the 1988 Act. This Bill also amends several existing Acts. The general intention behind most of those amendments is to retain the status quo in terms of ministerial responsibilities. The need arises because the Lands Acquisition Bill 1988 is far more precise than the 1955 Act in specifying what activities will be bound by it with exceptions having to be precisely identified. In some other instances the amendments substitute a reference to the 1988 Act for a reference to the 1955 Act. I would like however to make some broad observations about particular categories of legislation and the relationship of those Acts to the Lands Acquisition Act 1988. Honourable members will note that there is a group of Acts being amended by this Bill which deal with Aboriginal communities. These Acts provide to such communities, through Aboriginal councils and land trusts, limited powers to deal in land. In general, amendments to these individual Acts are intended to preserve these powers despite the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act 1988. The Government has decided that certain authorities or instrumentalities should be able to operate in a totally commercial environment and so should not be bound by the requirement of the Commonwealth's general land acquisition legislation. Bodies such as the Defence Housing Authority and the Federal Airports Corporation are examples of such organisations. Amendments to the enabling legislation of such organisations are being made to alter references to the 1955 Act to be references to the 1988 Act retaining that commercial independence. I would like honourable members to note that such amendments proposed in this Bill only preserve existing power and do not confer any additional legislative powers to the authorities involved. Individual amendments to other Acts are varied in nature in terms of the result to be achieved. However, as I have noted earlier, these amendments do not introduce any new policy initiatives by Government and are purely intended to preserve the status quo where the new Lands Acquisition Act 1988 might otherwise introduce change. This Bill is complementary to, and is a necessary part of, the Lands Acquisition Act 1988 legislative package. Passage of this Bill will allow the new legislation to be implemented without undue delay. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr McGauran) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(8.34) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill will amend the taxation laws in a number of ways. It will implement several major changes announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 25 May 1988 as part of the May economic statement, and on 23 August 1988 as part of the 1988-89 Budget. In particular, it will remove, subject to phasing-in arrangements, the present income tax exemption that applies to income from gold- mining. It will also exclude from assessability under the income tax law up to $200 per year of discounts on shares or rights acquired under certain employee share acquisition schemes. Other 1988 May economic statement income tax measures contained in the Bill will reduce the rate of deduction for investment in Australian films from 120 to 100 per cent, and modify the imputation provisions as they relate to dividends paid before 1 July 1989 by early balancing companies. Budget measures contained in the Bill will provide a rebate of tax for lump sum payments in arrears of certain kinds of income, and deductability for gifts to the Australian National Gallery Foundation. Other amendments of the income tax law proposed by this Bill will ensure that certain prepaid research and development expenditure will be deductable over the period during which relevant services are provided, and will exempt certain cash grants made under the defence service homes scheme. Some minor amendments are also proposed to the fringe benefits tax law. Finally, the Bill contains measures to clarify the refund provisions of the sales tax law. I turn now to a more detailed discussion of these measures. Tax Exemption for Goldmining Income In accordance with the 1988 May economic statement, the Bill will remove the current exemption from taxation of income from goldmining, subject to certain phasing-in arrangements. The Government will honour its commitment to the gold industry by allowing the existing exemption to apply until 1 January 1991. From that date, the Bill will terminate: the tax exemption of income from goldmining; and the exemption for income derived from the sale of gold by the Gold Producers Association Ltd. The impact of these changes will be further eased by allowing certain expenditures incurred prior to 1 January 1991 to be carried forward for deduction after that date. In particular, the Bill contains transitional arrangements to calculate notional deductions for capital expenditure incurred by goldminers prior to 1 January 1991 in order to determine actual deductions for such expenditure from that date for goldminers that continue to be engaged in mining operations. Notional deductions will be calculated either on the basis of write-off rates specified in the mining provisions of the income tax law or the 5/3 accelerated depreciation provisions. A separate transitional arrangement will apply to exploration expenditure for gold incurred between 25 May 1988 and 1 January 1991 which will be carried forward and deducted against income from 1 January 1991 for up to seven years from the year in which it is incurred. As is the case in relation to claims for deductions for expenses generally, claims by goldminers for deductions allowed under the transitional arrangements will need to be supported by adequate records. The tax exemption for income from the sale of rights to mine for gold by bona fide prospectors will be retained, subject to an amendment to confine the exemption to arm's length transactions, as for other minerals. Also consistent with the existing law, the amount of exploration expenditure carried forward during the transitional period will be appropriately reduced in the event of a tax exempt sale of a mining right before 1 January 1991. In relation to income derived or expenditure incurred from 1 January 1991, goldminers will otherwise be subject to tax on the same basis as other miners. These changes are expected to produce revenue savings of $870m in 1991-1992 and $300m per annum in later income years. Lump Sum Payments in Arrears The Bill provides for a rebate of tax to be allowed where certain income accrued in years earlier than the year of receipt is received in a lump sum. The rebate will limit the tax payable on the arrears component of the lump sum to an amount comparable to the tax that would have been payable if the income had been received when it accrued. Lump sum payments of workers' and accident compensation, certain pensions, benefits and allowances and, in limited circumstances, payments of salary or wages will be eligible for the rebate. At present, such lump sums are wholly taxable as income of the year in which they are received and this can result in taxpayers paying a higher amount of tax than if the income had been received in each of the years in which it accrued. The rebate will be available for lump sums received on or after 1 July 1986 where the amount of the accrued income is not less than 10 per cent of the taxpayer's taxable income of the year of receipt, as adjusted for certain kinds of income of an irregular nature. The kinds of income that will be excluded in applying the eligibility test are those parts of the lump sums that accrued in prior years together with any capital gains, abnormal income or lump sums paid on termination of employment. The rebate will be calculated by reference to the income of the two most recent years, prior to the year of receipt, over which the lump sum accrued. Where the lump sum accrued no earlier than those two years the taxation position of a taxpayer as a consequence of the rebate will be the same as if the income had been received in the income years in which it accrued. Where the lump sum accrued over a longer period, the tax payable in respect of the arrears that accrued in those earlier years will be determined broadly on the basis of the rates of tax that would have been borne in the two most recent years before the year of receipt. The estimated cost of providing this rebate is $3m in 1988-89 and $1m in subsequent financial years. Employee Share Acquisition Schemes This Bill gives effect to the proposal announced in the 1988 May Economic Statement to exclude from income tax up to $200 of discounts on shares or rights acquired by employees under certain employee share acquisition schemes. To qualify for the proposed exclusion, the employee share acquisition scheme will need to be open, on a non-discriminatory basis, to all full time or permanent part time employees of at least 12 months service. In addition, shares or rights acquired under a scheme will need to be held for a minimum of three years except where employment terminates. The Bill will also ensure that, for capital gains tax purposes, the cost base of the shares or rights will be reduced by any discount that is excluded from assessable income. These changes will apply to shares or rights acquired on or after 1 July 1988 and are expected to have a revenue cost of $5m for each of the first three years, but to decline in subsequent years. Transitional Imputation Arrangements The Bill contains the transitional measures announced by the Treasurer in the 1988 May economic statement to prevent franked dividends paid by early balancing companies with imputation credits calculated on the basis of the 39 per cent company tax rate from being channelled through later balancing companies which, as the law presently stands, could effectively pass those dividends on to individual shareholders with higher imputation credits based on the 49 per cent company tax rate. This situation will be addressed by deeming dividends paid by early balancing companies between 1 January and 30 June 1989 to a resident company that could pay dividends franked on the basis of the 49 per cent company tax rate to be received by that company, for imputation purposes, on the first day of the franking year that corresponds to its 1989-90 tax year, generally 1 July 1989. However, where dividends otherwise subject to this measure are actually received earlier than their deemed date of receipt and the company concerned has a franking deficit at the end of its 1988-89 franking year, the measures in the Bill will operate to apply the incoming dividends to the reduction or the elimination of that deficit. Where necessary, up to two-thirds of such dividends may be applied against the franking deficit in this way. The overall cost of the reduction of the company tax, excluding life companies, with which this transitional measure is associated is $110m in 1988-89 and $1,850m in 1989-90. Prepaid Research and Development Expenditure The Bill will change the timing of deductions for research and development expenditure that is incurred in advance of the provision of the services to which the expenditure relates. Instead of being fully deductable when incurred, deductions for the expenditure will be pro-rated over the period during which the services are provided. Immediate deductability will continue to be available if all of the services are provided within 13 months of incurring the expenditure, if the expenditure is less than $1,000 or if it is required to be incurred by law. Additionally, preferred treatment will be given to expenditure incurred to an approved research institute or a registered research agency, and to expenditure incurred on syndication projects for which a company is registered by the Industry Research and Development Board. For expenditure of this kind, deductions that would be allowable in the second and subsequent years of income will be advanced to the preceding year of income. The amendments will apply to expenditure incurred after 20 November 1987. Films As part of the restructuring of the Government's support for the film industry, the Bill reduces the deduction for investments in qualifying Australian films from 120 per cent to 100 per cent, with no exemption from tax for income from such investments. The reduction, which was announced by the Treasurer in the 1988 May economic statement, will apply to expenditure under contracts entered into on or after 25 May 1988. The Bill also contains transitional provisions to preserve temporarily the higher rates of deduction for films substantially in production or underwritten before 25 May 1988, provided that certain conditions are met. The estimated cost of the proposed amendments is $90m over a four-year period commencing with the 1989-90 financial year. Future government assistance to the film industry will be given primarily through the Australian Film Finance Corporation Pty Ltd which has been established as a wholly Commonwealth owned company to fund qualifying Australian films. Corporate Restructure (Debt Creation) Rules The Bill will effect a minor amendment to the income tax law to correct a technical deficiency in the corporate restructure-debt creation-rules which, it is argued, presently grant an exemption from the legislation in a way that was not intended. The amendment will ensure that the exempting provisions do not extend to corporate restructure arrangements under which shares held by a non-resident in one resident company are sold to another company controlled by the non- resident. Although designed to do no more than clarify the intended operation of the debt creation rules that apply from 1 July 1987, to remove any suggestion of retrospectivity this measure will apply to relevant transactions entered into after today. This change will have a negligible impact on revenue. Gifts As foreshadowed in the Budget, this Bill will amend the gift provisions of the income tax law to allow deductions for gifts made on and after 26 September 1988 to the Australian National Gallery Foundation. The estimated cost of admitting the Foundation to the gift provisions is $500,000 in 1988-89 and subsequent years. Cash Grants Under the Defence Service Homes Scheme The Bill will exempt from income tax certain cash payments made instead of low-interest mortgage loans under the defence service homes scheme. The payments were made under transitional arrangements that applied between 16 September 1987 and 9 December 1987 inclusive. The cost to revenue of the exemption is estimated to be $350,000 in 1988-89 and $50,000 in 1989-90. Fringe Benefits Tax The Bill contains some minor fine-tuning amendments of the fringe benefits tax law that are of a concessional nature in relation to the operation of the so-called otherwise-deductible rule. These amendments will have negligible revenue effect. Sales Tax Refund Finally, the refund provisions of the sales tax law will be clarified to ensure that, where tax has been passed on to customers, refunds of overpaid tax are available only if the person who ultimately bore the tax has been recompensed. I present the explanatory memorandum and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr McGauran) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(8.48) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will give effect to the proposal announced in the 1988 May economic statement to reduce the company tax rate from 49 per cent to 39 per cent. The Bill will amend the Income Tax Rates Act 1986 to declare the rates of income tax payable for the 1989-90 and subsequent financial years by companies and by trustees of corporate unit trusts and public trading trusts. Income tax at the declared rate of 39 per cent will be payable on incomes of the 1988-89 and subsequent financial years. Reflecting the decrease in the company tax rate to 39 per cent, the shading-in threshold for a non-profit company that is not a registered organisation is to be reduced to $1,429. A non-profit company will pay tax at the full company rate where its taxable income exceeds $1,429. The Bill will also declare a 39 per cent rate of tax payable by trustees on trust income of non-resident company beneficiaries in the 1988-89 and subsequent financial years. The cost to revenue of the reduction in the company tax rate and other associated rate reductions, not including any effect of proposed changes to life insurance company taxation that will be contained in a subsequent Bill, is $110m in 1988-89 and $1,850m in 1989-90 and subsequent years. A Bill to declare the rates of tax payable on incomes of superannuation funds and by registered organisations will also be introduced at a later time. The explanatory memorandum on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1988, about which I have just spoken, contains an explanation of the provisions of this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr McGauran) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(8.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will make three minor amendments to the Sales Tax (Exemption and Classifications) Act to give full effect to sales tax changes announced in the 1988-89 Budget. The Bill will ensure that: goods used by retailers to wrap or secure goods for marketing are subject to tax at the 20 per cent rate; thick shake mixes used in the manufacture of thick shakes and ice creams are taxable at the rate of 10 per cent; and accessories to takeaway food containers such as spoons and serviettes are subject to tax at the 10 per cent rate. The explanatory memorandum on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1988 about which I spoke earlier contains an explanation of the provisions of this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr McGauran) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(8.52) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Treasurer announced in the 1988-89 Budget that the Government has decided that an annual supervisory fee is to be levied, commencing in 1988-89, on life and general insurance companies. The purpose of this fee is to recover the ongoing costs of supervision of such insurers under the Life Insurance Act 1945 and the Insurance Act 1973 respectively by the Insurance and Superannuation Commission. The Bill before the House, namely the Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 1988, gives effect to this announcement. The opportunity has also been taken to make a number of other amendments to insurance industry supervisory legislation. The Bill incorporates measures to provide for the registration under the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984 of insurance intermediaries dealing with unauthorised foreign insurers. It will also effect a number of amendments to the Life Insurance Act 1945 to strengthen and improve the effectiveness of the existing supervisory arrangements, all of which will increase the level of protection available to the insuring public. The Bill is structured into five parts. Part I includes the commencement provisions and provides for specified provisions to come into operation on the twenty-eighth day after the day on which the Bill receives the royal assent, and for all other provisions to come into operation on a day or days to be fixed by proclamation. Part II amends the Insurance Act 1973 to include the new provisions relating to the levying of the annual supervisory fee on general insurers. It also repeals section 113, which deals with unauthorised foreign insurers, in order to remove legislative overlaps with section 34 of the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984. Part III amends the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984 to include new provisions requiring the registration of all insurance intermediaries dealing with unauthorised foreign insurers, and the collection of statistics regarding premiums remitted overseas. Part IV amends the Life Insurance Amendment Act 1977 to repeal two redundant unproclaimed sections. Part V amends the Life Insurance Act 1945 in five ways: firstly, to include the new provisions relating to the levying of the annual supervisory fee on life insurers; secondly, to introduce the concept of appointed actuary for the purpose of performing certain functions required under the Act; thirdly, to repeal certain redundant provisions; fourthly, to change the period for furnishing to Parliament the annual report on the workings of the Act-the proposed period is to be within three months of the year ending on 30 June which corresponds to the reporting period provided in the other Acts administered by the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner; and, fifthly, to effect a number of other changes intended to clarify and enhance the existing supervisory arrangements. I would now like to address the more significant provisions of the Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 1988-first, the annual supervisory fee in respect of life and general insurers. At present, the cost of supervising the life and general insurance industries is borne by taxpayers in general. The proposed annual supervisory fee on life and general insurance companies is based on the application of the user pays principle. This approach is not a new one; it already applies in a number of areas of government activity. For instance, registration fees are imposed by the Commonwealth in respect of insurance brokers. There is also a supervisory fee applicable to occupational superannuation funds and approved deposit funds that wish to take advantage of relevant concessions available under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. The proposed fee reflects the Government's view that, generally, where a service is designed to benefit a particular group, the cost should be borne by that immediate group of beneficiaries of the service rather than by taxpayers in general. The supervisory fee will be payable into Consolidated Revenue. Its imposition will not affect the existing arrangements under which the financial resources made available to the Insurance and Superannuation Commission are subject to the same scrutiny processes as are applicable to Commonwealth departments generally. As announced in the Budget, the proposed annual fee will be a flat fee and will be $19,000 for each registered life insurance company and $11,000 for each authorised general insurance company. Appropriate regulations to give effect to these fees will be sought later this year following passage of the Bill. The proposed supervisory fee has been estimated to raise $2.9m in a full year. The proposed fee will be payable in respect of financial years ending on or after 1 July 1988. It is intended that the fee be paid at at the same time as an insurer's annual returns are normally lodged with the Insurance and Superannuation Commission. The first fees will be payable by insurers in 1988-89 and will be applied to offset the Commonwealth's costs of supervising the industries in 1988-89. I turn now to the proposed changes covered in parts III and V of the Bill. These proposed amendments-to the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984 and the Life Insurance Act 1945-have been the subject of consultations with representatives of industry bodies including, where relevant, the Life Insurance Federation of Australia, the Insurance Council of Australia, the Institute of Actuaries of Australia and the National Insurance Brokers Association of Australia. In addition, some of the other amendments provided for in the Bill have emerged as a result of suggestions put forward by the industry. Presently, the Insurance Act 1973 and the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984 do not provide as much protection to consumers dealing with agents of unauthorised foreign insurers as to those dealing with either agents of authorised insurers or brokers. In the case of agents of authorised insurers there is more scope to enforce the statutory requirement that an insurer must accept liability for the conduct of his agent. Brokers must in general hold professional indemnity insurance. The Government is of the view that those insured should be allowed access to overseas insurance markets where they wish to seek it. At the same time the Government believes that insurance consumers should be reminded of the importance of considering the possible implications of entering into insurance contracts with offshore insurers who are not supervised under Australian insurance law. Against this background the Bill will provide increased protection for those insured by including certain additional provisions in the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984. A key additional requirement will be that all insurance intermediaries who arrange insurance contracts with unauthorised foreign insurers will be required to be registered under the Act, unless they are already registered as an insurance broker. In addition these intermediaries, as well as registered insurance brokers who arrange insurance contracts with unauthorised foreign insurers, will be required, first, to provide to the Insurance and Superannuation Commission a copy of any agency agreements they have with an unauthorised foreign insurer-the agreements to be available for public inspection; second, obtain written acknowledgment from the insured that cover may be provided in whole or in part by an unauthorised foreign insurer; and, third, provide an annual return to the Commission on their activities in this area. This annual return will enable the Commission to monitor the volume of business placed with unauthorised foreign insurers through insurance intermediaries. There will also be scope to make regulations to impose a requirement on intermediaries operating under these provisions to take out professional indemnity insurance cover in respect of their operations in this area. I now turn to the proposed amendments concerning the Life Insurance Act 1945. These amendments are considered necessary to enhance the effectiveness of the Act, particularly in relation to the functions required to be performed by actuaries, and to clarify a number of the existing supervisory arrangements. The most important of these amendments will introduce a new provision to require each life insurance company to identify an actuary as the `appointed actuary' to the company. In the last decade or so, there has been a substantial increase in the variety of life insurance products marketed by life insurance companies. Consequently, life insurance business has become much more complicated than ever before. Against this background, it has become increasingly important that actuaries of companies performing certain statutory functions under the Life Insurance Act carry out those functions in an objective and professional manner notwithstanding the fact that they may be receiving remuneration from the companies concerned. Creating the position of an `appointed actuary' will assist in achieving this objective. Provisions in the Bill will require each life insurance company to appoint an actuary as the `appointed actuary', within a certain period of time, for the purpose of performing the actuarial functions specified under a number of provisions of the Act. Small life insurance companies will not be precluded from appointing a consulting actuary as `appointed actuary'. The position of `appointed actuary' will assist the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner in identifying the particular actuary for each company who is responsible for discharging the key actuarial functions required by the Life Insurance Act. As a minimum level of experience, an appointed actuary must be a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries of Australia of not less than five years' standing. This qualification is regarded as necessary in view of the importance of the functions to be performed by the appointed actuary. The requirement for an appointed actuary is supported by the Institute of Actuaries of Australia and the Life Insurance Federation of Australia. The Bill also includes provisions to increase the threshold for publication in the Gazette of life insurance unclaimed moneys from $20 to $200. Publication annually of all unclaimed moneys of not less than $20 is a time consuming and costly procedure. This proposed change will apply to statements of unclaimed moneys as at 31 December 1988 and later, and should result in significant administrative savings as it has been estimated that in excess of 50 per cent of all unclaimed moneys are below $200. The proposal will not affect a person's right to make a claim in respect of unclaimed moneys, including amounts less than $200, where satisfactory proof of claim can be made. To increase public awareness of unclaimed moneys, the Insurance and Superannuation Commission will be making available the statements of all new unclaimed moneys from 31 December 1988. These lists will be available for public inspection in the Commission's Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra offices. The unclaimed moneys provision in the Life Insurance Act is also being amended to give to the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner power to authorise payment of unclaimed moneys. This is appropriate given the arrangements put in place last year with the passage of the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Act 1987. Among other changes proposed in this Bill is an amendment to alter the timing for the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner to submit a report to the Treasurer on the workings of the Act. This time will be changed from five months after 31 December to three months after 30 June each year. The Office of the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner has overall responsibility for preparation of annual reports in respect of not only the Life Insurance Act 1945 but also the Insurance Act 1973, the Occupational Superannuation Standards Act 1987 and the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984. This proposal will allow the Commissioner to more effectively carry out his responsibilities under those Acts by producing a single consolidated annual report within three months of 30 June each year. A further proposed amendment involves repeal of section 13, which permits the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner to arbitrate in a dispute between a life insurance company and a policy owner in relation to a policy. This provision has been used only once in more than 40 years of operation of the Act. It is considered that the Office of the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner is not equipped to provide arbitration services and it is therefore more appropriate that such disputes be settled by recourse to commercial, legal or other channels. At the same time, the Insurance and Superannuation Commission is examining in conjunction with other government agencies and industry bodies possible additional arrangements for resolving disputes between insurers and policy owners. Other proposed amendments include: first, repeal of two redundant unproclaimed sections of the Life Insurance Amendment Act 1977 relating to the conduct of non-insurance business by registered life insurers without the approval in writing of the Commissioner, and the registration of companies; secondly, improvements to certain definitions within the Life Insurance Act 1945; thirdly, enhanced requirements for the provision of information in applications for registration under the Act; fourthly, clarification of a number of existing provisions to remedy uncertainties in their administration; fifthly, a reduction in the period of notice required to be given by life insurers before issuing a special policy to replace a policy that has been lost or destroyed; and sixthly, enhancements to the review provisions in the Act to take account of introduction of the appointed actuary. In conclusion, the various measures which I have outlined will enable the Government to recover the costs of supervision of the general and life insurance industries. The measures will also provide worthwhile increased protection for the insuring public and, consistent with the Government's broad approach to regulation, will not impose undue burdens on the industries involved. I commend the Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 to honourable members and present the related explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr McGauran) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(9.07) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is the first of four Bills to amend the sales tax law to give effect to the Budget announcement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that significant changes would be made to the sales tax treatment of computer software. At present under the sales tax law, a computer program is subject to sales tax where it is embodied in a storage medium and is imported into, or sold in, Australia. Sales tax is payable whether the program was developed for a single user or for a number of users. This Bill, and the three other Bills that I will be introducing shortly, will change the law in two main respects. Firstly, recognising that a large part of the price of customised software can be for software-related services and that identifying the service component of the price can be difficult, programs developed for a single user are, in certain circumstances, to be freed from tax. Secondly, to remove the distortions and avoidance opportunities created by applying sales tax only to computer programs delivered in goods, multiple user programs that are delivered electronically are to be brought into the sales tax base. Both these changes will come into effect from tomorrow. To be exempt from sales tax, a single user program must only contain material developed by the programmer for the sole use of the single user as part of the program or, if it contains other material, that other material must not account for more than 20 per cent of the value of the program. Where the 20 per cent test is not met, sales tax will be payable on the value of the other material. The Bill will also extend sales tax to computer programs transferred within Australia otherwise than when embodied in goods, that is, when transferred by electronic means. Transfers made free of charge, however, will not be affected. A further change to be made by the Bill will ensure that sales tax applies to parts of computer programs as well as to complete programs. With the availability of the exemption for single user programs, it is inappropriate for registered taxpayers to continue to be able to quote their sales tax certificate number to buy, free of tax, those goods that are for use exclusively, or primarily and principally, as an aid to embodying tax-exempt single user programs in goods. Consequently, changes to the sales tax regulations to limit the `aids to manufacture' exemption will be submitted to the Executive Council as soon as practicable. These changes will also apply to goods to be used exclusively, or primarily and principally, as an aid to transferring tax-exempt single user programs that are not embodied in goods. The changes will apply to goods bought as `aids to manufacture' after today. Some consequential changes to the sales tax regulations in relation to the quotation of sales tax certificates will be needed. Refunds will be made available to overcome any double taxation that may occur before the regulations can be amended. Finally, the Bill contains two amendments to complement the extension of sales tax, by the Sales Tax Assessment Bill (No. 12) 1988, to computer programs transferred electronically into Australia from outside Australia. The first of these will ensure that any exemption from sales tax available for computer programs that are transferred electronically within Australia are also available for programs transferred electronically from outside Australia. The second will require the recipients of programs transferred from outside Australia to lodge sales tax returns. I present the explanatory memorandum, which deals with all four Bills in this package, and I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Downer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(9.11) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. As with Sales Tax Bill (No. 12) 1988, this Bill also is necessitated by the constitutional requirement that a law imposing taxation deal with one subject of taxation only. The sales tax that will be payable under the Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 1) 1930 on computer programs transferred electronically within Australia will be formally imposed by this Bill. The rates of sales tax declared by the Bill are the same as those for computer programs embodied in goods-generally, 20 per cent. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Downer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(9.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. It is a requirement of the Constitution that a law imposing taxation deal only with one subject of taxation. In accordance with that requirement, this Bill will formally impose sales tax payable under the proposed Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 12) 1988 on computer programs that are transferred electronically from outside Australia to a person in Australia who is not registered for sales tax purposes. The rates of sales tax are to be the same as those that currently apply to computer programs embodied in goods-generally, 20 per cent. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Downer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(9.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill complements one of the main measures in the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1988, about which I have just spoken. By that Bill, computer programs transferred within Australia otherwise than when embodied in goods are to become subject to sales tax. This Bill will ensure that sales tax is also payable on computer programs transferred, otherwise than when embodied in goods, from outside Australia to a person in Australia who is not registered for sales tax purposes. The buyer of such a program must lodge a sales tax return and pay the tax within 21 days after the end of the month in which the program was transferred. The new assessment Act proposed by this Bill will contain machinery provisions for the collection and recovery of tax similar to those in existing Sales Tax Assessment Acts. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Downer) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Holding)-by leave-agreed to: That standing order 48a as amended by sessional order (adjournment of House) and standing order 103 (eleven o'clock rule) be suspended for this sitting. Debate resumed from 19 October, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with orders of the day Nos 4 to 6. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for the Arts and Territories) —by leave-Fairly late this afternoon I received a copy of the amendments proposed for and on behalf of the Opposition. I had previously given an undertaking, both publicly and to the Opposition, that on a variety of issues which go to this legislation the Government was prepared to negotiate both the principle and some of the details proposed. I make this statement in this sense so that the House is clear that the desire of the Government is to proceed with the legislation tonight and get it into another place as soon as is practicable. In order to pursue that course I make it clear that if a division should be called and a vote recorded against a proposition that will be without prejudice to the right of the Government to continue to discuss the position and the arguments being put forward by the Opposition and to negotiate. If we can reach an accommodation we will do that. Given our commitment to further negotia- tion I would see any positions that honourable members opposite may want to take in the course of this debate as also without prejudice to positions that they might subsequently want to adopt. Thus we will not be seeking to score political points in the process we now have to follow to get this legislation into another House. Again, I reaffirm the fact, as I have publicly-and a number of issues here are very important to self-government-that we stand ready to negotiate in the spirit of real principle with the Opposition and the other parties in order to get the best possible form of legislation and, hopefully, legislation which will carry the support of all parties. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(9.17) —To make things clear on the Hansard record, I also wish to make a short statement on what the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Holding) has just said. I appreciate what he has said. Let me make it clear, if it were not clear already, that we accept and understand what the Minister has put. From the Opposition's point of view, our position is that if we do not call for divisions on some particular matters, particularly amendments, it will be understood by everyone as being without prejudice either to any subsequent negotiations we might enter into or with respect to any position that we might subsequently take. I can well understand the Minister's concern with respect to amendments because we also, at this late hour, have received a Government amendment with respect to the proposed electoral system in the Australian Capital Territory. I am sure that the Minister and the Government understand that we need time to consider that. Even a lifetime study of electoral Bills often leads one astray. In this particular case we of course would need time. However, that is no reason why the debate should be postponed, and it is no reason why, with good grace in all quarters, considerable progress should not be made tonight. The process is assisted by the Minister's offer, and our acceptance of it, that our position on divisions tonight will not prejudice subsequent positions that might be taken. Turning to the substance of what is before us tonight, this is a cognate debate on the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Bill, the Australian Capital Territory (Electoral) Bill, the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Bill and the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government Consequential Provisions) Bill. As the names of those pieces of legislation would imply, this is a series of Bills dealing with self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. The Bills in their various manifestations provide the constitutional and legal basis for that transition to self-government, and provide considerable detail for the mechanics of the way in which it is to be done and the constitutional and legal basis of the self-governing Australian Capital Territory. I think it is common ground that there has been, particularly over recent years, a great deal of preparatory work done for self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. Preliminary steps have been taken under which administrative functions in the Territory have been consolidated into one Australian Capital Territory Administration and under one Federal Minister. Indeed, the Territory's budget has been drawn as if the Territory were a separate entity. Furthermore, the Commonwealth Grants Commission has recently put down reports looking at the appropriate level of Commonwealth support, and the terms of self-government have been subject to considerable public input and debate. Indeed, I cannot remember a period since I came to this Parliament, where I have been on and off since 1969, when I have turned on the radio or television or read the newspapers here, when I have not seen on those occasions some new contribution and some new view being expressed on self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. So over the years the subject has been well and truly thrashed out. I suppose it is also common ground that in politically active circles the general view seems to have emerged that the time for self-government is nigh. We on the Opposition side agree with that general position. It is obviously time for self-government for the Territory and it is obviously time that legislation was put in place to achieve that result. As I have said, the various pieces of legislation provide a framework to achieve that, and it is not, therefore, very surprising to find that we have a general constitutional Bill, an electoral Bill, a planning and land management Bill and the inevitable consequential provisions Bill. With respect to the self-government Bill, which I suppose I might describe as the major Bill, may I say at the outset that we support that Bill but we have amendments that we will move to it at the appropriate time to improve the Bill. What the Bill does, as honourable members know, is to establish the Australian Capital Territory as a body politic under the Crown. It also establishes a Legislative Assembly of 17 members with an Executive of four Ministers, including a Chief Minister. The Chief Minister is elected by the Assembly and there is provision for him to appoint one of his Ministers as Deputy Chief Minister. The Assembly will elect a Presiding Officer who will preside at meetings of the Assembly and who will have a deliberative vote. The Assembly is required to meet within seven days after the result of a general election and then at least once every two months thereafter. The Assembly may be dissolved by the Governor-General in certain particular circumstances, which are set out in the Bill. One week's notice must be given for an effective motion of no confidence in the Chief Minister. There is then a whole series of other provisions in the Bill which it is really not necessary for me to go into in detail on this occasion, especially as I know that there are other members, including some who have a direct and personal relationship with the ACT, who wish to speak on the Bill. In general terms the Bill sets out a series of provisions with respect to standing rules and orders in the Assembly and it deals with the passage of laws and the publication of those laws. It deals with the powers of the Governor-General, which are presently in the Bill, to disallow a law which is passed. It goes on to set out the whole arrangement which one would expect to find if one were about to set up a new body politic under the Crown, which is what the main purpose of the Bill is. There are, of course, as was inevitably the case, a number of controversial issues which have arisen as a result of particular provisions in the Bill, and it is to some of those matters that I would now address a few remarks. In this context we have some amendments that we will be moving, which we believe will improve the situation set out in the Bill. The first of them is put forward because there are a number of matters that are excluded from the Assembly's power to make laws. As honourable members know, there is a general provision in the Bill for the Assembly to pass laws to govern the Territory, which one would expect to find. But then one finds that there are exclusions from those areas of law which may be covered. The Assembly does not have power to pass laws with respect to the establishment of courts or the provision of police or the admission of legal practitioners and for matters relating to corporate law. It has been argued by some that self-government is not in fact self-government if power is not given over law enforcement and the judiciary, because it is common ground that they are important areas which the government of any Territory, State or body politic should have responsibility for. I do not know why there is an exclusion with respect to courts. For all I know, it might be because there are some people in mind to be appointed to them, but there does not seem on the surface to be any reason why courts should be excluded, and nor is there any reason that I am aware of as to why supervision over legal practitioners should be excluded. We therefore have a series of amendments which will give to the Assembly an additional power to that which the Government proposes the Assembly should have, and in particular the power to deal with courts and legal practitioners. Of course, as we go on I will be referring, as I have already said, to the particular amendments. But let me say at this stage that amendments in my name, on the Opposition's behalf, have been circulated. If honourable members look at them they will see that amendments Nos (1), (2), (3), (7) and (8) of the series of amendments relating to this Bill touch on this subject. For instance, amendment (3) will add to the Bill a proposition to the effect that the establishment of courts and the admission of persons to practise as legal practitioners will be one of the areas of authority covered by the new Assembly of the Territory. As one looks at the amendments one sees that in those cases where it is sought to exclude the establishment of courts and matters concerning the legal profession, what the Opposition is attempting to do by way of its amendments is to give coverage of those matters to the local authorities. I will just repeat the point, and then move on, that it is really an essential part of the government of a State or Territory, or city state or body politic-use whatever expression one wishes-that because the courts enforce the laws of the Territory, they should be subject to the general government of the Territory and therefore to the law making body of the particular Territory, whatever it may be. That is one matter. I now raise another matter. In clause 34 of the self-government Bill one finds a statement that the Bill `does not limit the operation of section 12 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910'. The practical effect of that is that the power of the Governor-General to make ordinances remains; it is embodied in the Bill. In other words, the Governor-General will have power to make ordinances for the Territory, and this seems to be a very curious provision to retain in a piece of legislation the purpose of which is to give self-government. We propose to move an amendment, No. 5 on the list of amendments which has been circulated, the heading of which sums up the situation very clearly. The heading is `Governor-General not to have power to make ordinances'. This amendment, which I foreshadow now, proposes that from the commencement of the section the Governor-General will not have power to make an ordinance under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. It seems to us reasonable to propose an amendment to that effect because there is, on the surface, no reason why Commonwealth ordinances-for that is what they would be-should override the laws of the Territory. Our next amendment relates to this curious post of Head of Administration. The position of Head of Administration in the new Australian Capital Territory government is described in clause 48 of the Bill and then in clause 49 his powers are set out. The Head of Administration seems to be something of a hybrid figure, because he will have responsibility for: advising the Executive on all matters relating to the powers of the Executive; arrangements with respect to the staff or the Public Service; giving effect to the Act and all other laws in force in the Territory in relation to powers of the Executive; implementing the Executive's policies and decisions; and exercising the powers conferred on the Head of Administration by some other enactment. It is an odd situation to have such a position, and some people have said that this position will undermine the normal relationship which would exist between the head of a department and a Minister. Our position on this is that we propose to move an amendment, amendment No. 6, which I foreshadow at this stage. Looking at the terms of the amendment, as the Committee will do at a later stage, honourable members will see that its intention is to set out the proposition that the Head of Administration shall, under the Chief Minister, be responsible for members of the staff and their work, because he seems to be some sort of head of Public Service, and he shall advise the Chief Minister in all matters relating to the administration of that work. He is to exercise no powers other than those which are conferred on him by or under another enactment. We think that would be an improvement on the position of the Head of Administration. The next amendment we propose should be of particular interest to members of this Parliament. It will have the effect of avoiding the application of enactments to the Parliament. It will operate in this way: if either House of this Parliament passes a resolution declaring that a particular enactment which is made after the commencement date is not to apply to this particular House-or the House that passes the resolution-to members of the House or to the parliamentary precincts, the resolution which the House of this Parliament passes will have effect according to its tenor and the enactment will not apply accordingly. That is our proposal with respect to that enactment. I must end this part of my remarks on the self-government Bill by saying, as I did at the outset, that we support self-government and we support the legislative steps which must be taken to achieve self-government. Our concern is not with opposing the Bill but rather with improving it. We support the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Bill, and we do not propose to move any amendments to it. As the name implies, it is designed to repeal the National Capital Development Commission Act. It also makes provision for planning and land management in the Territory after self-government has been achieved. Clearly there must be a Bill which relates to this subject, and this is it. It will set up a National Capital Planning Authority which will have the reponsibility of preparing a national capital plan. The Bill also provides that the Assembly is to establish a Territory planning authority, the function of which is to prepare and administer a plan to provide the people of the Territory with `an attractive, safe and efficient environment in which to live and work and have their recreation'. That plan is not to be inconsistent with the national capital plan. The Bill also proposes a series of mechanical provisions to implement that very laudable objective. I turn now to the Australian Capital Territory (Electoral) Bill, in respect of which the Opposition has some concerns to express. I said earlier in the statement which I was given leave to make that the Government had now proposed at this late stage some very substantial amendments to the electoral process which is to be provided for in the new self-governing Territory. The short point about it is this: the system set out in the Bill is not one that we can support because, on an analysis of the mechanics of the system as set out in the Bill, it does not provide for a proper and effective system of preferential voting or for the distribution of the proper effect of preferences cast by voters voting at the elections in the Territory. It is, as I understand it, what is described as a modified d'Hondt system. I have been endeavouring in the short time I have had today to unravel some of the mysteries of this particular system of elections. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you are anxious to have an explanation of it-and I can see you are-I regret to inform you that you will have to seek other counsel. The system is set out in tabular form in schedule 2 of the Bill. Let me outline the sort of situation that could arise. Let us assume that representatives from three parties and two independents are standing for election. Let us say that the first party got 12,000 votes. It would be allocated the first seat on the basis of 12,000 being divided by one. The second seat would not necessarily go to the first party because if the second party got 8,000 votes-and this is the example set out in the schedule of the Bill-it would acquire the second seat to be filled because those 8,000 votes are greater in number than the number of votes left over after the allocation of the seat to the first party. Candidates, whether from a party or independents, are progressively elected in this way. Mr Deputy Speaker, as I can see, with respect, that your mind is wandering, it might be better if I moved on. Mr Scholes —Is that all you know about it? Mr N.A. Brown —That is virtually the sum total of my knowledge. I am pleased to say that Senator Hill, the shadow Minister for the Australian Capital Territory, is a bottomless pit of knowledge on this subject and he will explain our position in very great detail. But we understand two things: The first is that the system which is set out in the Bill is not satisfactory because proper effect is not given to preferential votes; the second thing we understand is that we now have a second version of the Government amendments. Naturally we require time both to study these amendments and to enable Opposition members to be consulted and to give their views. I should also say that we do not support in its entirety the proposal in the Bill for a four-year fixed term for the Assembly. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will have seen from the amendments that we have circulated that we support the fixed term notion but we put forward the view that it should be for three years. In all the circumstances three years seems to be an adequate period. Amendments (1), (2) and (4) which have been circulated deal with both the substance of the proposal and consequential matters. Nor do we see that there is a case for public funding of the first election which is proposed in the Australian Capital Territory. Our amendments (3) and (5) on the circulated sheet put that sentiment into legislative form. So we do not support that proposal. Mr Deputy Speaker, at the beginning of the debate the Minister made a statement when one of your colleagues was in the chair that fortunately it will not be necessary to divide on some of the contentious areas that still remain for the reason that it is clear from the position taken by both the Government and the Opposition that further negotiations will take place before the legislation is dealt with in the Senate. I refer here particularly to the proposals to amend yet again the electoral and voting system in the Australian Capital Territory. That clearly is the major area to which we have to give further study. For that reason we propose to accept the Minister's generous invitation to engage in negotiations with the Government. I conclude where I began by saying that none of that need impede the progress of the legislation. Of course, the group of Bills before the House is necessary to advance the cause of self-government in the ACT-a cause which we support. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(9.45) —This is an historic debate-a debate for which lots of people in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) have longed for a long time; a debate which many people have worked very hard for; and the culmination of a great deal of effort by many members of this House and by many public servants. It follows decades of what could be called struggle. But certainly it has taken at least intellectual and political effort. My predecessor, Ken Fry, who was the member for Fraser from 1974 to 1984 devoted the whole of his maiden speech in 1974 to the importance of self-government to the ACT. I too devoted a large part of my maiden speech to the importance of self-government. So we are amongst those who are delighted that the moment seems to have arrived. I am very glad that the Opposition is supporting the Australian Capital Territory self-government legislation. It looks as though we have a very good chance at long last of both Houses of Parliament accepting this important stage in the development of the Territory. Self-government is essential for the ACT. Anyone who is a democrat, who believes in democracy, who considers that freedom is important, must recognise that it is an anomaly that the ACT, the capital of a democracy, does not have democracy itself. The ACT is the only part of any Western country in which there are no democratically elected representatives with direct responsibility for at least some of the region's services. Responsible government, which we are now about to get, offers us freedom to choose. We will have the opportunity to set our own priorities and to manage our own affairs. We are currently governed by people who are not directly accountable to us. Most decisions are taken by a Minister, who is elected by people in another part of Australia, or by officials who are not elected at all. Policy for the ACT is set by fiat rather than by democratic process. Of course, the Minister is a benevolent man and is attentive to the wishes of the ACT, the officials are sensitive to community opinion and all of them do an excellent job. But the system is inadequate because it is not one that leads to decisions by people who are directly accountable to the residents of the Territory. ACT politicians elected to both the House of representatives and the Senate have no direct formal power to represent constituents effectively. We use our influence to advocate policies on behalf of voters but the decisions are made by the Minister and by officials. The Minister, as I have said, is attentive and concerned; the officials are generally sensitive. But they are forced to make political decisions for which they are not accountable. The current structure of government in the Territory is, therefore, unrepresentative and paternalistic. The standard of services and of the built environment in the ACT is generally high. The Commonwealth has taken seriously the building and servicing of an excellent national capital, even to an extent which causes envy in other parts of the country. L.K. Donoghue, whose letter was published in this mornings Canberra Times, is right in part when she said that services in the ACT are generally high and extensive. The issue, though, is whether they would remain so without self-government. There have been signs of growing scepticism about Commonwealth expenditure in Canberra during the last decade. Governments have allowed national priorities rather than local needs to determine outlays in the Territory. A particularly clear example is the four-year gap in land development between 1978 and 1982 which caused the shortage of land for housing and higher land and house prices. The decisions to sell the Belconnen Mall and to reduce standards of staffing in public schools are other examples. To prevent such arbitrary decisions in the future, the ACT needs a government which can negotiate on behalf of the community in the same way as State governments and which can allocate funds to the areas which need them most. One of the principal benefits of self-government will be the opportunity to ensure that the priorities of Territory residents are reflected in the Budget, particularly in areas that people regard as of great importance, such as education. People in the Australian Capital Territory are generally well aware of their rights, but those rights are linked with responsibilities. More people and community groups in Canberra are coming to recognise that we have to accept responsibility for our own government in the same way as every other part of Australia. That is part of growing up. Representatives of the Canberra community would be better informed and more sensitive to local opinion and, therefore, better able to choose between competing claims than Federal Cabinet. The Minister described the content of the four Bills and the speaker on behalf of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), has done so as well, but I would like briefly to summarise a few of the very important elements of the Bills, because they have been well tailored to the needs of the Territory. The principal Bill, the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Bill, sets up a body politic under the Crown. The body politic will consist of a Legislative Assembly, exercising legislative power, and an Australian Capital Territory Executive, exercising executive power. The Assembly will have 17 members, one less than the number in the previous House of Assembly. It has, therefore, been kept small. That reflects community preference for a small legislature. The Assembly will be elected for a four-year fixed term. That is a thoroughly desirable approach, because four years gives a government a chance to introduce and apply its policies and get them fully operational before it has to face another election. The Executive will consist of a Chief Minister and three other Ministers. In other words, it will be a very small Cabinet but one which ought to be adequate for the function that it has to fulfil. There are other aspects to that Bill, but the important parts are the ones that I have already mentioned. The powers of that legislature and Executive cover all the powers of local and State governments in Australia, apart from a very few to do with the judiciary and the courts. The second Bill is the Australian Capital Territory (Electoral) Bill, which sets up the electoral system. This has been the subject of major debate over the last few years. This system tries to accommodate the concerns of the other parties. Personally, I would prefer to have single-member electorates, because I think they are best attuned to the needs of individual voters. They provide voters with an identifiable member to whom they can go and they make that member directly accountable to the people who elect him or her. Nevertheless, the other parties were keen to have proportional representation, and the system of voting that has been selected, the d'Hondt system, is ideally representative of the principle of proportional representation. It was devised by a Belgian. It is widely used throughout stable Western democracies, for example, West Germany and the Netherlands, and it reflects as closely as is mathematically possible the proportion of votes received to the number of people who are elected. The system provides for stable government and gives certainty in results, once votes are counted. It is also immune from gerrymander in that members are elected from the ACT as a single electorate. Electors will have the opportunity of voting for a party or an independent candidate or, if they choose, of indicating which candidate within a party they would prefer their choice to be given to. The third Bill, The Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Bill, sets up a system of both national and territorial planning. The National Capital Planning Authority and a Territory planning authority will continue the excellent work of the National Capital Development Commission. The responsibility will be divided into an overview function for the National Capital Planning Authority and detailed planning work to be done by the Territory planning authority. Finally, the ACT (Self-Government) Consequential Provisions Bill involves a whole series of important amendments to other Acts of this Parliament consequential on the changes which are being made in the three major Bills. Two objections are commonly made to self-government. One is the cost and the other is a claim that it will lead to an excess number of politicians. I would like to discuss those very briefly. The issue of cost involves a misjudgment. The direct cost of self-government will be tiny. The Legislative Assembly, the pay of members and the administrative arrangements surrounding it will cost only just over $2m a year. That is only 0.2 per cent of the ACT budget. It is a trifle. Every $2m matters, but that is a very small amount to pay for a major improvement in the structure of government. The Territory will continue to receive most of its revenue from the Commonwealth, as do the States. Some people seem to imagine that, because the Territory is to become self-governing, somehow we will have to raise all our revenue. That is nonsense. In exactly the same way as the States receive the major part of their revenue from the Commonwealth, the Territory will continue to do so as well. That funding will be guaranteed for the next couple of years and thereafter the Territory will be handled in exactly the same way as the States. It will attend the Premiers Conference and the Loan Council, it will receive increases in the way the States do, and it will have access to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, which will ensure that it gets a fair share of the total funding for the States and Territories which takes account of its special status as the national capital. The principle of recognising the additional costs and the fact that some revenue will be lost because the Commonwealth will not be paying some of the taxes that other employers will pay has already been accepted by the Grants Commission. That is embodied in the Grants Commission decision so far and it has been guaranteed that that will continue after self-government. The people of the ACT have no reason at all to fear that they will be worse off than would otherwise have been the case. It is very likely that they will be better off. It is very unlikely that members of the Legislative Assembly, which will be accountable to the people of the ACT and the members of which will have to come back at the next election if they want to be re-elected, will raise taxes more than would a Commonwealth government which is not directly accountable in the same way. Local ACT members will be most reluctant to raise taxes because they know that would be unpopular. Because we are about to get democracy, we will get tax increases only when they can be fully justified and explained to the electorate in ways that the majority are likely to support. There is far less danger, it seems to me, of unexpected or unwarranted taxation under self-government than there is in the present circumstances. The second complaint that is sometimes made by people in the ACT is that self-government will lead to an excessive number of politicians. At present there are far fewer politicians in the Territory than in any other part of Australia. There are four Federal politicians-two in this House and two in the Senate-representing 270,000 people. I know from the volume of work that that is far too few. It is simply not possible for those four people to adequately represent all the interests and concerns of the more than one-quarter of a million residents in the Territory. But after self-government, with an additional 17, there will still be fewer politicians in the ACT than in any other part of Australia. Even disregarding local government, if one takes account of State and Federal government representation from the States and Territories only, the 17 plus four-that is, 21-representatives of the Territory will still have more people to represent than do the representatives from South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania or the Northern Territory. However, if one includes the number of local government councillors-there will be none in the ACT-who represent every other part of Australia, there will still be fewer politicians in Canberra after self-government-far fewer than in any other part of Australia. The Bills involve the most substantial transfer of power from the Commonwealth to a new government since Australia granted independence to Papua New Guinea. I worked in Papua New Guinea for the 12 years leading up to independence and was involved in some of the negotiation and preparation for that move to nationhood. We struggled there for independence in the 1960s and delighted in the preparations once the momentum of change had been established. In the ACT, there has never been a passionate movement demanding self-government as there was in Papua New Guinea. Yet those of us who have been close to government here or have been active in community organisations know the importance of self-government to good government of this Territory. We believe in democracy, in the right of people to govern themselves rather than to have decisions imposed upon them by a distant government, no matter how benevolent. Our priorities will be fully reflected in Budgets and programs only by representatives directly accountable to us. There can only be rigorous and comprehensive scrutiny of the effectiveness and integrity of the ACT Administration by a parliament with sufficient time and resources. Adequate scrutiny is simply not possible by the four Federal members, as at present. There are too many demands on our time. We have to cover the national policies which affect the ACT and, no matter how assiduously we work, we cannot hope to keep an eye on every aspect of territorial administration as well. Self-government will improve the quality of government here. The Federal members will deal with national and no doubt some major territorial issues; the Legislative Assembly members will be responsible for territorial and local issues. Before concluding I wish to express warm appreciation to everyone who has contributed to the preparation for self-government. Many parliamentarians and officials have worked long and hard to reach this point. In particular, the leadership of recent Ministers for Territories-the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), who is here; the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), who is also here; the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) and the present Minister-has been vital. Each gave preparation for self-government a high priority and each has been personally involved in the preparations and negotiations. Many public servants have made major contributions. It is invidious and unconventional to name anyone, but I doubt whether anyone would resent Gary Whitley's central role throughout the last four years also being mentioned. Each of the departmental heads and other senior officers have made vital contributions-most recently and earlier, Tony Blunn and Bill Harris. I thank both of them and all of their officers who have been involved in this very demanding task. The introduction of self-government will create a structure which will offer the ACT the opportunity for good quality, democratic government. Whether that occurs will depend on all adults in the ACT, for we will all be voters. I look forward with hope to working closely with the new members of the Legislative Assembly to ensure that the people of the ACT are represented fully effectively. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.05) —I rise to speak in this cognate debate on self-government for the Australian Capital Territory for a number of reasons. Firstly, for a time I carried some responsibility on behalf of the Opposition for the Australian Capital Territory. I must say that I enjoyed that opportunity. I see my old sparring partner and a former Minister for the Territory-the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren)-nodding agreement. I trust that he enjoyed it as well. I did enjoy that opportunity. However, I have another interest in the sense that I was born in the Australian Capital Territory and, unlike some of those who have arrived later and taken an interest, I have had a continuing interest over time, although I have moved to take a seat in the Parliament representing people from another community. It is interesting to look at the history regarding self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. I notice that the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Holding) and the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) did not canvass that very much in their speeches. My colleague the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) did not have a great deal of time to deal with it because of the substantial questions in the legislation before us that needed to be addressed. It is important to recognise that Canberra is Australia's capital. It is the symbol of Australian Federation, the home of the national Parliament, our High Court and the Executive headed by our Governor-General, and it has in it the headquarters of most government departments and statutory authorities. Mr Downer —The X-rated video capital of Australia. Mr RUDDOCK —It has a university of world renown. My colleague says that it has some notorious aspects to it. I hope that those matters are being addressed seriously by the Government, although there seems to have been some delay in that respect. From a former scattered township, it has become, in 20 years or so, a cosmopolitan, sophisticated city of more than 270,000 people. The capital has attracted many national organisations seeking influence. It is the home of the diplomatic corps and many national institutions. All of that has happened in recent years. It now has a diversified private sector, with about 50 per cent of people in employment working in the private sector. Canberra is a capital city which shares the functions of many capital cities around the world. However, remarkably, not too many capitals are very much alike in their system of government. Washington and Canberra are the only two cities of which I am aware that have unique national capital areas: Canberra has the Australian Capital Territory. For a long time both Washington and Canberra shared this in common: they had no system of local government. However, since 1973 Washington has had a mayor and the Council of the District of Columbia Government. Canberra's history has been dotted with many proposals and promises over time of a form of self-government, but it is only now that we are looking at detailed proposals for self-government. I will turn to those shortly. I want to make it clear in offering these comments that I do not regard it as all that remarkable that Canberra is achieving self-government. Lesser populated territories such as the Northern Territory and Norfolk Island have had arrangements for self-government pressed upon them; yet in Canberra, which is probably one of the best educated, most middle class and more articulate areas of Australia, a system of self-government has not developed and the question remained intractable over a long period. It is also pertinent to note that, whilst the Government is taking a great deal of pride in having developed these proposals, it brings them forward at the same time as the national Parliament is debating whether Canberra should have a casino. It is not a question that has been left for the local community to determine. It is still a matter which the national Parliament is being asked to decide upon in advance of this legislation. It is remarkable over such a long period that, in one way or another, national parliaments, where they have deemed it appropriate, have wanted to maintain a continuing and long standing interest in the affairs of the national capital. I do not think that will change all that much. We will still have elected representatives in the national parliament after self-government is in place. The national Parliament has provided a forum in the past for various issues involving the Australian Capital Territory. Committees of the Parliament-the Public Accounts Committee, the Public Works Committee and the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances-have all played a role. As was mentioned by the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) who spoke before me, there have been two members of the House of Representatives, each with full participatory rights in this chamber, and two senators, each with full participatory rights. This situation is unlike that of the District of Columbia where, interestingly enough, its members of parliament have been able to vote in the Congress of the United States only on those matters which relate particularly to the District of Columbia. Canberra has had a very considerable voice in the national Parliament. I do not think we should neglect that in the way in which we observe this matter. The first attempt at self-government proposals for the Australian Capital Territory was made in 1982, when one of three members of the Federal Capital Development Commission was elected on what was then a property franchise. It was a body deprived of administrative and executive powers. It lasted only two years. That was the first attempt at some form of participatory arrangements for the Australian Capital Territory. In May 1930 an advisory council of four appointed officials and three elected members was established. It was to be an advisory body to Ministers. Like most of its successors, it complained frequently that few of its recommendations were found acceptable. A majority of its members were elected-in 1952 five as against four and later eight as against four. By 1974 it was abolished. As early as 1934 the Scullin Government expressed the view that within a few years it should be able to give the people full civic control of the city. In 1949 the Chifley Government asked the Hobart Town Clerk to inquire into a possible form of self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. In 1955 a Senate Select Committee on the Development of Canberra recommended a legislative council with a State-type function but no administrative powers, and with a multiplicity of local government arrangements appended to it. In 1957 the Institute of Public Administration study group recommended a national capital council, a form of statutory authority, with the later option of a Canberra City Council. In the meantime we still had these impotent advisory councils pressing for various local government or self-government options and using public inquiries and virtual strikes-in 1969 there was a mass resignation-as devices to press their case. In 1967 one of my former colleagues, Mr Anthony, as Minister for the Interior, proposed Commonwealth control of central Canberra with a hand-over at a later date of State-type functions and with new municipal governments in the Woden and Belconnen cities. Mr Hunt, who is still in this Parliament as the honourable member for Gwydir and who was Mr Anthony's successor as Minister for the Interior, suggested in 1971 that 1980 would be a date for self-government. Needless to say, the Advisory Council pressed for a more definite statement of policy at that time and a public inquiry into self-government. With Labor in office in 1972 Labor Ministers asserted the freedom of the Australian Government to protect its interests in the seat of government. That was a statement by a former member for Canberra, Mr Enderby. The Advisory Council's term was extended to 30 September 1974 and the question of self-government was referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. In May 1974 the election debate over self-government was joined and Prime Minister Whitlam asserted that self-government would arrive as soon as practicable after the presentation of the Committee's report. The Liberal Party had some views on those questions. It released a policy in 1974 with an assertion that the Liberal Party aimed to have a legislative assembly that should attain the responsibilities and powers associated with the administration of the Australian Capital Territory, apart from the national capital aspects which should properly remain the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government. That policy was predicated on the change instituted by Gordon Bryant, as the then Minister, to create an Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly of 18 members elected from two of the Canberra Federal electorates-nine from each of Canberra and Fraser. In 1975 the Committee tabled its report. It was a multi-party report. It recommended that self-government be granted to the Australian Capital Territory in as wide terms as was consistent with the national interest. It recommended a unicameral legislative assembly operating on parliamentary lines and with powers delegated in stages. The report was subject to many criticisms of detail and progress was pretty slow in relation to that. The events of 1975 overtook that committee report and the deliberations that were occurring. The new Government headed by Malcolm Fraser came to power in 1975 with a commitment to begin the transfer of particular legislative and executive powers to the assembly by July 1976. It established a task force which by March 1976 had reported on a program of transfer of functions and necessary legislative, administrative and financial arrangements for such a transfer. The task force proposed a staged devolution of legislative and executive powers. By February 1976 Tony Staley was in office. The July deadline could not be met. In September 1977 he released detailed proposals for a one step delegation. Interestingly enough, the Staley proposals, which were most complex, were somewhat open-ended in relation to the question of the financial implications of these new arrangements for Canberra. I think it is important to note-because it is a matter I will address in this debate-that he made some comments which were then to be the major stumbling block in terms of the pace at which we moved to self-government. I quote from the statement he released under the heading `Financial arrangements': A separate treasury would be established for the assembly- that is, the Capital Territory assembly- and the moneys of the Assembly would not be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth. The enabling legislation would include a provision to the effect that all moneys raised by the Assembly would be placed in an appropriate assembly fund, with no moneys to be expended from the fund except through an appropriation by the Assembly. The budget of the Assembly would be prepared to cover relevant items of revenue and expenditure. Detailed receipts which he gave for 1975-76 illustrated the financial situation of the Australian Capital Territory. He went on to say: The figures demonstrate the substantial gap between the proceeds of municipal and territorial rates and taxes and the total receipts required to meet the costs and functions at the existing standards of service. To some large extent the gap is currently bridged by Commonwealth funds which can be seen as taking the place of funds received by the States in the form of capital and revenue grants and approved borrowing programs. In financial negotiations with the Commonwealth the Assembly would be expected to reduce this gap progressively. The result of these negotiations would largely determine the Assembly's annual budget and the standards of service to be provided. I found that statement to be somewhat prophetic because, when we look at the Minister's own statement now in terms of the financial arrangements, we see that these same questions are very much before us. In 1978 when Mr Staley's successor, Bob Ellicott, announced that there would be a referendum on the question of self-government these financial arrangements were very much in the minds of the people. Interestingly enough, when the people of the Australian Capital Territory had an opportunity to vote on whether they wanted self-government we saw that only 30.01 per cent of people voted in favour of the proposition that self-government be granted to the Australian Capital Territory by delegating functions to a locally elected body in stages; only 5.63 per cent voted for the proposition that a locally elected legislative body be established in the Territory with local government type legislative and executive functions; and 62.67 per cent voted for the existing arrangements for governing the Territory to continue for the time being. After that we saw that the Legislative Assembly was reconstituted on an advisory basis. The Commonwealth Grants Commission was asked to undertake certain inquiries and the issue of self-government for the Australian Capital Territory thereafter was joined. Of course, the Labor Party came into office with a commitment to giving self-government to the Australian Capital Territory. My own Party took the view, the second last time it went to the people, that the people of the Australian Capital Territory should be given another opportunity to decide by way of referendum whether they were in favour of a form of self-government. I think it is pertinent to note that this Government has been in office for more than five years. They have had a a great deal of time in which to look at proposals and to develop them. We are looking at them now. I do not think one could necessarily say that the proposal is timely if one had an urgent desire to put self-government in place. I think the process has been protracted. In my judgment the thoughtful development of self-government for Canberra has probably been the better way to proceed. However, I do not think that one should see it as being as momentous as some honourable members would have us believe from their comments. I said that I would address two matters in relation to the present proposals before us. The first matter is in relation to the ACT's financial autonomy. The Commonwealth has promised a number of things, as can be seen from the Minister's second reading speech. Firstly, the Minister promised that there will be direct access by the Australian Capital Territory to the Commonwealth Grants Commission at the ACT's request. He said that the Commonwealth in its funding to the ACT will recognise the effects of Canberra's role as the national capital on such things as the standards and costs of works and services. He did not mention the higher costs resulting from those standards of works and services. I notice a wry smile on the faces of some of those departmental advisers in the chamber who consider these matters. The Minister also said that the Commonwealth will retain responsibility for financing its functions within the Territory. I think that that, of course, is very appropriate. Of course, later the Minister said that after an appropriate guarantee period-we know that is of only several years: . . . funding will be the subject of negotiation with the Executive . . . It is certainly no blank cheque. The Minister went on to say in his second reading speech: These arrangements will complete the ongoing process of bringing ACT finances into line with the rest of Australia . . . It seems to me that the Minister is saying: `Sure we are going to fund you on the same basis as the States are funded by the Commonwealth, but no better and no worse'. That is how I understand the statement. The implications of that must be that the residents of the Australian Capital Territory over time will pay more. It is interesting to note that in the Minister's speech he made the observation: In terms of the financial impact on the Commonwealth, the Bill will not involve additional Commonwealth expenditures . . . I am certain that is not the case. More importantly, he said: Savings will accrue to the Commonwealth through separation of responsibilities of ACT administration from the Commonwealth system. In other words, charges for residents of the Australian Capital Territory will rise. The costs will be borne by those people who live here and who are being given this opportunity to have a say in the government of the Australian Capital Territory. I do not object to that. I do not think the people of Australia would object to it. However, I think it is important that the people of the Australian Capital Territory understand it; in other words, they should not have it thrust upon them without a clear understanding of what the implications are. The other matter I want to address is in relation to the voting system. The Minister was at pains to emphasise that there was an effort on his part to compromise over time. He asked firstly for compromise on two bases-bases which I must say were absolutely outrageous; and totally unacceptable. The fact that the Government has moved from them I think is evidence of that alone. The system of direct proportional representation has been proposed for the ACT. This is a system which will not enable people to make choices as between candidates across political boundaries. They can make effective choices only between candidates within the political party for which they are principally voting. While there have been certain marginal modifications made to that system-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr UREN(Reid)(10.25) —I support self-government for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). I am pleased that it is to become a reality. As Minister for Territories and Local Government in 1983-84, I introduced a number of measures moving in this direction. I hold a firm conviction that people should have a greater say over their lives and should not be governed by a patriarch, or a group of patriarchs as has been the case up until now in the ACT. I would like to pay tribute to the fine work carried out by Gordon Craig, the Chairperson of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation, who was seconded to the ACT Administration in the early days of the Hawke Government to prepare the way for self-government in the ACT. He did quite a remarkable job of education over the very wide community in the ACT. I would like also to place on record my respect for the fine work done by the National Capital Development Commission (NCDC). It has created a magnificent national capital of which all Australians can be proud. A great deal of credit for the development of Canberra must be given to Robert Menzies for the establishment of the National Capital Development Commission in 1957 and, above all, giving it the support and resources it needed to function effectively. I was the Minister responsible for the National Capital Development Commission for five years of my political life-first as the Minister for Urban and Regional Development from 1972 to 1975 in the Whitlam Government and then again as Minister for Territories and Local Government from March 1983 until December 1984 in the Hawke Government. The NCDC was not without criticism. I always thought it needed greater democratisation and more social understanding in its planning decisions. It needed to talk to people before it planned many of its projects and programs-not consult after an elite had decided what it felt was best for the people. It was for that reason that I appointed Jill Lang as an Associate Commissioner for the National Capital Development Commission in October 1984 to help bring about a more democratic and caring Commission. I say with some sadness that it is regrettable that such a talented public servant has been lost to the Public Service here in Canberra. I would like also to express my concern that Canberra lacks a decent, efficient rapid public transport system. As in all cities in Australia the car is God. That should have been avoided here in Canberra. In the limited time I have I want to concentrate my remarks on the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Bill 1988. I have already stated that the people of Canberra should have control over their own lives. However, it must be understood that the land of the ACT belongs to the people of the Australian nation as a whole, not just to the people of Canberra. Public ownership of land and the development rights on it have enabled the Commonwealth to pursue its objectives free from the effects of land speculation and private interest. Public land ownership and integrated planning and development have enabled urban development to be coordinated on a scale far greater than anywhere else in Australia. There is no comparison anywhere else in Australia with the coordination that has been carried out here. The residents of the ACT have collectively reaped the benefit of this urban planning. Under the proposed legislation there would be a division between national and territorial land for funding certain planning development and for management purposes. This would mean an end to the benefits currently gained from coordinating all land development with planning. The control of land in the ACT, and the accompanying development rights, would become a territorial function, subject to the declaration of national land by the Minister for the Arts and Territories. In practice, this will mean an effective Commonwealth loss of control of land and development rights. Land speculation will increase as a result of no further public land development. I say this quite advisedly: next to the Gorton Government's serious decision to amend the land tenure system in 1970, this proposal is a threat to the land tenure system in Canberra. The Canberra system of ownership and control of land is the best of any operating in Australia. The sad thing about this proposal, in so far as land is concerned, is that it is a thimble and pea proposal. Because self-government has been designed so that the ACT Government will have access to the revenues and land and development rights over most of the ACT, economic necessity is likely to be the basis upon which future declarations of land are made. Land that is not designated or declared national will become territorial land. When the Commonwealth requires territorial land for its purposes in the future it will have to buy this land back from the ACT Government in accordance with compensation provisions outlined in the Land Acquisitions Act. Initially, the Commonwealth will transfer the land of the ACT to the territorial administration at nil cost, but the Commonwealth will have to pay market value in future years if it requires any further land. In effect, the Commonwealth will be paying the ACT Government for land and associated development rights that it presently owns. The value of development rights for ACT land is currently in the order of $20m to $30m annually, which is marginally less than 2 per cent of the ACT budget. However, given the expected shortfall in revenues of some $80m in the Territory budget, there would be pressures for exploiting land for revenue purposes. I am deeply concerned about this. Planning powers alone have always proved insufficient to prevent all such exploitation. The proposal for privatising land development carries with it a loss of the benefits of comprehensive planning and development currently enjoyed by the ACT. It could easily result in the fragmentation of development areas with spasmodic or sparse development, causing higher costs in the provision of major infrastructure and services and also in the provision of community facilities. Escalating costs could jeopardise land affordability, particularly for first home buyers. I know something about the cost spiral in this city as it applies to land. The honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) said that there was no real investment in land between 1978 and 1982. In fact, when I left government in 1976 there was a stockpile of 5,000 blocks of land. By the time we came to government in 1983, there were only 200 blocks. The situation with regard to the increase in the price of land was so serious that the priority of the Hawke Government in its first two years was to divert investment money into the development of land and public housing. That we stuck at. I do not like to boast in this way, but basically it was the pipeline that was set up then that put this area into a stable position. Regrettably even this Government did not continue with the land development, and there is a tendency in the Government even to move away from the public sector, which had proved to be so successful over many years in Canberra. One might ask: What is the solution to the problems of the ACT planning and land management that would occur as a result of this legislation? And what is to be the fate of areas such as Namadgi National Park? Should Namadgi be territorial land or should it be administered by the National Parks and Wildlife Service? The park represents such a large proportion of ACT land that, if it remains under the control of the Territory, it will be continually under pressure from developers. There will be a never-ending series of grandiose schemes proposed for part of its development. The growth of Canberra will be an ongoing threat to the Namadgi National Park. Further, if Namadgi is not retained as part of the Commonwealth, the Northern Territory Government, I am sure, will ask why Kakadu and Uluru national parks should be administered by the Commonwealth when Namadgi National Park is not. It will be stated that this represents double standards in the Commonwealth's approach to the Northern Territory and the ACT. I would question the economic capacity of the ACT population of 250,000, or even if it grew to 500,000 people, to pay for the maintenance, upkeep and development of such a large national park. This will only add to the pressure from the developers. What of the land in the Tuggeranong Valley beyond the Murrumbidgee? What about the land surrounding Lanyon? Will the Murrumbidgee conservation zone survive the developers' threats of future growth and the reliance of the ACT Administration on increased revenue from land? In my view, Namadgi is a national park and a national responsibility and should therefore be administered nationally. I do not talk lightly about conservation areas in Canberra. I know the economic pressures involved. After all, it was only a few years ago that I was the Minister who created the Namadgi National Park, under pressure and against opposition. I created the Murrumbidgee conservation area, against opposition. There were pressures to build bridges and to have a population of 75,000 on the other side of the Murrumbidgee. Of course, there were grandiose residential development schemes for the land around Lanyon. The Government should not talk about what protection it is going to have. As a former Minister, I know of the pressures then. I know the pressures that some conservative governments have used in other parts of Australia when they have come to office. Let us not kid ourselves about what protection there will be in Canberra. It will be money hungry Canberra, and I have no doubt about that. One of the sad things about this administration transfer is that, instead of giving cash, it has given land and the opportunity to raise revenue from that land. I believe that this is one of the weaknesses of this legislation and one of the weaknesses of the action of this Government. The Commonwealth should not have to declare certain lands national in order to protect its own estate. The Commonwealth should be able to declare certain lands territorial and to do it progressively as the national capital plan is developed. In this manner the Commonwealth will maintain both ownership and control of its own estate and retain a stake in the development rights of the lands vested in it. All undeveloped land in the Territory should remain the responsibility of the Commonwealth. There are cost implications arising from land in the ACT remaining under Commonwealth management, and there would need to be recognition of this by the Commonwealth. If ownership of land in the ACT is to mean anything, the presumption should be that the land owned by the Commonwealth should be controlled by the Commonwealth. Under the proposed legislation the presumption is that all land is to be Territory land unless the Commonwealth makes a decision to declare land national. In the last few minutes, I will turn to make some comments on the preparation of the national capital plan. The legislation sets out that the policies of the National Capital Development Commission will remain in force in the interim period between the repeal of the previous legislation and the preparation of new territorial plans and the national capital plan. However, I believe that to allow only 12 months to prepare and agree to a national capital plan is unrealistic. In the real world it is a pipedream. I say that to the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Holding) quite advisedly. As part of this process the National Capital Planning Authority is obliged to undertake consultation with the Canberra community and the territorial assembly. At the minimum this would take six to 12 months, even longer, if there is to be proper democratic participation and input. This would leave a minimum time to complete a highly technical and very important task. The work could not be properly completed and the Parliament would be looking at a series of amendments. The job should be done properly the first time and adequate time should be allowed for the consultative and the mechanical processes that are necessary. I have been tough in some of my remarks. I know that the Minister inherited this legislation, and I make no personal reflection on him. I know he has to steer it through but there are some strong criticisms about planning and control. The planning of this Bill has been shallow and ill-founded. I am not impressed with the structure of the National Capital Planning Authority. At best it appears to be in a one-man band; at worst it seems to be a powder puff authority. According to the explanatory memorandum, the National Authority may have a Chairperson and three other members, all part time, as well as a full time Chief Executive. Alternatively, the Chairperson may be appointed full time Chief Executive, in which case there would be four other part time members. The NCPA will be subject to general direction by the Minister. I do not like part time committees. There will be a staff of 35. I understand that of that staff only 17 will be skilled planners, architects and engineers. The rest will be support staff. Not too many of them are trained to consult with the general public. I think the Department of Finance is squeezing this organisation at an early stage. It is true that the chairman could be the executive officer as well. That would give it some backbone but it would emphasise its position as a one-man band. I doubt very much whether any part time officers can combat an organisation that owes its loyalty to and obtains its information from the executive officer. If it is lucky, it may get people of integrity such as Max Neutze or Pat Troy, who know the planning problems. But as time goes on and there are no Max Neutzes or Pat Troys about, the Government will find it very hard indeed to get people of high calibre on that body. At this stage I prefer to call the National Capital Planning Authority a powder puff organisation. That is sad for me to say but such an organisation is to be responsible for the whole planning of Canberra. I emphasise to my colleagues that the land of Canberra belongs to the nation and it will be sad if the planning of Canberra breaks down. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.44) —After hearing the less than enthusiastic support given to the legislation by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), one wonders to what extent the Government has probed all the aspects that the honourable member considers necessary to a good arrangement for self-government in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). We on this side of the House have many suspicions as to what type of job the Government did to provide the best legislation it could. The type of self-government proposed is limited to a large extent. Over recent years we have seen the residents of Canberra made to dance on the strings of circumstances and juggled by the government of the day. After the less than enthusiastic support of the honourable member for Reid I also believe that the residents of Canberra will be suspicious of many aspects of this legislation, particularly the retaining of powers by the Commonwealth under the new management arrangement. Such powers include the powers to make laws for the establishment of courts, the provision of police, the admission of legal practitioners, the making of corporate law and the making of ordinances which will override the laws of the Territory. This gives substantial power to the Government. Certain residual powers have not yet been transferred to the Northern Territory either. They cover uranium mining and royalties, industrial matters and Aboriginal land. Residual powers reserved to the Commonwealth will stifle the economic development of the ACT as it tries to take its rightful place within our nation. There has been a tremendous anchor on the economic progress of the Northern Territory because of the powers retained by the Commonwealth. Residual powers are also a feature of this legislation. They will halt economic progress in the ACT. The Territory will not be able to take its full place within the Commonwealth. The legislation envisages for the ACT Commonwealth funding arrangements the same as those for the States and the Northern Territory. It is a little unfair if the ACT is to be treated as a State for funding purposes but not given the powers of a State. This matter has not been fully addressed. I understand that the budget that is contemplated is about $1 billion, with 17,000 public servants. It will be a tremendous undertaking. The Brisbane City Council may be responsible for a larger area and probably four times the population, but the ACT Legislative Assembly will still be a big undertaking. At this stage there is too little parliamentary supervision and probably too little accountability. One would hope that, with self-government, these limiting factors will be addressed and that there will be improved accountability. Self-government will also allow ACT representatives to administer their own affairs. It is very important that that be understood. But they will be limited in that representation because full powers will not be passed on to them. Elected members in the ACT should be allowed to govern as they would in a normal assembly. I note that the Governor-General can dismiss the Assembly. I go back to this Government's recent experience of dismissing assemblies. The Christmas Island assembly was dismissed two weeks after election. I find that unpardonable. Mr N.A. Brown —They got the wrong result, did they? Mr BRAITHWAITE —They obviously got the wrong result. But if the Federal Government is so determined to give a territory self-government, I do not think that to sack an assembly after two weeks of a popular election is the way to go about it. I note this because I do not think the people of Canberra should be under any illusion that the Government would not act in exactly the same way if the mood took it. It also knocked off the only economic base that Christmas Island had-mining. It cancelled the mining endeavour that was being undertaken by the Commonwealth. At this stage it is in the melting pot as to what private enterprise people might take it up. I also note the situation with Norfolk Island, where the Assembly is trying to get back the artefact of the sailboat Sirius, which is one of the boats that formed the First Fleet. It is very much a part of Australian history, yet until less than 12 months ago this Government was denying this artefact to the Norfolk Island people. But due to pressure from the Norfolk Islanders, the Government has relented in that regard. The Governor-General's sanction can be applied in certain cases, one might say in controversial issues. The Governor-General has the power to dissolve the Assembly if he determines it is incapable of effectively performing its function, or if it is conducting its affairs in a grossly improper manner. I just ask: Under what definition would one try to interpret that, in view of what happened at Christmas Island? As far as this Government is concerned, all of this Bill has the potential to do exactly the same as happened with the other territories. I turn to the funding and the powers. This Bill allows the Assembly to provide its own Treasury. It will have the capacity to raise funds and the power to tax-basically the same powers as the States and the Northern Territory. As I said before, the ACT will be treated on the same basis as the States in regard to Commonwealth funding. I come back to the argument: without a decent economic base, just how does a Territory or an Assembly provide that sort of income? There are powers of restraint. In the Northern Territory, as I said, the Commonwealth retains power over mining royalties and the full use of Aboriginal land. It was interesting to note the comments of the honourable member for Reid in this regard. He was complaining about there being too much of a free hand regarding land, yet the same right was not completely but partially denied to the Northern Territory in many ways. Restraint has also been exercised by the Commonwealth by promises it has given at various times. I mention the Darwin to Alice Springs railway line which was to be a means by which economic development could take place. The promise was made also in relation to the Darwin Airport, and action has fallen well short of the promise. There have been delays in the giving of final decisions on the stock routes for the Northern Territory and there have been disputes over the Ashmore and Cartier Islands. The honourable member for Reid also mentioned the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, which has complete control over the Uluru and Kakadu national parks. This is a restraining factor and the management of the parks could be better done by the Northern Territory Commission on a day to day basis. Somebody said that, on the basis of applying that rule, perhaps the Australian Capital Territory National Parks and Wildlife Service should take over the botanical gardens and be subject to the influences of Professor Ovington. So there is a lack of consistency in connection with some of the decisions. When we look at the Australian Capital Territory being treated on the same basis as the States regarding funding, there is a great example in the State of Queensland as far as the funding of health services is concerned. Queensland has lagged miserably behind other States because of the peculiar situation Queensland was in at the time of transfer. The issue of increasing those health funds was only recently addressed, but at the same time the State grant was so reduced, so Queensland is still disadvantaged in that regard. And this could quite easily happen in the Australian Capital Territory. I also wish to mention the constitutionality of the situation. I refer particularly to local government because in its own way this might be referred to as an enlarged form of local government. We have seen a denial of funds to local government by successive reductions in the percentage of personal income tax that has been given to it and also more recently the continued reduction of funds for local roads. Recently in a referendum the Government tried to hide this type of thing by trying to push through constitutional recognition of local government. There again, Canberra will probably have the same difficulties with financing as local government. The Legislative Assembly will consist of 17 elected members. The Assembly will elect a Presiding Officer and a Chief Minister. The Chief Minister will appoint three other Ministers and these four people will form the Executive. I raise a point about the National Capital Planning Authority and the use in due course of the old Parliament House. To my knowledge no decision has yet been made on that, and I believe it is probably within the realm of government still to make a decision. But I do believe it is time some decision was made as to the planned use of the old Parliament House-whether it will become a constitutional museum or whether it is destined for the blade of a bulldozer, or whatever. There is concern. It is a matter of national interest, yet no decision has been made. One might propose that the new Assembly might use one of the old rooms in which to conduct its affairs and take over partial use of the building while the rest is maintained as a constitutional museum. But I do think it is time that some decision was made on it, and this might be the appropriate time to mention it. I refer to the voting pattern. Again a referendum was held and the Government tried to say to the people of Australia that the Commonwealth knows best and that the States should apply the one vote one value system. It would be interesting to know just how close to one vote one value the new voting pattern will be. I understand it will be close to the figure usually established within a democracy: if a party gets 50 per cent plus one of the votes, it rules. I want to compare that with the Commonwealth's own electoral system, which is far from perfect. I hope that no attempt whatsoever will be made to inflict that type of system on the Assembly if we are really striving for one vote one value. In the July 1987 Federal election the conservatives, having gained 25,000 more votes than the Australian Labor Party, lost by 25 seats. Mr N.A. Brown —A black day. Mr BRAITHWAITE —A black day, yes, not only for Canberra but for the rest of Australia. If the Government wants to say that that is a one vote one value system, where we on the conservative side have to gain over 52 per cent of the vote to win government, I just hope that the people of Canberra are not inflicted with that. The States of Victoria and New South Wales are notorious in this regard. In the last election in Victoria the conservatives again won the majority of votes but failed to win government. In New South Wales the conservatives had to gain 52.5 per cent of the vote just to break even. Perhaps the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Holding) might apply himself to that and assure this side of the House that no such gerrymander will apply as far as the Assembly is concerned as obviously applies in those other States and to the Commonwealth itself. Mr SCHOLES(Corio)(10.58) —I find it interesting that a representative from Queensland talks about gerrymanders. I do not think anyone could be a greater expert than a Queensland member of the National Party. In Queensland governments have been elected with 19 per cent of the vote. I wish to address the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Bill and cognate Bills before the House. I do not wish to roam all over the Pacific Ocean, the Indian Ocean and other parts of the world. Many of the examples which have been quoted by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) are not very accurate and really do not do him credit. Canberra is the national capital and I think we should start with that point. It is not a Territory dissociated from the Commonwealth Government and it is not a State. It can never be a State. The Constitution provides that it will be the national capital. It was set aside from New South Wales for that purpose, and that is what it must remain. The complaint that all powers over the national capital will not be transferred to local residents is one which does not stand up to critical examination and certainly was not reflected in the changes which were given to the Northern Territory by a government of another colour on another occasion. The Commonwealth Parliament does, under these Bills, retain certain powers over the national capital-in particular, over the planning and future development of and land use in this area. After 50 years of governments of almost every complexion imaginable, this city has developed into something which I believe every Australian should be proud of. It has developed under Ministers of diverse views and under planning authorities which have changed on several occasions. The National Capital Development Commission (NCDC) has existed since 1955. I believe that the present Canberra is the result of the wisdom of the government of that day-and it was not a Labor government-in setting the NCDC above day to day interference by Ministers and allowing it to plan the overall development of Canberra on a basis which is now evident. I believe it is a credit to every person who has contributed. Prior to that, the National Capital Commission and other bodies-and sometimes Ministers-were responsible for Canberra. But the city we see today is a postwar phenomenon, and it is largely a Menzies phenomenon because he was the person who gave the impetus to the growth of Canberra in the early 1950s which resulted in Canberra reaching the size it is today. Self-government and representation have been very slow in coming. When I came to this Parliament, the honourable member for the Australian Capital territory, Jim Fraser, went home at 5 o'clock because there was no point in his staying here as he was not allowed to participate in the affairs of this Parliament as a representative of the people of the national capital, and he had no vote. He had a great life as a member of this Parliament, but a very frustrating one because he could express his view only on those occasions when a matter directly and very narrowly relevant to the people of the Australian Capital Territory was before the Parliament. He obtained a vote, but Canberra had only one member. With the growth of Canberra, that number was expanded to two members. In 1974, and only after a double dissolution of the Parliament and a Joint Sitting, the ACT was represented in the Senate-a move opposed, I might say, by the gentlemen opposite. Mr N.A. Brown —It was a bit difficult for me to do as I was not here then. Mr SCHOLES —I said `gentlemen'. There were no ladies from the honourable member's Party in the Parliament at that time. I suppose the idea of ACT self-government gained real impetus with the election of the present Government. Prior to that it had been discussed, but it never became a serious proposal. In 1974, Gordon Bryant tried with his Assembly proposal, which envisaged that the Assembly would be given additional powers within 12 months and that subsequently its powers would be expanded. That did not occur, and ultimately I had the job of putting the Assembly to a peaceful and kindly death because it had reached the stage where its members must have found it extraordinarily frustrating to go on year after year with virtually nothing to do but to distribute the grants within the Canberra support systems for community organisations-and even then the Minister had power if he wished to exercise it. I actually introduced the first Bills on self-government that went through this Parliament. They were passed in this House, and they included an electoral system based on single member electorates, which I still believe is the preferable system for direct answerability to the community and for the exercise of the responsibilities of government. They were not treated seriously by the Opposition and at no stage were any serious discussions able to be entered into on the passage of those Bills. Unfortunately, the Democrats had a Senator called Vigor. It is fair to say that he was prepared to compromise and he put up compromises about five times a day all with the proviso on all to the effect, `You will accept what I want'. I did not accept that approach. I think that we could have done with that transfer of power. It is more than timely that the ACT had to decide its affairs some body which is elected and responsible to the people of the ACT. Members represent their views in the same way as do other members of this Parliament and they have to carry their national responsibilities-which should be a full time task-plus the responsibilities of being local government members and State members in this Territory. Whoever the Minister is, he largely occupies a position which has no relevance whatsoever to the Federal Parliament or the Federal Cabinet. It is worse than ludicrous to go to Cabinet over a dispute or a method of garbage handling or something on those lines. It is certainly not a matter which the national Parliament or national Government should be involved in. It represents solely the needs and the views of local people. We have heard a fair amount in this debate about the financial arrangements and the capacity of the Territory to meet its obligations. On the last occasion when these figures were examined this Territory was contributing more to the overall upkeep of the services of this Territory than was at least one State, and certainly more than was the Northern Territory, and the figure was very close to the levels provided in South Australia. It is not true to say that the Territory is incapable of funding itself if it is supported by the Commonwealth for the national purposes which are provided in this area, and to the extent that support is given to the States to meet the gaps between their capacity and the funds which they are able to raise. The Loan Council will be charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the level of support for the ACT equals the burden in the ACT of running its own affairs in the same way as applies to the smaller States. My colleague the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) is concerned about the Namadgi National Park, which is a reasonable attitude since he was responsible for its development. As I understand the Act, the Namadgi National Park cannot be altered without the approval of this Parliament. Whether it is a national park vested in the Commonwealth national parks area or the administration of the Territory, this Parliament will always have the power to alter legislation which it itself has passed and to alter those things which it has created. In the ultimate, anything that is created by legislation of this Parliament is capable of being altered by legislation of this Parliament. I have some concerns about some of the planning aspects. I have raised them with the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Holding) and there will be some amendments to meet those concerns. I was concerned that in the transition period and in the presentation of the national plan alterations to existing restricted areas and so on could be made by omission by not being included in the new plan. The amendments which are to be moved protect that position, and any change which is made to the restrictions or basic plan of Canberra in the new plan will have to be clearly identified and subject to either disallowance or restoration by a resolution of either House of Parliament. That is the way in which the planning changes have been dealt with. A number of people have worked very hard and for a long time on the development of proposals for self-government in Canberra. It has taken a long time for the people of the ACT to recognise that ultimately they have to make their own decisions. It is not in their best interests in the long term to be a creature of the national government at the whims of national policies which may not necessarily coincide with their needs or ambitions. The honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) mentioned some people who had been involved with self-government. Mr Whitley, who is in the gallery tonight, worked endlessly for about four years on this project. I think a lot of thanks should go to him. Paul Whalan, who is also in the gallery and who was the Leader of the Australian Labor Party in the House of Assembly, has been a driving force in getting the legislation into the Parliament. I might say that it was not only the Opposition that did not necessarily look on self-government as the most important thing that would come up in the national Parliament in this or any other term. The Government also took a lot of convincing a few years ago that we should proceed on this course. One other person that I would like to mention-and I could mention many-is John Enfield, who was the Secretary of the Department of Territories. He contributed materially to the real-hard technical work in preparing the ACT Administration for transfer to self-government. Fourteen Ministers used to come into this place with budgets that contained State-type ACT expenditure. We had Ministers all over the place administering the ACT. That situation has been totally changed over the last five years. We are now able to present a consolidated ACT budget with expenditures and incomes being shown very clearly. That budget is formulated in a manner which will enable the new governing body to take over an operative and clearly designated cost and revenue structure. I thank the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Holding) for the changes that have been made to the planning Bills. I think they protect the national interest. There is a national interest and a national pride in the national capital. This Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that ultimately the national capital aspect of the Territory is our responsibility and the aspect which deals with the lives of the people who live in the Territory is the Territory's responsibility. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(11.13) —in reply-I would like to thank all honourable members for the contributions which they have made to this debate. All have endorsed the principle of self-government. That has been the common thread running through the contributions of all honourable members. All of them have expressed some reservations about areas of the legislation which they feel might create problems. I give an undertaking to those honourable members, as I have to the Opposition, that the mere passage of this legislation through this House does not foreclose our examining all of the contributions that have been made by honourable members tonight. We will be examining the proposals put forward by Her Majesty's Opposition. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 32-by leave-taken together. Amendments (by Mr N.A. Brown)-by leave-proposed: (1) Clause 22, page 8, line 33, omit paragraph (b). (2) Clause 22, page 8, lines 38 and 39, omit paragraph (f). (3) Clause 32, page 11, line 31, at the end of subclause (4) add ``other than a law relating to the establishment of courts, or the admission of persons to practise as legal practitioners or regulating the practice of persons so admitted.''. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(11.15) —The Government will not be accepting the amendments. I repeat to the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) the undertaking that I gave at the beginning of this debate that all amendments being proposed by the Opposition will not be adopted by the Government on this occasion. I want to make clear and reaffirm that, following negotiations and discussions that will take place with members of Her Majesty's Opposition, the Government reserves the right to adopt in whole or in part any of the amendments which are now being moved by the honourable member for Menzies. Amendments negatived. Clauses agreed to. Proposed new clause 32a. Amendment (by Mr N.A. Brown) proposed: (4) Page 11, after clause 32 insert the following clause: Avoidance of application of enactments to Parliament ``32a. (1) In this section: `enactment' includes a part of an enactment; `Parliamentary precincts' means the precincts defined by subsection 3 (1) of the Parliamentary Precincts Act 1988. ``(2) If either House of the Parliament passes a resolution declaring that an enactment made after the commencing day does not apply: (a) to that House; (b) to the Members of that House; or (c) in the Parliamentary precincts, the resolution has effect according to its tenor and the enactment does not apply accordingly. ``(3) A resolution under subsection (2): (a) does not have effect in respect of the application of an enactment on a day before the day on which the resolution is passed; and (b) does not affect proceedings under an enactment begun before the day on which the resolution is passed.''. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(11.15) —I think that the statement I made covers all of the amendments that are being proposed. Proposed new clause negatived. Clauses 33 to 44-by leave-taken together. Amendment (by Mr N.A. Brown) negatived: (5) Clause 34, page 12, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Governor-General not to have power to make Ordinances ``34. On and from the commencement of this section the Governor-General does not have power to make an Ordinance under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910.''. Clauses agreed to. Clause 45 (Chief Executive). Amendment (by Mr Holding) agreed to: Clause 45, page 14, line 33, after ``re-elected'' insert ``or re-appointed''. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Amendments (by Mr N.A. Brown)-by leave-taken together, and negatived. (6) Clause 49, pages 15 and 16, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Powers of Head of Administration ``49. The Head of Administration shall, under the Chief Minister, be responsible for: (a) all members of staff and their work, and shall advise the Chief Minister in all matters relating to the administration of that work; and (b) exercising powers conferred on the Head of Administration by or under enactment.''. (7) Schedule 4, page 26, after ``Regulation of businesses, professions, trades and callings omit ``(excluding the legal profession)''. (8) Schedule 4, page 28, at the end of the Schedule add: ``Matters in respect of the establishment of courts The admission of persons to practise as legal practitioners or regulating the practice of persons so admitted''. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 October, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Clauses 1 to 16-by leave-taken together. Amendments (by Mr N.A. Brown)-by leave-taken together, and negatived: (1) Clause 9, page 3, line 26, omit ``February 1993'', substitute ``February 1992''. (2) Clause 9, page 3, line 28, omit ``fourth year'', substitute ``third year''. (3) Clause 15, page 5, lines 24 and 25, omit sub-clause (5), substitute the following sub-clause: ``(5) Division 3 of Part XX of the Act does not apply.''. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 17 to 19-by leave-taken together. Amendments (by Mr Holding)-by leave-taken together, and agreed to: (1) Clause 17, page 6, line 19, before ``preference'' insert ``first''. (2) Clause 17, page 6, line 23, before ``preference'' insert ``first''. (3) Clause 17, page 6, lines 25 to 27, omit all words after ``party'' (first occurring). (4) Clause 17, page 6, add at the end of paragraph 17 (d): ``; and, if the elector wishes to do so, expressing subsequent preferences for candidates or parties for which the elector has not expressed a first preference.''. (5) Clause 18, page 6, line 33, omit ``one or both of the'', substitute ``a way or''. (6) Clause 18, page 6, after subclause (1) insert the following subclauses: ``(1a) The sum of the base numbers shall be divided by a number equal to the sum of 1 and the number of members to be elected to the Assembly and the result of that division (disregarding any remainder) shall be increased by 1. ``(1b) All parties and independent candidates whose base numbers are less than the result of the calculation under subsection (1a) shall be excluded from participation in the distribution of seats. ``(1c) Where a ballot-paper indicates a vote for an excluded party or independent candidate, the vote given by that ballot-paper shall be transferred to the party, the party of the candidate, or the independent candidate not excluded for whom the elector has indicated his or her next available preference (if any). ``(1d) Where the next available preference indicated on a ballot-paper indicating a vote for an excluded party or independent candidate cannot be determined because the same number appears in more than one square on the ballot-paper: (a) where only one of those squares is opposite the name of a party or an independent candidate, that number shall be taken to express the next available preference; (b) where 2 or more of those squares are opposite the names of parties or independent candidates, the vote given by that ballot-paper shall not be transferred; (c) where all those squares are opposite the names of candidates of a particular party, the next available preference shall be taken to be given to that party; and (d) where all those squares are opposite the names of candidates of parties and 2 or more of them are opposite the names of candidates of different parties, the vote shall not be transferred. ``(1e) Where: (a) a party is excluded; (b) a ballot-paper that indicates a vote for that party does not indicate a preference for another party, a candidate of another party, or an independent candidate; and (c) that excluded party has a party voting ticket registered for the purposes of the election that indicates a next available preference for a party, a candidate of a party, or an independent candidate, not excluded; the vote is transferred to the party, the party of the candidate, or the independent candidate, with that preference. ``(1f) Where, under subsection (1c) or (1e), a vote is transferred to a party or independent candidate, that vote shall be added to the base number of that party or candidate.''. (7) Clause 18, page 6, line 35, after ``base numbers'' insert ``of the parties and independent candidates not excluded''. Clauses, as amended, agreed to. Clause 20 (Standing rules and orders). Amendment (by Mr N.A. Brown) negatived: (4) Clause 20, page 7, line 38, omit ``3 1/2 years'', substitute ``2 1/2 years'' Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Amendments (by Mr Holding)-by leave-taken together, and agreed to: (8) Schedule 1, page 10, modification of subsection 4 (1), paragraph (b), after the definition of ``Ballot-time'' insert the following definition: `` `Continuing party' means a party that has not been excluded under section 18 of the Territory Electoral Act;''. (9) Schedule 1, page 21, modification of sections 211, 211a and 212, after ``sections'' insert: ``, substitute the following section: Party voting tickets ``211. (1) Where a registered party has nominated a candidate or candidates for a general election, the registered officer of the party may, before the expiration of 24 hours after the closing of nominations for the election, lodge with the Australian Capital Territory Electoral Officer a written statement that the party wishes voters in the election who vote for the party to indicate subsequent preferences for some or all of the other parties, candidates of other parties and independent candidates in the election in an order specified in the statement. ``(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), a statement by a party for the purposes of that subsection may specify an order of preferences by setting out the names of the other parties, the names of the candidates of the other parties, and the names of the independent candidates, in the election in the lists, and in the order, in which they are to be set out on a ballot-paper, with squares opposite each name and with numbers in squares showing that order of preferences. ``(3) Where a party lodges a statement under subsection (1) in relation to an election, that party shall be taken to have a party voting ticket registered for the purposes of the election, being the order of preferences given in that statement. ``(4) A statement by a party under subsection (1) shall be signed by the registered officer of the party.''. (10) Schedule 1, page 22, modification of section 216, after ``section'' insert: ``, substitute the following section: Party voting tickets to be displayed ``216. (1) Where a party voting ticket is, or party voting tickets are, registered for the purposes of an election, the Australian Capital Territory Electoral Officer shall cause a poster showing the ticket, or all the tickets, to be prominently displayed at each polling booth. ``(2) A poster for the purposes of subsection (1) shall be so prepared that: (a) voting tickets are displayed in vertical columns; and (b) the tickets are displayed in the same order from the top of each column as the order on the ballot-papers of the parties by which the tickets were lodged.''. (11) Schedule 1, page 23, modification of subsections 239 (1) and (2), omit ``subsection'', substitute ``subsections''. (12) Schedule 1, page 24, modification of subsections 239 (1) and (2), proposed paragraph 239 (1) (c), omit all words after ``votes'' (first occurring) and before ``; or''. (13) Schedule 1, page 24, modification of subsections 239 (1) and (2), after proposed subsection (1) insert the following subsection: ``(2) Where a voter has marked a ballot-paper in accordance with subsection (1), the voter may, if the voter wishes, also mark it by placing the number 2 or the numbers 2, 3 (and so on as the voter wishes) in squares opposite the names of the parties or candidates for whom the voter wishes to indicate preferences.''. (14) Schedule 1, page 27, modification of section 269, proposed paragraph 269 (2) (a), before ``party'' insert ``continuing''. (15) Schedule 1, page 27, modification of section 269, proposed paragraph 269 (3) (a), before ``party'' insert ``continuing''. (16) Schedule 1, page 28, modification of section 270, proposed paragraph 270 (1) (a), before ``party'' insert ``continuing''. (17) Schedule 1, page 28, modification of section 270, after proposed subsection 270 (1) insert the following subsections: ``(1a) Where a vote is transferred to a party under subsection 18 (1c) or (1e) of the Territory Electoral Act because of the expression of a next available preference in a square opposite the name of a party on a ballot-paper, the number expressing that preference shall be taken to be the number 1. ``(1b) Where, under subsection 18 (1e) of the Territory Electoral Act, a vote is transferred to a party in accordance with a party voting ticket, the voter shall be taken to have indicated his or her preferences for the candidates of the party in the order indicated by that party voting ticket.''. (18) Schedule 1, page 28, modification of section 270, proposed paragraph 270 (2) (a), before ``party'' insert ``continuing''. (19) Schedule 1, page 28, modification of section 270, proposed paragraph 270 (3) (a), before ``party'' insert ``continuing''. (20) Schedule 1, page 28, modification of section 270, proposed subsection 270 (4), before ``party'' insert ``continuing''. (21) Schedule 1, page 30, modifications of subsections 273 (6), (7) and (8), before proposed subsection (6) insert the following subsection: ``(5a) The distribution of seats among parties and independent candidates shall be conducted in accordance with section 18 of the Territory Electoral Act.''. (22) Schedule 1, page 30, modifications of subsections 273 (6), (7) and (8), after proposed subsection (6) insert the following subsection: ``(6a) For the purposes of subsections (7) to (13) (inclusive), a vote transferred to a party under subsection 18 (1c) or (1e) of the Territory Electoral Act shall be taken to have been received by that party.''. Amendment (by Mr N.A. Brown) negatived: (5) Schedule 1, pages 34-36, omit from the Schedule modifications to sections 293 to 301 (inclusive) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Remainder of Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 October, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Amendments (by Mr Holding)-by leave-taken together, and agreed to: (1) Clause 22, page 8, line 3, omit ``15'', substitute ``6''. (2) Clause 57, page 18, at the end of the clause add the following subclause: ``(3) On the first sitting day of a House of the Parliament after the end of the transition period, the Minister shall cause to be laid before that House: (a) a copy of the Proclamation; and (b) a statement identifying the NCDC policies still in effect at the end of that period.''. (3) Clause 65, page 19 lines 34 and 35, omit paragraph (a), substitute the following paragraph: ``(a) revoked wholly or partly by the National Capital Plan; or''. (4) Clause 65, page 19, at the end of the clause add the following subclause: ``(2) If: (a) a provision of the National Capital Plan (in this subsection called the `revoking provision') has revoked an NCDC policy or part of such a policy; and (b) the revoking provision is disallowed under section 22; the disallowance revives the policy, or the part of the policy, as the case may be, from the date of the disallowance as if the revoking provision had not taken effect.''. (5) Clause 66, page 20 lines 1 to 4, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: NCDC policies after transition period ``66. (1) If: (a) at the end of the transition period, an NCDC policy, or part of such a policy, is still in effect; (b) the policy, or that part of the policy, is such that it could be part of the National Capital Plan; and (c) either House of the Parliament, within 6 sitting days of that House after the end of the transition period, passes a resolution that the policy, or that part of the policy, is to become part of the National Capital Plan; the policy, or that part of the policy, becomes part of the National Capital Plan, and may be varied or revoked accordingly. (2) On the day after the last day on which a resolution could be passed as described in paragraph (1) (c), an NCDC policy, or part of such a policy, that is still in effect and has not become part of the National Capital Plan under subsection (1) shall be taken to be part of the Territory Plan, and may be varied or revoked accordingly.''. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 1 November, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding) read a third time. House adjourned at 11.29 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970, and for related purposes. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 3 November 1988: Telecommunications (Interception) Act-Declaration under subsection 34 (1)-Police Force of Victoria. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1146) Mr Wright asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, upon notice, on 24 August 1988: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the repeated claims by the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland and the Queensland Main Roads Department that the excise duty on petrol is in excess of 30c per litre. (2) Will he set out the various components which make up the ultimate wholesale price set by the Prices Surveillance Authority in (a) Brisbane, (b) Sydney, (c) Melbourne, (d) Canberra, (e) Townsville and (f) Rockhampton. Mr Kerin —The Minister for Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No. The claim made by the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland and the Queensland Main Roads Department that excise on petrol is in excess of 30 cents per litre (cpl) is incorrect. The Commonwealth petroleum product excise on motor spirit is currently 21.53 cpl effective 1 August 1988. (2) Table 1 (a) shows the major components of the Prices Surveillance Authority (PSA) all capital cities base price, including Commonwealth excise. Table 1 (b) shows how this price is adjusted to become the PSA maximum wholesale price in various cities. Table 1 (a) COMPONENTS OF PSA MAXIMUM ALL CAPITAL CITIES BASE PRICE Cents per litre Cost of Crude Oil... 11.70 Refiners' Costs... 12.30 Commonwealth Petroleum Product Ex- cise ... 21.53 PSA all Capital Cities Base Price... 45.53 Source: Prices Surveillance Authority, Australian Institute of Petroleum Ltd. Table 1 (b) COMPONENTS OF INDICATIVE PETROL PUMP PRICE (cents per litre) Sydney Melbourne Canberra Brisbane Rockhampton Townsville PSA all capital cities base price ... 45.53 45.53 45.53 45.53 45.53 45.53 State Government Franchise Fee ... 3.53 4.11 3.53 . . . . . . Freight Differential... . . . . 1.50 . . . . 0.90 Total PSA Maximum Wholesale Price... 49.06 49.64 50.56 45.53 45.53 46.43 Indicative Petrol Pump Price... 51.60 52.30 59.30 51.30 N/A N/A Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Prices Surveillance Authority. Notes: N/A not available. (Question No. 1179) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 1 September 1988: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an advertisement on 28 November 1987 which sought public comment on the including of Rape (Brassica napus) under the Plant Variety Rights Act. (2) Why does the Plant Varieties Journal state that it proposed to include `Brassica sp (oilseeds) (rape, mustard, etc)' when public comment has not been sought. (3) What is meant by `etc' and what plants are covered. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Not specifically but I was aware of the advertisements inviting public comment. (2) Because of comments received which indicated that intending applicants would require the Act to include varieties of Brassica oilseeds belonging to species and species hybrids other than B. napus. Brassica sp is more appropriate in the regulations to cover the eligible new varieties. Public comment was actually being sought by publishing the proposed schedule in the Plant Varieties Journal. No comments have been received. (3) `etc' is an abbreviation of et cetera meaning `and others'. In this instance it refers to other common names by which the oilseed Brassica sp are known. The names Canola, turnip rape, giant kangaroo rape, toria, sarson and raya are some examples. (Question No. 1182) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 1 September 1988: (1) Under the Plant Variety Rights Act, into which plant groups do (a) Camellia sinensis, (b) Hex paraquensis, (c) Cola acuminata, (d) Coffea canephora, (e) Papaver somniferum, (f) Erythroxylum coca, (g) Camellia japonica, (h) Asparagus officinalis, (i) Geitonoplesium cymosum, (j) Lolium perene, (k) Hyoscymanus muticus, (l) Ruta graveolens, (m) Salvia lavandulae, (n) Suntalum spicatum, (o) Mentha cardiaca, (p) Juniperus sabina, (q) Allium sativum, (r) Tuber melanosporum, (s) Theobroma cacao, (t) Cucuma longa, (u) Vanilla tahitensis, (v) Hevea brasiliansis, (w) Papaver nuclicaule and (x) Asparagus densiflorus Meyeri, fall. (2) What is the final date for submissions for the inclusion under the Act for each of the plants referred to in part (1) and if the final date has passed, will he accept late submissions. (3) If he will not accept late submissions, why not. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In answering this question I have interpreted some of the names given as intending to refer to the following plant names: (b) Ilex paraguayensis, (j) Lolium perenne, (k) Hyoscyamus muticus, (m) Salvia lavanduloides, (n) Santalum spicatum, (t) Curcuma longa, (v) Hevea brasiliensis, (w) Papaver nudicaule and (x) Asparagus sprengeri `Meyeri'. With the exception of (b), (j), (r) and (x), all the names represent plants whose genera are potentially covered by the Plant Variety Rights Act but not yet declared by regulation in accordance with section 13 of the Act. (b) Ilex paraguayensis, from which a stimulant beverage is prepared in South America, belongs to a group of plants which is on the proposed schedule for declaration by Plant Variety Rights Regulations. The genus Ilex, which includes holly and other related ornamentals, is proposed to be covered by the Plant Variety Rights Act by January 1989. (j) Lolium perenne, which is commonly known as perennial ryegrass belongs to a group of plants declared by Plant Variety Rights Regulations No. 1 of April 1988 to which the Act applies. (r) Tuber melanosporum, the French truffle, is excluded from the Plant Variety Rights Act in section 1 because it is a fungus. (x) Asparagus sprengeri `Meyeri', an ornamental asparagus variety, is ineligible under section 14 of the Plant Variety Rights Act because it has been previously sold in Australia. (2) There is no final date for submissions for inclusion of plants under the Act. It is intended to have all appropriate plant species included under the Act in regulations by March 1990. Any submissions for earlier inclusion of plant groups in the proposed schedule are processed promptly. (Question No. 852) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Employment and Education Services, on notice, on 24 March 1988: (1) Were the 735,000 of the 930,000 vacancies referred to on page 81 of 1987-88 Budget-Related Paper No. 9 entitled ``Skills Formation in Australia'' in fact filled by the CES or were some of the positions registered with the CES filled by other employment agencies or by direct contact between the job applicant and the employer. (2) If not all the positions were filled by the CES directly, what percentage was actually filled directly by the CES. (3) What are the progress figures for 1987-88 for (a) job applicants registered, (b) positions vacant registered and (c) the percentage of jobs directly filled by the CES. (4) What percentage of persons unemployed to date in 1987-88 have been unemployed for 6 months or more. (5) What percentage of the long term unemployed to date in 1987-88 are aged 55-64 years. (6) What percentage of Aboriginals of working age are employed and how much higher is the Aboriginal unemployment rate compared with the national unemployment rate. (7) How many adults have benefited from the expanded Adult Training Program in 1987-88 and what percentage of (a) these adults were sole parents and (b) all adults and sole parents were women. (8) How many traineeships have been granted to date in 1987-88 under the Australian Traineeship Scheme. (9) What steps has the Government taken to increase industry's contribution to the national training effort. (10) What steps has the Government taken to achieve a more effective relationship between industry and the formal education sector in matters such as curriculum development, the sharing of training facilities and equipment, and the provision of training itself. Mr Duncan —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The quoted figures were approximations. During 1986-87, the CES received 927,487 vacancies and the CES directly filled 734,158. These figures do not include vacancies filled by any other means. (3) Figures for the period 1.7.87-30.6.88 are: (a) job seekers registered 2,299,618; (b) vacancies notified 1,005,986; (c) the CES has directly filled 787,016 vacancies (78.23% of vacancies notified). (4) The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) August 1988 Labour Force Survey shows that 48% of unemployed people have been unemployed for more than 6 months. (5) ABS August 1988 Labour Force Survey shows that people in the age group 55-64 years comprise the following percentages of the total unemployed for the following categories. (i) 6 months and over 10% (ii) 9 months and over 12% (iii) 12 months and over 13% * Care must be exercised in interpreting these estimates due to sampling variability. (6) The most recent reliable estimate of Aboriginal employment, the 1986 Census, indicated that 42,878 Aboriginal persons (31 per cent of those of working age) were employed at 30 June 1986. Aboriginal unemployment was measured at 35 per cent compared with a national unemployment rate of 9.2 per cent measured by the Census at that time. (7) 15,100 people benefited from the expanded Adult Training Program in 1987-88. (a) 13.6% of these adults were sole parents (b) 60.0% were women. (8) There were over 10,000 trainee commencements under the Australian Traineeship System from 1 July 1987 to 30 June 1988. (9) The Government's integrated approach to employment, education and training is outlined in `A Changing Workforce', a paper released with the Treasurer's May Statement. As elaborated in that paper, the Government is pursuing a coherent strategy to lift industry contribution to training. It has established the Task Force to examine a range of issues on this aspect. The Task Force's report will be released later this year, and will be the subject of extensive consultations with all relevant parties before the Government takes any final decisions on this issue. In addition to encouraging industry to make a greater contribution towards the cost of training, the Government is participating in various forums to move the training system towards a competency based approach. The Government has also supported, in appropriate forums, industry restructuring designed to alleviate perceived restrictions on the training of the skilled labour force. Several existing Commonwealth programs are also designed to assist in raising the industry contribution to training. Australian Traineeship System (ATS): Traineeships have been developed across a broad range of industries and occupations including the retail, finance, hospitality, tourism, construction, road transport (furniture removal) and manufacturing sectors. All parties to the traineeships make a significant contribution to the cost of training- industry contribution is in the payment of the trainee's wage for the duration of the traineeship and the provision of structured on-the-job training, although employers receive a contribution towards the cost of training and wage on-cost. Skills Training Program (STP): Under the Innovative Training Projects component of the Skills Training Program, catalytic assistance is provided to industry for them to expand training infrastructure through the development and expansion of industry-based skills centres and the piloting of innovative approaches to training. Conditions of funding include that the Commonwealth must be the minor partner in the establishment of skill centres, with the majority of costs being met by industry (possibly with State Government assistance) and that industry meet recurrent costs of the centre. TAFE Programs: The Government has set aside $3m of the 1988 grant for equipment, for proposals involving industry contributions towards the purchase of TAFE equipment. The objectives of this joint venture initiative are to encourage- TAFE to seek outside sources of equipment funds industry and TAFE to have a closer working relationship for their mutual benefit. (10) The Government's strategy for increasing industry's commitment to training outlined in (9) above will also encourage improved co-operation between industry and formal training providers. It is also likely that as a result of these initiatives, industry will provide substantially more training `in house' and develop its own training centres. The Government has worked closely with industry and a number of higher education institutions to develop co-operative education courses in computer science. Industry has contributed staff, equipment and scholarships for students and has been involved in course design. The pilot program is part of the Government Information Industry Strategy and a larger scheme under which 650 extra places will become available for technology related courses for the industry. The co-operative education concept lends itself to extension into other disciplines as well as information technology. So far as Technical and Further Education is concerned, the responsibility for the management of facilities rests with State authorities and the question is, therefore, principally a matter for those authorities. However, in making arrangements with States for the provision of Commonwealth funding for TAFE, the States have been asked to provide undertakings to increase industry input and contribution to the operation of TAFE and to implement arrangements to enable TAFE colleges to retain revenue from entrepreneurial effort. Under the Australian Traineeship System (ATS), individual traineeship packages are developed by tripartite Industry Working Groups (IWGs). As IWGs have representation from training providers (usually TAFE), industry has a major and direct input into the development of training curriculum. Under the Skills Training Program (STP), a number of proposals have been received for funding joint TAFE/Industry skill centres with industry having management and control of the facility. TAFE are involved on tripartite committee oversighting implementation of a number of innovative training projects involving curriculum development. TAFE in other proposed projects will be involved in training provision. (Question No. 1124) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, upon notice, on 23 August 1988: (1) How many Commonwealth supported aged care hostels are there in Australia on a State by State basis. (2) How many residents are there in those hostels. (3) What proportion of those residents suffer from some form of dementia. (4) Do all hostels have residents with dementia. (5) Did the Government recently announce special service program grants for dementia, if so, (a) what was the basis of those grants and (b) how were hostels selected for those grants. (6) How are those hostels which did not receive grants and which have residents suffering from dementia expected to provide care for their residents. (7) Does the Government's fund program for aged care facilities take account of dementia and provide additional resources; if so, how does it do so. (8) If dementia is not accounted for, why not. (9) What is the value of the special service program grants on a per-capita basis. Mr Staples —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2)- SUBSIDISED HOSTELS AS AT 30 JUNE 1988 State Hostels Permanent beds Permanent residents as at 28.6.88 New South Wales ... 298 13,762 12,567 Victoria ... 234 9,603 8,960 Queensland ... 176 8,278 7,757 South Australia ... 125 5,186 4,981 Western Australia ... 120 4,094 3,875 Tasmania ... 25 801 758 Northern Territory ... 2 58 57 Australian Capital Territory ... 7 339 323 987 42,121 39,278 (3) There is no data collected on the proportion of dementia sufferers in Commonwealth subsidised hostels. (4) No. Some hostels do not accept dementia sufferers due to inadequate physical design of their facility or inability of staff to cope with residents suffering from a high degree of dementia. (5) Yes. Estimated expenditure for 1988-89 is in the order of $7m. One hundred and eighty-four hostels received funding in 1987-88. (a) Dementia grants are paid only in respect of persons who are residents of a hostel. Dementia residents are those assessed by an assessment team or medical practitioner as suffering from some form of dementia. The level of grant depends on the number of residents. Grants are available to meet the costs of the employment of staff to provide or extend special activities for dementia sufferers and items of equipment for activities. Staff training funds are allocated to State offices for disbursement upon application from organisations. (b) Proposals are sought each year from eligible hostels for dementia grants and the selection is based on the relative need/merit of proposals and funds available. (6), (7) and (8) Recurrent subsidies payable to organisations in respect of hostel residents are designed to take account of the level of assessed care needs (this includes the care needs of dementia sufferers). Subsidies are payable at two levels-hostel care subsidy ($2.10 per day) and personal care subsidy ($13.45 per day). Payment of recurrent subsidies is governed by the provisions specified in the gazetted schedule of approval for accommodation services and personal care services. Often aged persons suffering from dementia develop other disabilities or incur losses of function which necessitate nursing home admission. The recently introduced Resident Classification Instrument for nursing home admissions takes into account the particular service needs of such people and provides commensurate funding for nursing and personal care staff. (9) The average dementia grant per capita for 1987-88 has been estimated at $6,734.25 per year or $18.45 per day. This includes the personal care services subsidy component. (Question No. 1210) Mr McArthur asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 1 September 1988: (1) How many business migrants entered Australia in 1987-88. (2) From which countries did they come. (3) What is the total sum of foreign currency gained in 1987-88 from this scheme. (4) What type of businesses have business migrants established or invested in. (5) What proportion of those business ventures have proved successful. (6) Is there any policing of business migrants once they have arrived in Australia to ensure that both they and their money remain here. (7) What is their position should they invest in, or establish, a business that subsequently fails and causes them to lose their means of support and in such circumstances are they entitled to welfare payments and government handouts, or are they to be repatriated. (8) What measures are being undertaken by the Government to ensure that business migrants who enter Australia with a qualifying minimum of $A500,000 do not remit their funds abroad once they have gained residency, and so recycle the same qualifying funds. Mr Holding —The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) In 1987/88 the total number of settler arrivals under the Business Migration Program was 7,222. This figure includes 1,794 principal applicants. (2) In 1987/88 business migrants from 43 different countries were accepted. Accounting for 83% of the total, the main countries, in order of magnitude, were: Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia, United Kingdom, South Korea, Singapore, Japan, Fiji, Indonesia, West Germany, (see Table 1). (3) In 1987/88 business migrants had transferred $A1018.1 million to Australia at time of visa issue. Reports by Australian banks suggest that additional funds are subsequently transferred to Australia by business migrants. (4) To date my Department has relied on survey data to identify types of business ventures. The principal types of ventures identified are: import/export, wholesale, service, property development, manufacturing, tourism, My Department is developing a system of identifying industries in which investment is intended, based on the Australian Standard Industrial Classification System codes which will be incorporated into Business Migration Program data collection. (5) Survey data indicates it is reasonable to expect business migrants to take up to two years after arrival to establish a business venture. A significant group establish themselves within six months. A further survey examining the July 1984 to December 1987 arrivals is currently being prepared. A new evaluation and monitoring system, introduced in June this year, will provide for data collection on 1987/88 arrivals but it would not be available for some time as it is tied to time of resident re-entry and citizenship applications. (6) Business migrants have the same civil rights as other Australian residents and their activities are not ``policed'' (although their activities are now monitored more than any other category of migrant). Similarly, migrants who are accepted as spouses, or nominees of employers etc are not policed. The Government's re-entry policies are designed to maintain appropriate control on residence while allowing all migrants the opportunity to engage in necessary travel during their first three years in Australia. Business migrants in particular need this facility. (7) Business migrants have the same entitlements to benefits as other Australian residents. They have the same right to approach my Department about repatriation and the same conditions apply. The selection criteria for the Business Migration Program ensure that they are less likely to make calls on Government services than other types of migrants. They must have a successful business background and demonstrate sufficient skills and equity to ensure the viability of the enterprise. They are required to transfer to Australia for the purposes of engaging in a commercial enterprise of benefit to Australia money, capital or other assets of at least $500,000. In addition, they must transfer funds to cover settlement costs. (8) There is no reason to believe there is any significant recycling of funds. Indeed, my Department has no evidence of any recycling of funds. Checks on the business background of applicants help to ensure that the funds transferred are generated by their own business activities. There are no special mechanisms to lock funds into specific investments and such mechanisms are not seen as desirable as they could result in funds being locked into passive investment. The program requires business migrants to engage directly in commercial enterprise. Table 1 SETTLER ARRIVALS, BUSINESS MIGRATION CATEGORY, BY COUNTRY OF LAST RESIDENCE, BY PRINCIPAL AND DEPENDANTS: 1987-88 Principal Dependants Total UNITED KINGDOM &IRELAND Country of Residence U.K. ... 140 342 482 Ireland ... 7 20 27 TOTAL 147 362 509 NORTHERN EUROPE Country of Residence Austria ... 4 11 15 Belgium ... 2 5 7 France ... 2 1 3 Germany ... 49 88 137 Netherlands ... 9 17 26 Norway ... 1 1 2 Sweden ... =m 3 3 Switzerland ... 14 24 38 Liechtenstein ... - 1 1 Luxembourg ... 2 3 5 TOTAL ... 83 154 237 SOUTHERN EUROPE Country of Residence Cyprus ... 1 - 1 Greece ... 6 15 21 Italy ... 6 10 16 Portugal ... 1 4 5 TOTAL ... 14 29 43 MIDDLE EAST Country of Residence Egypt, Arab Rep ... 10 24 34 Iran ... 8 33 41 Iraq ... 2 13 15 Israel ... 4 18 22 Jordan ... 1 4 5 Kuwait ... 8 27 35 Lebanon ... 3 6 9 Saudi Arabia ... 1 4 5 Bahrain ... 4 20 24 Oman ... 1 1 2 United Arab Emirates ... 11 25 36 TOTAL ... 53 175 228 U.S.A. AND CANADA Country of Residence Canada ... 7 18 25 U.S.A. ... 23 70 93 TOTAL ... 30 88 118 SOUTH AND OTHER AMERICA Country of Residence Argentina ... 1 3 4 Brazil ... 5 14 19 Honduras ... 1 5 6 TOTAL ... 7 22 29 AFRICA Country of Residence Kenya ... 2 9 11 South Africa ... 23 76 99 Madagascar ... 2 10 12 Niger ... 1 3 4 TOTAL ... 28 98 126 ASIA Country of Residence China, P Rep of ... 12 30 42 Hong Kong ... 611 1,909 2,520 India ... 8 23 31 Indonesia ... 55 223 278 Japan ... 58 149 207 Korea ... 74 232 306 Malaysia ... 179 568 747 Pakistan ... 2 4 6 Philippines, The ... 38 149 187 Singapore ... 72 236 308 Sri Lanka ... 2 8 10 Taiwan ... 196 628 824 Thailand ... 4 20 24 Brunei ... 35 122 157 Macao ... 3 16 19 TOTAL ... 1,349 4,317 5,666 OCEANIA Country of Residence Fiji ... 57 142 199 New Caledonia ... 4 9 13 New Zealand ... 7 9 16 New Guinea ... 7 12 19 Tahiti ... 1 =m 1 Tonga ... =m 2 2 Vanuatu ... 3 6 9 American Samoa ... 1 =m 1 Solomon Islands ... 1 1 2 TOTAL ... 81 181 262 OTHER Country of Residence Not given ... 2 2 4 TOTAL ... 2 2 4 TOTAL ... 1,794 5,428 7,222 (Question No. 1223) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, upon notice, on 29 September 1988: (1) Who are the members of the Australian Space Board and what are their periods of office. (2) What is the requirement for a quorum for a meeting of the Space Board in the event of one or more members of the Board having a conflict of interest in addressing any particular matter. (3) Will the report of the Joint Working Group into the possibility of a Cape York Space Port be made public: if so, when will it be made public. (4) Who are the members of the Joint Working Group. (5) What other inquiries or economic feasibility studies are being undertaken by the Board or his Department into the economic impact of the development of a Space Port at Cape York. (6) What international science agreements are administered by the Australian Space Board or any sections of his Department. (7) With which countries does Australia have science agreements and (a) what are the terms of those agreements and (b) when were they signed. (8) What have been the practical results of the signing of science agreements. (9) How many staff members are assigned to work in the Australian Space Office and what are the functions, qualifications and levels of those staff members. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Members of the Australian Space Board are: Mr R. D. Somervaille, am, (Chairman), Mr I. J. Bettison, Dr K. G. McCracken, Mr R. Wheeldon, Professor J. H. Carver, am, Dr B. S. Middleton. All have been members of the Board since its formation in September 1986, with the exception of Dr Middleton who replaced Dr Hayman in October 1987. Members are invited to serve for an unspecified term. (2) Four members or more form a quorum. (3) The Joint Working Group (JWG) is in regular contact with the two consortia conducting feasibility studies on the spaceport for the purpose of briefing the respective Ministers and to help where possible in resolving any issues. The JWG is not planning at this stage to issue a report on the activities of the consortia. (4) Members of the Joint Working Group are: Dr B. S. Middleton, Executive Director, Australian Space Office, Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce; Mr G. Sanderson, Director, Projects and Programs, Premier's Department, Queensland. (5) The Australian Space Office has commissioned the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research to undertake a study on the national economic impact of the spaceport. (6) The International Industry and Technology Branch of the Department administers the Bilateral Science and Technology Collaboration Program. This comprises seven treaty level Agreements and four Memorandums of Understanding on science and technology collaboration. (7) Australia has treaty level science and technology collaboration agreements with the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Japan, Mexico, the People's Republic of China, the USA and the USSR. There are Memorandums of Understanding on Science and Technology Cooperation with Indonesia, Israel, Malaysia and Thailand. The terms of all the treaty level agreements make similar provisions: they are aimed at encouraging scientific and technical cooperation between scientists and technologists in Australia and the partner country through collaborative research projects, joint workshops and seminars. They are also aimed at promoting links between research institutions in the partner countries. Provision is made for regular meetings of officials of the partner countries to review the operation of each agreement. The Agreement between Australia and the USA Relating to Scientific and Technical Cooperation was signed in 1968. It was most recently renewed in 1985 for a further five years. The Agreement between Australia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Scientific-Technical Cooperation was signed in 1975. The agreement was set aside in 1979 following the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan, but was reactivated in 1985. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Co-operation in Space Research and the Use of Space for Peaceful Purposes was signed on 1 December 1987. The Agreement between Australia and the Federal Republic of Germany on Scientific and Technological Cooperation was signed in 1976. The Agreement between Australia and Japan on Cooperation in Research and Development in Science and Technology was signed in 1980. The Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People's Republic of China on Cooperation in Science and Technology was signed in 1980. The Agreement between Australia and India on Cooperation in the Fields of Science and Technology was signed in 1975. It was reaffirmed by the Prime Ministers of Australia and India in 1986. The Basic Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Mexican States on Scientific and Technological Cooperation was signed in 1981. Funding for cooperation under the agreements covers travel and living cost expenses, workshop and seminar costs. In the agreements with the USA, the Federal Republic of Germany and Japan, the country sending the scientist pays all costs associated with the project. In the agreements with the USSR, China, India and Mexico, the sending side pays the international travel costs while the receiving side pays the living and internal travel costs. Costs of joint seminars and workshops are shared. The four Memorandums of Understanding on Science and Technology Cooperation are very similar in their terms to the treaties but their non-legally binding nature means that they act as an umbrella under which cooperation can be fostered, rather than requiring a specific funded program as with the treaties. (8) The Science and Technology agreements have been very successful in providing seed funding for collaboration between Australian and overseas scientists. In many cases the agreements have given access to facilities and analytical equipment not available in Australia and which would have been prohibitively expensive for Australia to acquire. Several hundred collaborative projects have been supported since the first agreement was signed in 1968. The agreements have contributed significantly to building links between Australia and the partner countries in Science and Technology research, thus improving Australia's capabilities in a wide range of disciplines. (9) Twenty seven staff are employed in the Australian Space Office: Executive Director, SES level 3; Executive Assistant; Deputy Executive Director, SES level 1; Steno Secretary, ASO 2. Projects: Director, Engineer class 5. Policy Coordination: Director, ASO 8; A/Director ASO 7; A/Director ASO 7, ASO 5, ASO 4, ASO 4. Program Assessment and Planning: Director, Engineer class 5, ASO 6. Program Analysis: Director, Engineer class 5, ASO 6. Administration and Finance (See Note 1): Director, ASO 8, ASO 6, ASO 6, ASO 6, ASO 5, ASO 3, ASO 3, Senior Technical Officer. Canberra Deep Space Communications Centre (See Note 1): Director, Engineer class 5, Engineer class 4, Engineer class 4; Senior Technical Officer. Note 1. These staff are funded by NASA to manage NASA tracking stations in Australia. (Question No. 1225) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, upon notice, on 29 September 1988: (1) What are the staffing levels of the Innovation Centre in Launceston, Tasmania. (2) What activities has the Centre been involved in since its inception. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) From the date of opening in October 1986 until January 1988 the Centre had a staff of two; manager and secretarial/business planning assistant. From 4 January 1988 to current date, the Centre had a staff of three; manager, project supervisor and secretarial assistant. From April 1987 to August 1987; one additional staff member was utilised as a project manager on Business Plan preparation activities. (2) Assistance to inventors; 82 clients in 1987/88 Assistance to companies; Business &Strategic Planning Assistance to Government Departments; Education &Products Development Assistance to academic institutions; Fee paying student survey and industry interaction projects Assistance in Research &Development projects As at 30 June 1988 seven inventions with good market potential had been identified. Of these, four licensing agreements had been signed and heads of agreement had been reached for the licensing of two others. (Question No. 1234) Dr Klugman asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 29 September 1988: Is it necessary for the (a) Governor-General and (b) Australian Monarch to be an Australian citizen. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) No, although the Governor-General is required to take an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty The Queen. (b) No.