Tuesday, 8 November 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a courtesy, I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General, Mr Bowen, is absent from Question Time today. He is representing the Government in farewelling the President of Korea. Questions normally addressed to Mr Bowen as Attorney-General should be directed to the Minister for the Arts and Territories, Mr Holding. Questions concerning the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio should today be addressed to the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon medallists and officials from the Olympic and Paralympic teams which represented our country in Seoul. On behalf of the House, I offer congratulations to both Olympic teams and extend a very warm welcome to those who are able to be present today. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr SINCLAIR —I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: Why did he, in response to a question yesterday with respect to advice to his office on or about 26 October regarding additional financial support by the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) for poker machines for the Woden Town Club, reply that he was totally opposed to the club being given grant moneys and would not give a poker machine club one cent, when he had been advised by the ADC briefing on or about 26 May of the $300,000 guaranteed by the ADC to the club for poker machine finance and, indeed, had personally sent a representative and congratulations when the club opened on 3 June, by which time the poker machines, or some of them, had been installed? Mr HAND —It seems that some people have difficulty in understanding the difference between a grant and a loan. Under legislation set up by, I point out, the Liberal-National Party Government, one of the functions of the ADC is to engage in business enterprises. I think that is widely understood by most honourable members on the other side of the House. The brief that I referred to yesterday dealt with information concerning a grant and a loan which occurred in 1986. It referred also to a loan of $75,000 which occurred in the same period. I also referred to the fact that, under delegation of the General Manager, a grant of $10,000 had been provided on 25 August 1987 and an additional guarantee of $43,000 to enable the club to meet increased renovation costs had been agreed to. An application for support in the form of a $300,000 bank loan was made. Authority was given to the General Manager to exercise certain functions, under delegation, regarding a bank loan guarantee. My position on that issue became clear when, as Minister, I had drawn to my attention the fact that there were attempts to transfer a loan arrangement into a grant. My position stays the same. In my view, there will be no grant moneys given to assist in the operation of a club when people are living in appalling conditions-in shacks and in the dirt. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Will the Treasurer inform the House of the current strength of the Australian economy and the steps that the Government has taken to ensure that Australia continues to expand its productive base while curbing the growth in demand? Mr KEATING —The economy is currently showing considerable strength. The Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd job vacancy series in October rose by 4.1 per cent and was 21 per cent higher than a year earlier. Employment has grown by 315,000 jobs in the year to September, which is an increase of 4.4 per cent. The trend level of unemployment has fallen to 6.9 per cent, compared with 8 per cent 12 months earlier. This strength is coming from rapid growth in private investment and expanding exports. Importantly, it is not coming from private consumption or from public demand. Indeed, retail sales fell by 0.7 per cent in August, following a fall of 2 per cent in July, and public spending will fall again in 1988-89. The Budget forecast of business investment was for an increase of 12 per cent in 1988-89 following an increase of 10 per cent last year. Industry surveys for the September quarter show that a major re-equipment and capacity expansion is under way in manufacturing. Investment in the services sector is also very strong. Investment in residential housing has increased rapidly, growing by 11.4 per cent last year, and will grow by 12 per cent or more this year. Subdued private consumption, declining public demand, strong private investment and expanding exports have not come about by accident. We have reduced the net public sector borrowing requirement to zero through cutting outlays and giving the private sector something to allocate. We have made our trade sector highly competitive through a sensible wages policy and a market determined exchange rate, and also because we have been willing to use monetary policy in its proper balancing role. After the October stock market crash, monetary policy was eased to help the liquidity of the financial system and to maintain confidence. Other countries took similar steps. In the June quarter monetary policy was tightened as the economy weathered the crash and started to pick up speed. The Government responded more rapidly than governments of other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. Since then the Government has not stood in the way of market moves to lift interest rates. The market has been responding to the general strength of the economy along with a higher than expected consumer price index and a temporary shortfall in export receipts brought about by the diminished supply of some rural exports. In this way, monetary policy has tightened further and the Government has complied in this tightening because it would be foolhardy to allow an already strong economy to run ahead even faster. If we are to build the productive base that we need to permanently repair our trading balance, we have to proceed at a sustainable pace. In this way growth will not only be maintained this year but we will have the basis for further growth next year. We are now in the very enviable position of having to manage strength, and that strength is beginning to flow right through the economy. Employment growth has been exceptionally strong-the participation rate is up, boosting the income of individual households in a major way; real household disposable income is likely to grow by something closer to 4 per cent than to the 3 per cent contained in the Budget forecast; incomes are up because of strong employment growth; and high farm incomes and real wages will also increase this year. The Government will continue with its policy framework because it is working and because it is delivering benefits. We will continue to stop demand running too rapidly by keeping public spending tight and also keeping monetary policy appropriately tight. We will continue to keep the economy competitive while we boost our productive capacity through strong investment growth. In short, we will make sure that we have a solid basis to boost household disposable income further next year through a properly structured wage-tax deal which will cut inflation and deliver the benefits of the sharp reduction in the size of the Commonwealth government that we have achieved to date. Mr MILES —Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of the letter forwarded by Mr Gary Foley to his immediate predecessor, the present Minister for the Arts and Territories, demanding that he undertake a royal commission into the administration of Aboriginal affairs? Did Mr Foley write in his capacity as Director of the Aboriginal Arts Board of the Australia Council? Is it a fact that during the period of Mr Foley's directorship a substantial number of Aboriginal artworks cleared by the Australia Council were found to be missing? Did the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs respond to Mr Foley's request? If so, what was the nature of his reply? Have any investigations been conducted into the matters raised by Mr Foley at the time? If so, what was the outcome of those investigations and, if not, will the Minister refer the matter to the inquiries he set up yesterday? Mr HAND —Naturally, as it is some time ago, I am unaware of the events to which the honourable member refers. He suggests in the last part of his question that these matters be referred to an inquiry, and I will be doing that. I said yesterday in answer to a question in the House-I do not know whether the honourable member was back then-that I had heard part of Mr Foley's comments, and in fact Mr Foley contacted my office last night. I have arranged to meet with him on Thursday. He will then arrange with me to provide me with evidence, if he so wishes, and I will have no difficulty in passing it on to the relevant body. Dr CHARLESWORTH —Madam Speaker, it is lovely to see you back in the chair. My question, to the Minister for Community Services and Health, relates to the proposal of the Australian Medical Association (AMA) for a new fee structure for general practitioners (GPs). Can the Minister inform the House of the outcome of discussions between the Government and the Australian Medical Association about the new fee schedule? Dr BLEWETT —I regret to inform honourable members that the AMA has rejected the Government's quite generous offer to develop jointly a new fee for GPs. Let me make quite clear what I have offered the AMA, because there is some distortion in some of the comments it has made. I offered to set up a working party of the Government and the medical profession to develop jointly the AMA proposal when I met with the AMA and other medical groups last Tuesday. I undertook to ensure that the working party's deliberations were completed expeditiously and that, depending on the successful outcome of those discussions, consideration would then be given to the fee levels. The offer was conditional upon the AMA also showing some good faith in return, some goodwill, by requesting that the few doctors who had decided to implement the AMA structure continued charging under the existing system until the completion of the working party's discussions. In other words, in return for the offer made by the Government, in good faith, we requested some good faith on the part of the AMA. The AMA delegates with whom I discussed this issue did not reject that out of hand, but by the time they got back to their executive, the proposal was rejected. Naturally, I am disappointed by the intractability of the AMA on this important issue. I am also more disappointed that the AMA has now resorted to untruths in an attempt to conceal its stubborn attitude on this issue. Indeed, the poverty of the AMA's case can now be seen in the dishonesty of the arguments it is presenting. Let me refer to three arguments which appeared in the Canberra Times this morning. An article in today's issue of the Canberra Times quotes the AMA's director of communications, Mr Mason, as saying that I had had since 14 September to talk to the AMA about delaying implementation of its proposal. Of course, that is true. That is why on 15 September, and repeatedly since then, I have invited the AMA to talk to the Government before attempting to introduce its fee proposals. But it took the AMA until 27 October, six weeks after it announced its proposed structure, to accept that invitation. Even then it only agreed to talk on 1 November, that is, the day of implementation. That deals with that tale. The second of the points made in the article was that I am opposing the principle of a content-based system. I have never opposed the principle of a content-based system. I have rightly challenged some of the details of the AMA proposal. The Government finds the fee level unacceptable. At that meeting with the AMA there were representatives of other parts of the medical profession. They know that statement of mine to be true and what has been published by the AMA to be untrue. At that meeting and beforehand I indicated that I did not oppose the principle, even though we had concerns about some of the details. In the same article the AMA President, Dr Phillips, stated that my failure to endorse the AMA proposal is contradictory to my support of the Canadian health system. It is true that I find much to admire in the Canadian health system. I am extraordinarily glad that the AMA now seems to have a new-found enthusiasm for the Canadian health system. One of the most attractive features of the Canadian health system is that it has effective provisions which prevent doctors from charging above the schedule fee. I welcome the AMA's enthusiasm for such a system. Of course, the AMA's proposed fee structure bears little relationship to the Canadian system. It has simply copied those aspects of the system that it likes, rejected all the others and neglected entirely issues of patient and government accountability. That is why the great majority of general practitioners in this country have rejected the AMA proposals. Mr TUCKEY —I refer the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to the 1987 directors' report of Aboriginal Arts Australia Ltd, formerly Inada Holdings, which was formed by Mr Perkins with the aid of the then Minister to forcibly acquire the restructured Aboriginal business, Treka. The report shows that Aboriginal Arts Australia Ltd had been in receipt of over $2m worth of Federal Government assistance through the Aboriginal Development Commission during the preceding two years. Under the heading `results' the report states that the net result of operations after applicable income tax credit and extraordinary items was a loss of $71,150. As the tax credit referred to achieved by the company being granted tax exempt status was $173,000, this takes that actual loss for that year to $244,150. Mr Martin —Put it on notice. Mr TUCKEY —I am coming to the question. The directors also stated: The trading results for the year were most satisfactory compared to the prior years. Mr Mountford —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The questioner is providing information rather than seeking information. Under the Standing Orders I believe his question is out of order. Madam SPEAKER —I agree with the honourable member for Banks that the preamble was far too long. The honourable member for O'Connor will now put the question without any further preamble. Mr TUCKEY —I ask the Minister: Do the Government grants form part of the profit and loss statement? Will this independent company and the machinations involved in its creation be part of the Government's proposed inquiries? Mr HAND —I think the honourable member for O'Connor would agree that the question is fairly lengthy and contains a number of facts which, for his benefit, I would want to give correct answers to. I will do that. The answer to the question, `Will it be referred?' is yes. I have already been approached by people who were involved in that particular exercise in that period within the arts area. Again, I was approached yesterday by one of the people involved, whom I will be seeing on Thursday. The honourable member can be assured the matter has been raised with me and, like every other matter, it will be referred. Ms McHUGH —My question is for the Minister for Employment and Education Services. I ask: As today we are celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Women's Bureau can the Minister advise the House of recent gains made by women in the areas of education, employment and training? Mr DUNCAN —I thank the honourable member for Phillip for her question. Every member of the House knows the keen interest she takes in this particular matter. It is, of course, true that this is the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Women's Bureau, which was established in 1963. As such, I would expect that all members of the House would join me in congratulating the Bureau on the fine work it has done since it was established 25 years ago. Of course, since that time the Bureau has received support in its work from governments of all persuasions. This Government has been particularly supportive of the thrust of the Bureau's work. Under this Government major advances have been made on the part of women in the area of employment, education and training. For example, it is true that, while year 12 retention rates overall have gone up substantially, the lift in the retention rates for young women has been more substantial than for young men. They went up from 43.9 per cent in 1983 to 57 per cent in 1987-a quite remarkable achievement in anybody's terms. It is also true that the unemployment rate for women was 7.6 per cent in September 1988, which was higher by one percentage point than the rate for men at 6.6 per cent. But it needs to be remembered that in 1983-84 the unemployment rate for women was 2.5 percentage points higher than the rate for men. In addition, the current unemployment rate reflects strong growth in the labour force since 1983 and conceals quite outstanding gains that have been made by women. Women have been the major beneficiary of the massive job growth that has occurred under this Administration. Fifty-eight per cent of all new jobs have gone to women. Female job growth has averaged around 4.5 per cent annually compared with only 1.6 per cent under the Fraser-Howard Administration. The proportion of women aged 15 years and over in the labour force has risen by about 5.5 percentage points since April 1983. Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 62, which I know has been deleted but has again been referred to the Procedure Committee, there has been a requirement that Ministers and others in this place do not read speeches. This is about the fifth time today that a Minister has found it necessary to read in close detail the answer to what is supposedly a question without notice. I put to you, Madam Speaker, as a point of order that it should be obligatory for Ministers to be able to respond on matters within their portfolios without detailed reference to minutes which they claim are confidential, inevitably, when we ask for them to be tabled. I suggest to you that they should be answered without reference to the very extensive notes to which they all seem to be referring. Madam SPEAKER —I imagine that the Procedure Committee eventually will bring back to the House a recommendation on the replacement of standing order 66. Mr DUNCAN —I can assure the right honourable member that I do not need any notes to talk on this matter. As honourable members know, I was the person who, in 1975 or 1976, introduced the very first sex discrimination legislation in this nation. I was the person who introduced the administration thereof, et cetera, et cetera. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DUNCAN —The honourable member is still smarting over the fact that I also introduced some legislation to make it a criminal offence to commit rape in marriage. He would know a bit about that. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw that comment. Mr DUNCAN —I withdraw, Madam Speaker. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr DUNCAN —`I withdraw', I said. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister has withdrawn the comment. He will not go down that path again. Opposition members-Name him! Madam SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members will notice that the Chair is on her feet. The Minister will be well aware that the Chair has made it very clear to this House that she will tolerate no personal reflections on members. The Minister has withdrawn the comment. He will not go down that path again. I suggest that he draw his answer to a close. Mr DUNCAN —I conclude by simply saying that a great deal has been achieved. More still needs to be done. This Government will continue to do so. Mr HUNT —I refer the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to the application by the Townsville Aboriginal and Islander Media Association for the Townsville FM licence. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that the Association is the sole applicant for the licence? Is it also a fact that this is because other commercial interests claim that the station is not commercially viable and that the local AM stations lost $1m last year? Has the Townsville Aboriginal and Islander Media Association applied for a $2m initial grant to finance its proposal, of which $900,000 is to be paid to the Government for the licence? Why does the Minister permit such expenditure on such an unbusinesslike proposal when Aboriginal people urgently require better housing, better living conditions, better health and better educational opportunities for their children? Mr HAND —I have some knowledge of the application by that body and the details behind it. The most recent involvement I think it has had with this question is discussions with the Aboriginal Development Commission. The honourable member will know the background of the ADC and what it stands for. For the information of the House-this goes to the honourable member's question-I would like to quote one of my predecessors. This is a matter that each and every one of us has had to confront. During a debate on 22 May 1985, in answering an interjection from the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, Mr Wilson said: The Aboriginal Development Commission is a unique statutory corporation. Under the legislation its commissioners are given some of the broadest powers provided by any statute establishing a statutory corporation. The ministerial rights of control and direction are most severely limited. The honourable member would agree? The question he asked again goes to financial arrangements. I am aware that a delegation of this organisation was here, I think last week, or at the time of the last meeting of the ADC. I will seek for the honourable member information and a brief from the ADC. I am quite sure that the ADC will brief the honourable member, as it did yesterday on another question that he raised with me. I share his view of the living conditions of Aboriginal people in this country. That is what I am about improving. Mr COURTICE —The Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business would be aware of the reissue of a plastic $10 banknote. Would he provide the House with information about the technology developed to enable provision of banknotes made of plastic and their export potential? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for Hinkler for his question. I think honourable members are quite interested in the development of the $10 note. It has been a long time coming, but we think it has very considerable export potential. When I took samples of the $10 note to the United States and Japan there was real interest for future development from corporations there. The use of the holographic technique on a diffraction grating is significantly better-- Madam SPEAKER —Are you going to give us each a sample? Mr BARRY JONES —I will have to ask the Treasurer about that; he is responsible for the note issue. We have a high quality project which is essentially dependent on extremely sophisticated and complex mathematics. When the last $10 note was produced, we found that it was reproducible photographically and, of course, with the use of more sophisticated techniques in colour reproduction, it was comparatively easy to run off very high quality forgeries. We have to be very careful about making any kind of absolute statement that cannot be contradicted but, as far as we can tell, this note seems to be forgery proof. First of all, there is a diffraction grating and a formula which is read into the metallicised picture of Captain Cook, which is based on something very complex, but a concept with which the Opposition ought to be familiar, called `catastrophe theory'. It is very complex mathematics, involving a series of differential equations where all the solutions come together at one point. The one point will be the brightest spot, on the image. Just think of the implications, not only for banknotes. We know that the Reserve Bank of Australia has the monopoly on it for Australia, but what we are interested in is the economic potential for making banknotes in all the other major countries of the world, and the potential for all sorts of legal documents that involve security checks, for travellers cheques, for credit cards, and so on. We ought to be very proud of the effort of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. There is no doubt that in this very important area it is quite legitimately regarded as the world leader. Mr PRATT —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. He will be aware of the concern of decent Australian families over the distribution out of Canberra of X-rated mail order pornographic videos. Given that the Opposition has already indicated it will support any Government action which moves against the distribution of these videos, what steps will the Government take to stamp out this smut and the industry that supports this attack on our society? Mr HAWKE —The Attorney-General this morning put to the Caucus a proposal that X-rated videos in the Australian Capital Territory be banned by way of regulation. The Caucus, in consideration of that proposal from the Deputy Prime Minister, expressed its concern about the ongoing confusion over the contents of X-rated and R-rated videos in the community, a confusion of which I know the honourable member will be aware. Opposition members-Oh! Mr HAWKE —At least the Government has a working party, which is more than the Opposition could get on the gold tax. Caucus has determined that a working party be formed to examine means by which a reduction in the level of violence in all categories of publicly available videos, especially the R-rated category, will be brought about. Once the recommendations of this working party have been received, Caucus will be in a position to decide upon an appropriate course of action with regard to this issue. Ms CRAWFORD —I address my question to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. Is the Minister aware of a recent report in the Brisbane Courier-Mail about a Defence Force family whose twin sons, aged five, were not permitted to attend school in Queensland even though they had attended two years of preschool and seven months of preparatory school at their father's previous posting in Victoria? Can the Minister say what steps she has taken to help this family? What can be done to help Defence Force families with school age children as they move between different State education systems? Mrs KELLY —I thank the honourable member for her question. I did see the story to which she refers and, in fact, the case was familiar to me. I learned of that family's case a few months ago, and on 6 October I wrote to Mrs Christie, to my colleague the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, telling him about the situation, to the south-east Queensland delegate of the National Consultative Group of Service Spouses and to the Queensland Minister for education. In the letter, I highlighted to them the problem that this family faced. Of course their problems are typical of the problems that many Defence Force families face-in fact, mobile families face-as they travel around Australia, with the different State education systems. The issue has been of great concern to me during my time in the portfolio and it is an area upon which I have decided to take action. So on 21 October I submitted a report to the Australian Education Council (AEC) meeting in Melbourne. The report entitled Some examples of educational disadvantage experienced by children of Service families is a collection of case histories gathered from defence families around Australia and, of course, the case of the Christie twins was only one example covered in the report. The report is available if anyone would like a copy of it. I am delighted with the results of that meeting. The Australian Education Council considered mobility issues at its meeting on 21 October and passed a resolution, which I quote to the House: to implement practical ways to eliminate or minimise the effect of unnecessary differences between school systems. One of the `practical ways' will be to give `sympathetic consideration' to the `requirements of students moving between systems with different enrolment policies'. Defence Force families are obviously aware of the differences between State education systems, and they know that those problems cannot be ironed out overnight, but Minister Dawkins has obviously taken this issue to heart, and I thank him on behalf of Defence Force families and other mobile families for his work in this matter. I should add that the AEC has also resolved to consider the adoption of student information portfolios, which is an initiative of mine which has been introduced on a pilot basis with children of Defence Force families throughout Australia. The portfolio eases the transition of students between schools by giving them a portable record of their achievements, their skills, their interests and their educational history. I regret that we cannot solve this problem overnight, but I give the honourable member and her constituents and Defence Force constituents throughout Australia a commitment that this is an issue which the Government is concerned about and cares about, and is working towards resolving. Mr SHIPTON —Madam Speaker-- Government members interjecting- Mr SHIPTON —Don't worry, Bob; everything is under control. I have still got the numbers, mate. There is no truth in the rumour that I just drink Swan Light, Madam Speaker. My question is addressed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Did the Minister's predecessor, the present Minister for the Arts and Territories, stop funding to the National Aboriginal and Islander Health Organisation (NAIHO) because of malpractices and financial abuse? Has the Minister recommenced funding to that organisation; and if so, on what grounds? Was his predecessor wrong in stopping such funding? In any event, will the Minister have NAIHO investigated by the Auditor-General and the inquiries that the Government has established? Mr HAND —I shall try to answer the questions in the order they were asked. Yes, there was an internal inquiry conducted into matters concerning the funding arrangements for NAIHO by my predecessor; and funding did cease. Since that period, there has been a restructuring of the body known as NAIHO. Thirdly, I have met with representatives of that body and have discussed funding arrangements for the future. I am yet to make a decision. I point out that a national inquiry is being conducted by both the States and the Commonwealth regarding future health care policy for Aboriginal people; and that body will be reporting back in February. Because of the restructuring I had hoped to have discussions with representatives from NAIHO, if it could be worked out with them, about funding arrangements in December. I assure the honourable member that the particular matter he raised in terms of the report will be provided to those people who are undertaking the investigations. Ms JAKOBSEN —Can the Minister for Industrial Relations inform the House of the opportunities that may arise to improve the position of women in the workplace through award restructuring? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for her question. As honourable members know, award restructuring is aimed at making Australian industry more efficient and more competitive both at home and overseas. It also aims to shape employment opportunities and to improve the quality of life for all Australian employees, including women. Along with other Government initiatives to break down discriminatory barriers to give women a better deal, award restructuring will enable industry to open up more career paths and wider skilling opportunities for women. As I mentioned earlier, the Government has made considerable headway since 1983, not only because of the increase of 1.1 million jobs, but also because, within that increase, employment for some 600,000 women has been provided. It is worth noting, Madam Speaker, that there are twice as many women in the work force today as there were 40 years ago. Approximately 50 per cent of the female population is now in the work force. However, there are still barriers that prevent women from participating equally. One of those barriers is job segregation, the effect of which is that approximately two-thirds of women continue to be employed in three occupational areas: the clerical area, the sales area and the service area. There is unequal access to training and career opportunities for women in the work force. Finally, lower pay is available to women in the work force. The average weekly earnings of adult women in full time employment in the work force is some 18 per cent less than that available to men. Award restructuring can be used to redress these inequalities by removing the barriers that currently block the development of career structures and awards; by focusing attention on skill formation, which would mean increased access to training for all workers; by adjusting rates of pay on the basis of new skills; and by improving the organisation of work through job design which makes work satisfying, healthier and safer. Let us turn to the textiles, clothing and footwear industry as an example. Of the 110,000 workers in that industry, two out of three are women. Those women occupy mainly unskilled and semi-skilled jobs. I note the specific interest in this area of the honourable member for Cowan and the effort that she has put into this effort in the past. There are award restructuring plans for the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. Under those proposals, the many job classifications in the industry are to be replaced by a small number of clearly defined job skill areas. That means that the skill and training needs for these levels will be analysed and appropriate plans will be drawn up. In the drawing up of those plans there will be involvement of the employees themselves. The opportunities created for women are clear: there will be more career flexibility and potential, better access to training, more interesting and varied jobs and higher pay. I conclude on the note that award restructuring enables the talents of women workers to be fully used and rewarded and, when that happens, the economy as a whole will gain. Mr ADERMANN —My question, which is addressed to the Prime Minister, follows the answer that he gave to my colleague the honourable member for Adelaide. I note that the Prime Minister said that there will be a working party, although there has already been a Senate inquiry and a joint parliamentary inquiry, into video pornography. How long will the States that have banned the sale and hire of X-rated videos continue to be frustrated because these videos and catalogues advertising them can legally be sent through the mail from the Australian Capital Territory, Australia's porn capital? Will the Government act to support those States that are being undermined, as was originally recommended by the first Senate inquiry so long ago? Mr HAWKE —I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave earlier. Mr CUNNINGHAM —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts and Territories. I ask whether the former Secretary of the Aboriginal Arts Board, speaking recently in Townsville, stated: The Aboriginal Arts Board is in chaos today. It is directly the result of interference by Clyde Holding in the Aboriginal Arts Board. Is it also true that on this occasion he referred to a scam in the Aboriginal Arts Board of which the Minister was a part? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's question is out of order as it is not within the Minister's portfolio responsibility. Mr Holding —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. The question was directed to me in respect of the Aboriginal Arts Board, which is within the province of my portfolio as Minister for the Arts and Territories. As such, any question about an allegation of chaos is clearly in order. Madam SPEAKER —I accept what the Minister says, if it was directed towards the portfolio he now maintains and not the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio. Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. On this occasion there has been a blatant breach of the rules associated with questions without notice. In fact, a direct signal was given to the Government Whip, who was brought down to the table for his riding instructions. Madam Speaker, as discretion was not followed, you should rule the question out of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member does not have a point of order. Will the honourable member for McMillan repeat his question? There is a confusion because the Minister is the previous Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Mr CUNNINGHAM —That was the very reason I paused before I asked the question-until the noise on the other side of the House quietened so that you, Madam Speaker, could hear the question. My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts and Territories. I ask the Minister whether the former Secretary of the Aboriginal Arts Board stated recently in Townsville: The Aboriginal Arts Board is in chaos today. It is directly the result of interference by Clyde Holding in the Aboriginal Arts Board. Is it also true that on this occasion the former Secretary referred to a scam in the Aboriginal Arts Board of which the Minister was a part? Madam SPEAKER —The question is in order; the Minister may answer. Mr HOLDING —I must say that I find it fascinating that, when all sorts of questions are being asked of my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and when a question is asked of me as the former Minister which suggests my involvement in a scam, there is an attempt by members of the Opposition to prevent that question being asked. Let us look at the material. What is occurring in this House is a matter of some concern to any fair-minded Australian. When any person makes any sort of allegation, whether it is true or false, if it happens to suit the political objectives of people on the Opposition side they will pick it up and run with it as if it were true and then direct questions suggesting all kinds of improprieties towards both the Minister and public servants who have served many portfolios well. Let us deal with the facts. The answer to the first part of the question is yes. Mr Foley, a former Secretary of the Aboriginal Arts Board, made both those statements on the occasion of a speech to Aboriginal and Islander people in Townsville. Mr Tuckey —Were you there? Mr HOLDING —I have a copy of the text of that speech and I will be happy to make it available to the honourable gentleman. Mr Foley seems to have been adopted by the Opposition as some sort of authority. On this occasion Mr Foley also expressed his concern that his objective of turning the Townsville festival for Islander people into a major demonstration against the Bicentenary, to embarrass the Government and white people in Australia, had failed. When it comes to making allegations of this kind, it must be remembered that any person can make an allegation, but the credibility of that allegation depends on the credibility of the person making it. Mr Foley seems to have forgotten that. On this occasion he was more than hypocritical because, at the same time as he was calling on Aboriginal people around Australia to oppose all aspects of the Bicentenary, he was an applicant for a grant to the tune of $346,000 on a matter of personal concern to him-an item which was rejected out of hand and laughed out of court by the Aboriginal people who were chosen to advise on the Bicentenary, many of whom are under attack today by members of the Opposition. Let us deal with the second aspect of the question-that of the alleged scam. Mr Foley has made that allegation on a number of occasions and it relates to a perception that he had-- Mr Beale —Look at Barry; he's not listening to the answer. He's asleep. Mr HOLDING —It is about time you listened to the answer. It goes back to October of 1985, or around that period, when Mr Foley came with the then President of the Aboriginal Arts Board to suggest that a public servant who had been appointed to the company known as Inada Holdings was involved in fraudulent practices. The allegations were essentially hearsay, but he said that he had it on good authority, he had a legal opinion, and he also had affidavits to support that information. I said that on that basis we would investigate it, and would he please provide the material. The matter was investigated on the basis of the hearsay allegations because the material was never produced. I table for the information of honourable members the letter sent to the President of the Aboriginal Arts Board indicating that if allegations of this kind were to be made, if there was to be any kind of substantive inquiry, there had to be proper material upon which to base those allegations. Having watched the processes of this House over the last two days, I must say that what is occurring to my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is precisely the same situation. People make an allegation but there is no written or documented proof, and he is expected to deal with it simply because the allegation is made. I table the document which indicates to the House that I sought that information from Mr Foley. It has never been forthcoming, despite the fact that he was asked. That has not stopped him elaborating on this matter even further. When he first raised it it was raised on the basis-and it was perfectly true-that I had had very little contact with the person who was appointed to this position, and it was also raised on the basis that I had had no part in his appointment. Yet on the Pru Goward Morning Show on Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) radio yesterday, Mr Foley indicated again-it is basically the same allegation-that I had been involved in fraudulent activities. He alleged corruption and said I had appointed this person, who by now had become in Mr Foley's mind a personal friend of mine. That was the substance of the allegation. It is the first time that allegation of corruption has been made in that way. Mr Blunt —This should be a personal explanation. Mr HOLDING —The Opposition has been asking my colleague all sorts of questions. I am dealing with a serious allegation of corruption raised yesterday in the House and led by the honourable member for Menzies, who used this allegation of corruption as the basis for a major motion. But when I come to deal with this matter in a way that I think should interest honourable members, they do not want to hear about it. Why do they not want to hear about it? The person they were quoting, the person they were prepared to adopt yesterday as their authority when he resigned from the Aboriginal Arts Board, made at that time a statement in similar terms condemning this Government. When it was put to the then shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bradfield, that there was some kind of loss involved, what was his response? He said, quite frankly, that he was not sorry to see Mr Foley resign. He referred to his outlandish statements and then went on to say, quite accurately, `I cannot see how that person can be a public servant'. It is a serious matter when any person is subject to smears and slander, and Mr Foley has shown himself to be an expert in that. I do not mind saying that because following a statement made on ABC radio yesterday I contacted the ABC and said clearly that the matters were defamatory and I would be taking them up. Within an hour and a half I received the following message from the ABC as the basis of a settlement: On the ABC Pru Goward Show and the 9 a.m. ABC News of Monday, 7 November, 1988 in the course of an interview, Mr Gary Foley claimed that the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Clyde Holding, had suppressed allegations of corruption within the administration of Aboriginal arts when he was the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and had also appointed a personal friend to a body concerned with Aboriginal affairs. That is the heart of the allegation which was termed yesterday as corruption. The ABC response is simply this: There is no evidence to support these claims and the ABC retracts the claims and apologises to Mr Holding for any embarrassment that may have been caused to him. The costs which the ABC has paid will be donated to local Canberra charities. If there is a lesson to be learned from this matter, it is simply this: this House and the processes that exist in the community to protect individual reputations are being bandied around on a daily basis. I do not usually waste time replying to Mr Foley but when he talks about brainless black bureaucrats, abusing Aboriginal people who are serving the people of Australia well and nobly, as far as I am concerned they deserve protection just as do those non-Aboriginal public servants who have tried to promote the progress of Aboriginal people in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. We have seen in this House over the last few days an ordeal by slander. Any kind of allegation, no matter how foully based, without evidence, will be dragged in here on the basis that honourable members opposite hope that they may be able to pin it on a Minister. It is time that the Leader of the Opposition stood for some of the much vaunted principles of the rights of citizens that he talks about. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Employment and Education Services) —Madam Speaker, I seek to add to an answer I gave earlier today. Madam SPEAKER —Indulgence is given to the Minister. Mr DUNCAN —Earlier today in answer to a question I made a comment which I forthwith withdrew. I want to say to the House that it was made in the heat of the moment and I regret the fact that I made it. Madam SPEAKER —I grant the indulgence of the Chair to the Leader of the Opposition. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Whilst the Opposition welcomes the fact that the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan), clearly under instruction from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), has been rather more fulsome than formal in his withdrawal, I say to you, Madam Speaker, that in the view of the Opposition that is one of the more offensive remarks that we have had uttered in this House in recent years. It is our view that if it had been uttered by a member of the Opposition he would have been named. It is a great pity, Madam, with very great respect to you, that you did not take the opportunity to name him. While I am on my feet-- Mr Beazley —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order-- Mr HOWARD —Do you mind? You are making it worse. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister is taking a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr Beazley —My point of order is this: is it permissible, with indulgence, to reflect upon the Chair in the way in which the Leader of the Opposition clearly did when he suggested that if the comment had been made by a member of the Opposition you would have disciplined him? Madam SPEAKER —I note the point of order. Mr HOWARD —Madam Speaker, on the point of order: part of indulgence, particularly indulgence granted to leaders of parties, is to permit precisely those kinds of remarks. I do not regard the remarks that I made as being a reflection upon you; rather, I regard them as an honest expression of the concern that members on this side of the House have felt. Madam SPEAKER —I say to honourable members on both sides of the House that I immediately asked for a withdrawal of the offensive remark made by the Minister for Employment and Education Services. I believe I was correct in doing so. I did it swiftly. In recent days remarks have been made in this House that the Chair has seen fit to ignore because I thought they may have brought the House into further disrepute. I suggest to all honourable members that they now curb their tongues and give to the Chair the respect that this position is entitled to and is not getting. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to introduce a Bill for an Act to ban the sale and distribution of X-rated videos, and for related purposes. Leave not granted. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.34) —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition presenting forthwith a Bill for an Act to ban the sale and distribution of X-rated videos, and for related purposes. Madam Speaker, the Government-- Motion (by Mr Beazley) put: That the honourable member be not further heard. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— 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.Brown, Robert 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, PeterDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Sawford, R. W.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Sciacca, C.Grace, E. L. Scott JohnGriffiths, A. G. Scott, LesHand, G. L. Simmons, D. W.Harvey, E. R. Snow, J. H.Hawke, R. J. L. Snowdon, W. E.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Hollis, 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. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. 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. Sharp, J. R.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. L.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Taylor, W. L.Hewson, J. R. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Howard, J. W. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Darling, E. E. Cameron, D. M.Duffy, J. S. Woods, R. L.Dawkins, J. S. Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the motion seconded? Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(3.41) —I second the motion. Mr Deputy Speaker-- Motion (by Mr Beazley) put: That the honourable member be not further heard. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— 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.Brown, Robert 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, PeterDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Sawford, R. W.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Sciacca, C.Grace, E. L. Scott, JohnGriffiths, A. G. Scott, LesHand, G. L. Simmons, D. W.Harvey, E. R. Snow, J. H.Hawke, R. J. L. Snowdon, W. E.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Hollis, 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. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. 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. Sharp, J. R.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. L.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Taylor, W. L.Hewson, J. R. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Howard, J. W. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Darling, E. E. Cameron, D. M.Duffy, M. J. Woods, R. L.Dawkins, J. S. Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr BLUNT(Richmond) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Motion (by Mr Beazley) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— 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.Brown, Robert 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, PeterDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Sawford, R. W.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Sciacca, C.Grace, E. L. Scott, JohnGriffiths, A. G. Scott, LesHand, G. L. Simmons, D. W.Harvey, E. R. Snow, J. H.Hawke, R. J. L. Snowdon, W. E.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Hollis, 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. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. 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. Sharp, J. R.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. L.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Taylor, W. L.Hewson, J. R. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Howard, J. W. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Darling, E. E. Cameron, D. M.Duffy, J. S. Woods, R. L.Dawkins, J. S. Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— 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. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. 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. Sharp, J. R.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. L.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Taylor, W. L.Hewson, J. R. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Howard, J. W. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L. 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.Brown, Robert 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, PeterDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Sawford, R. W.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Sciacca, C.Grace, E. L. Scott, JohnGriffiths, A. G. Scott, LesHand, G. L. Simmons, D. W.Harvey, E. R. Snow, J. H.Hawke, R. J. L. Snowdon, W. E.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Hollis, 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 Cameron, D. M. Darling, E. E.Woods, R. L. Duffy, M. J.Katter, R. C. Dawkins, J. S. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —On 11 October last, after Question Time, my colleague the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), asked a question of Madam Speaker with respect to the broadcasting of the proceedings of Parliament. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall the question was about the decision by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to change the frequency band of the parliamentary broadcast, thus depriving much of regional and rural Australia of the right to listen to Parliament. Madam Speaker said that she would refer the question to the Joint Statutory Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings and she suggested that the trial period would continue for another fortnight from 11 October. This now being 8 November, I ask: Will you consult with Madam Speaker, ascertain the result of your consultations and advise the House of the nature of the Committee's recommendations? I shall only add that there is increasing concern among people in rural and regional Australia about the changing of the broadcasting arrangements; as such, it is a matter of some considerable public interest. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I understand that that matter was to be considered by the Joint Statutory Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings at its last meeting, a meeting which did not occur because of the unavailability of the Joint Chairmen, Madam Speaker and the President. I understand the matter will go before the Committee at its next meeting. I am not sure whether that meeting will be held next week or in the first week of the two-week sitting period. The matter is before the Committee. I think the Minister for Transport and Communications will make submissions to the Committee on the matter. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —For the information of honourable members I present statements on expenditure for July, August and September 1988, from the Advance to the Minister for Finance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's failure, in priorities and policies, to address the needs of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. 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 MILES(Braddon)(3.59) —Today we are at a stage in the administration of Aboriginal affairs which illustrates one of the most chaotic periods in that administration that this nation has ever seen. That is no better illustrated than by the fact that in the past six months there have been nine leading Aboriginal administrators sacked by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand)-eight from the Aboriginal Development Commission and the Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. That illustrates the extent of the chaos and confusion that reign within the Aboriginal affairs area. That is a great tragedy because, as most people would know and realise, the Aboriginal people are the most disadvantaged cultural group of this nation. If there is any administrative structure or any department that needs to have direction, that needs to be well planned and structured and needs to have clear goals and directions, it is the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. But today we are debating this matter of public importance because of the maladministration of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Today I want to concentrate on two major areas. The first is the maladministration, mismanagement and lack of accountability, inertia and low morale in the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio. Apart from that there are the policy directions that this Government has set for the administration of Aboriginal affairs. We, as an Opposition, believe that these policy directions are wrong. Quite apart from what has gone on over the last week-we have had many questions asked both here and in the other House-we, as an Opposition, believe that this Government's policy directions are unsatisfactory and will not bring about a clearer, better administration for Aboriginal affairs in this nation. This bicentennial year offered an opportunity for a real movement forward in the Aboriginal affairs area, but that has not been the case. It is interesting to look at an article in the Age last week by Michelle Grattan. She said: But the dreadful verdict, at the fag-end of party time, is hard to avoid. The opportunity has been wasted, indeed squandered. The year is ending in futility and farce. That is what one of the leading writers in this nation is saying about the stage that has been reached in the administration of Aboriginal affairs. Why the futility and the farce? Why, having gone through 10 months of this bicentennial year, have we ended up with a farce and chaos in this administrative area? As I have already said, the record in this area is chaotic. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) proposal, which was to bring about a complete change in the administrative arrangement of Aboriginal affairs, has already been postponed twice. It has been put off by the Minister because he did not plan the rearrangements of this administration adequately. He did not make the judgment at the start that he could bring that sort of administrative proposal into being. So he has had to put it off, doing so under the guise that the Opposition forced him to do it or that there was a need for more consultation. More recently we have had the case of Nardoola, which all honourable members are well aware of. I will come back to that a little later. We have had the case of the Oasis Hotel. The Charleville Housing Cooperative is another case at which we ought to have a good look. Recently we also had the Woden Town Club issue raised. We had the sacking of the Secretary to the Department just last week. Five inquiries are now being undertaken in the Aboriginal affairs area. Why do we have so many inquiries? It is because of the chaos and the Minister's handling of the Aboriginal affairs area. A Senate select committee was set up to try to ensure that the administrative arrangements which were being looked at by the Government-the ATSIC proposals-would give us some common ground; that the difficulties faced in the ATSIC proposal could be worked out; and that Aboriginal people could have a greater opportunity to make an input into the administrative arrangements of the Aboriginal affairs area. We find that when people put up different ideas to the Minister they are sacked. A second committee of inquiry-the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges-has come about because of the way in which this matter has been handled. It is to look at the question of privilege regarding people who have been giving evidence. We also have the three government inquiries which the Minister announced yesterday. Surely the fact that we have five inquiries illustrates how important this area is and how much chaos exists within the Aboriginal affairs area. The Government knows it and it is trying to stonewall with these three government inquiries-and Auditor-General's inquiry, an inquiry by a member of the Public Service Commission and an inquiry to be conducted by Mr Menzies in case something else comes out of the woodwork on the way through. All of these inquiries are virtually internal inquiries; they are not inquiries in which people will have privilege. The Government's approach in this area has been one of separate development of Aboriginals in Australia. That approach may have been appropriate at a certain stage in Australia's history. I say that because it serves to highlight at a particular time the disadvantages of Aboriginal people in this nation. It was necessary to develop a community awareness; it was necessary to look at it as a separate issue, a separate department and a separate bureaucracy so that the nation would understand and come to appreciate more fully the difficulties faced by Aboriginal people in this nation. I put it to the House that that era is long passed. The coalition recognises that Aboriginal people should be able to choose their traditional lifestyles or enter into more mainstream living within the Australian community. The coalition also recognises that the Government's policy and its focus in this area have led to isolation and could lead to a ghetto situation for many Aboriginal people. Separate development by the Government has led to a very impressionistic approach to its policy. Its policy is blurred. The Government, by setting agendas and moods, is not really addressing the hard issues of Aboriginal affairs. That is no better illustrated than by the cartoon in today's Australian, which really encapsulates the Government's mood. In this cartoon the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is shown sitting at his desk and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is shown sitting in a chair in the Prime Minister's office, with the Prime Minister saying: Crumbs, Gerry-I'da sworn our Aboriginal policies were vague enough to never hafta make a decision about anything! That describes very clearly that the Government's policies are so vague, so poorly organised, so poorly directed and so poorly worked. The Government's concept of separate development will not work and the structures adopted are ones that in the long term, because of these arrangements, will hinder the alleviation of disadvantage, the inefficiency, the cronyism and the deals within the Aboriginal affairs area. That is why we are debating this issue today. Only today the Minister indicated at a press conference that even the proposal to reorganise Aboriginal affairs would be modified. This Minister's proposal which, as he has said in earlier debates about this matter, is of great significance and importance to Australian people, will now be modified. In other words, the Government realises that its proposal is not adequate and it is backing off. There is no rationale for the ATSIC proposal and there is no evidence that if this new administrative structure were implemented it would prevent the Nardoolas occurring; that it would prevent the Woden Town Club issues arising; and that it would prevent the Oasis issue from coming to the forepoint. What about the missing funds in regard to Boomanulla Oval at Narrabundah? The Government's backing off is symptomatic of the vague and impressionistic approach that the Minister has adopted to Aboriginal affairs. Why has the Minister not given us any legal opinion on the preamble to the ATSIC proposal? It is an issue which raises the antecedent title of this nation and the issue of sovereignty, yet the Government and the Minister have failed to give us any policy direction in that matter. That muddled approach to their thinking is indicated in that latest report which was brought into the House just last week. People will remember a debate and a resolution on Aboriginal affairs which took place in this House only a few weeks ago. The coalition sought to insert in that resolution the words `in common with all other Australians'. When we got the interim report on the effectiveness of support services throughout Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island communities, we found the Department of Aboriginal Affairs saying exactly that: The determination was based on the recognition of the equal rights of Aboriginal people, along with other Australians, to determine their own future within the Australian community. We find that the Government does not really know where it is going in Aboriginal affairs. As a consequence of this Government's misdirected policy, its misdirected priorities and its interest only in superficial things, the administrative task-the hard area-has not been addressed. The Minister and the Department have not focused their attention on the key issues that affect Aboriginal people. Matters such as health, housing, education and unemployment have already been mentioned here today. The Government should be focusing on and giving attention to these areas. Let us just return to what happened with the Woden Town Club. The Minister knew about the proposal to purchase the poker machines. Why did it take five months for him to respond and to say that he would do something about it? In case after case we find that the Government has not attended to the issues which affect the people because it has been chasing hares, chasing issues which, for the Aboriginal people, mean very little. The Minister knows that the Aboriginals of this nation are faced with many issues. I appreciate that this area of administration is very complex and difficult. But we have had a situation in which the leading administrators in Aboriginal affairs have been sacked. The Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) commissioners who were sacked were not given any reasons for their sacking or any explanations as to why they were sacked. Last week, the Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs was sacked. The area of Aboriginal affairs has been allocated over $808m. Where is all that money going? Is it getting to the grass roots? Obviously it is not. The issues which we have raised in the Parliament over the last week or so illustrate so many instances where money is not getting to the people and is not being directed to those issues of priority for Aboriginal people. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAND(Melbourne-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(4.14) —This is the second day on which this debate has been attempted. It has to be said right from the outset that we have again heard a broad brush approach to matters dealing with Aboriginal affairs. We have heard slick, meaningless words. Some of the inferences are totally untrue. Again the Opposition is continuing the massive slur that it is trying to portray from that side of the House. For nearly two months now we have heard these slurs and innuendos being made about a whole range of individuals, designed purely to turn the non-Aboriginal community off the Aboriginal community. Let us analyse what the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) said. He talked about Nardoola-bought by the Opposition. When the Opposition was in government it set up the legislation for the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC), and the senator who has been slamming hell out of the ADC for the last four to five weeks congratulated the ADC on its report-the very report that he is attacking now. The employees of the ADC, the employees of my Department, and the Aboriginal community deserve better. They deserve better than what that lot has given them. I have said all along-and this is the first time I have had a chance to say it here-that I will investigate and have investigated every irregularity that is brought to my attention. We have set up a mechanism to do that, and I remind the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) of what he said once before. He said, `The Government will look at this and the Government will take action'. Mr N.A. Brown —On what issues? Mr HAND —On not needing a royal commission on a particular matter. In a speech in the House he said: There are obviously imperfections in the words of the Perth office of the Crown Solicitor's Office and the Government will take action. There was action. In this case, to use the honourable member's words, we are taking action. In terms of Nardoola, I will first address-- Mr N.A. Brown —You got a bit confused there, Gerry. Mr HAND —I am not confused; I am trying to make a point about what the honourable member did not do about royal commissions. I could go on about that, too. The questions that have been raised cover the years 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985. The Opposition talks about the protection of people. We had an inquiry into the ADC in 1984 and 1985. People appeared before that inquiry and gave evidence in camera. Now we have the spectacle of the Opposition wanting that information disclosed to gain cheap political points. People appeared before that inquiry knowing it was going to be in camera. Is that fair? Is it proper that people should come here before a parliamentary committee to disclose matters about certain issues under the protection of the Parliament, under the protection of the Committee, in camera, and then have this phony argument trotted out here that we should make it public? That is not fair. We have attempted to set up a series of mechanisms. Let us consider the number of inquiries that are taking place and scrape away the facade. Why was the Senate Select Committee on the Administration of Aboriginal Affairs set up? It was set up to delay the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) legislation, and everybody knows that is why the Opposition insisted on its establishment. The Opposition has not got the guts to go out and vote it down. That is what is wrong with that lot over there. Opposition members have not got the guts to go out and vote it down. I said on 10 December that I would give as much time as was required by Aboriginal people. I said that, if need be, we would extend the amount of time that was available. I have done that. I went back to those who requested that we go back. We sent back their changes and we came back and changed the ATSIC legislation. But the interesting thing about this mob of gooses over there, this commission over there, the people who want to do nothing-- Mr Miles —What about a commissioner for Palm Island? Mr HAND —I will come to the honourable member's policy. The Opposition's position goes something like this: we will delay it because it will never ever happen. But not one suggested change to legislation has come out of the Liberal and National parties-not one word, not one suggestion about how to change it. Why? Because Opposition members do not want the damned legislation. That is why, and they do not have the guts to get up and vote it down. These people opposite have one policy, and that is to mainstream Aboriginal affairs and hand them back to the States-hand them back to the States that have crucified and slaughtered Aboriginal people since the States first came into existence. Mr Andrew —Nonsense. Mr HAND —The honourable member knows that is right, and the only hope the Aboriginal people have is this Federal Parliament. We cannot have the States running a whole series of policies. That will not work. But that is the Opposition's policy. Its policy is to hand Aboriginal affairs back to the States and mainstream them. That is why this bloke, the honourable member for Braddon, went overseas. Having launched his policy, he ran away. I think it is the only Opposition policy launch that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has not turned up to. I was not there, but I am told that is true. The honourable member for Braddon shot off overseas, out of the road. His Leader then went up to the Pitjantjatjara people and they just about ran him off their land. They called him a little boy. If Opposition members had not gone up there to get their photo taken with some Aboriginal people but had sat down with the people and said, `Tell us what is wrong', they might have got a different response. But they went up there to exploit a situation and they came a gutser. That is what happened in Ernabella. Yet these people opposite talk about what they did. I have said here before that there are problems that need addressing, and Aboriginal people know there are problems that need addressing. But those opposite do not want to help fix those problems. I do not know how many times I have said to the honourable member for Braddon, `Why don't we try to work on these things together?' We could work together on the parliamentary Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. We could come up with solutions about town camps, legal aid and services to Aboriginal people. I know that; I was chairman of that Committee. We could sit down and talk about it. God help me, I shared a tent with the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron). It was a risk-I lasted only one night-but that committee had some worthwhile results. That was applauded by Aboriginal people, and we worked together. But we cannot work with the honourable member for Braddon because he does not want that to happen. This person produces policies which he knows are not in the interests of Aboriginal people, and then he runs off on an overseas jaunt as soon as he has dropped his policy on the table. I have had enough of his pious nonsense. The Opposition has set out through the other place to denigrate and destroy persons, in fact destroy a whole race of people, through backhanders and accusations for which it has no damned proof. Mr Miles —You sacked them. Mr HAND —There is no proof at all. Those opposite have to be looked at. Mr Miles —Why did you sack them? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I warn the honourable member for Braddon. Mr HAND —If the honourable member brings these problem areas forward, I will investigate them. I said that right at the beginning. The honourable member has not brought too many to me; that is one thing I know. Maybe he is overseas more than I know, or maybe he does not talk to many Aboriginals. If he has any problems that he wants addressed, I will look at them. I give him that commitment. I give that commitment to the House again because what is happening in this country today is grossly unfair. The slightest thing can be said about anybody, particularly if that person is an Aboriginal or a member of a minority group, and it can be unfairly splashed across the front page of every newspaper. No facts are checked and there is no information given other than that somebody has said it. What happens? We have to have a royal commission. This just has to stop. I make this plea to members of the Opposition: for God's sake, before you wreck the whole show can you not, with us, work out an orderly way to address this situation? Mr Miles —Always willing. Mr HAND —The honourable member says they are always willing. They have been so willing in the last month or so that they have dragged out matters that their Minister was responsible for and who said himself, when in office, that the legislation did not allow him to take a particular course of action. I tried to change that. I tried to bring in Aboriginal people, which those opposite said ought to happen. We had a debate on this while the honourable member was overseas. But where is the legislation? It is sitting on the table in the other place and we cannot move. It is just sitting there. Mr Andrew —We aren't the Government. Mr HAND —Honourable members opposite are the Opposition, and they will not let it happen in the Senate. They know that, and the Aboriginal people have to wake up to who is the villain here. The legislation is sitting over there and the Opposition has put a blocker on it because it does not want the Aboriginal people to have a say. Opposition members want to consult with them, they want to take their clipboards out and write down what they think, but then they go away and do what they want to do. I am saying that that has to change. Aboriginal people have to have a say. If they do not have a say the policies will not work. The honourable member for Braddon should talk to the last Liberal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs-and God help us if the honourable member ever got this job-because if he talked to the people in his Party who were members of the Ministry they will say, in agreeing with me and with the Committee we served on, that the one thing the Aboriginal people said they were sick to death of was people coming around with clipboards. In one community in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara lands, nine different sets of clipboards were seen in one day and 40 different departmental officers visited in one week. How the hell is anything supposed to work effectively with that sort of organisation? The Opposition's actions are all about stopping change taking place to involve Aboriginal people. I want to raise one or two other points in the couple of minutes I have left. I ask people to look at what happened when those opposite were in office and what has happened since; to look at the change in direction, the change in expenditure, the change in the development of programs and at the greater number of people of Aboriginal descent who are involved in those programs. Some of the programs put in place by the Opposition have been expanded and developed, and those programs are to be applauded. But members of the Opposition do not say that. Everything that we have tried to do is wrong, and has to be smashed down. That is the Opposition's policy under the honourable member for Braddon. I wish the Leader of the Opposition would get rid of him. I wish he had rung the right bloke and got rid of the honourable member for Braddon like he was trying to do, instead of getting rid of that other poor person. We would be a lot better off. This matter of public importance is a sham. It is a sham because Opposition members do not believe it. They have exploited this situation and whipped up a frenzy. Senator Tambling has made claims about a black mafia but when challenged as to why he said it, what did he say? He said, `I used the term ``black mafia'' to attract a bit of media attention'. For God's sake, what decent person in this place believes that to be fair? Why should a whole race of people be subjected to this sort of nonsense without one Opposition member of this House saying to the Aboriginal community, `I dissociate myself from Senator Tambling'? Not one honourable member opposite did that. Accusation after accusation has been made. We have a chance in this nation if we work together. I will talk to any member of the Opposition about any problem if that member wants to talk to me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(4.29) —All of the huffing and puffing by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) and his abuse and criticism of the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), and other Opposition members is no answer to the current problems facing Aboriginal people. I support the raising of this matter of public importance because of the scandalous administration of Aboriginal affairs and the blatant waste of taxpayers' money for little or no benefit to the bulk of Aboriginal people. Mr Hand —It didn't happen under me. Mr HUNT —I will talk about our performance later. I represent in the electorate of Gwydir one of the largest Aboriginal populations in New South Wales and, indeed, in eastern Australia. For years I have been sickened by the campaigns sponsored by some radical white activists, political opportunists and some opportunistic lawyers in the Aboriginal legal aid organisations, in the pursuit of land rights where there is no traditional affinity, especially outside the Northern Territory, who have sought funds for Aboriginal enterprises which have no hope of success. While these crazy objectives are being pursued and have been pursued over a period, inadequate funds have been provided for decent housing, education and job training for Aboriginal youth and health services. Heaven knows, some very substantial budgets have been allocated by the Fraser and Hawke governments over recent years. But nowhere is the problem more publicly evident than in Toomelah near the Queensland border. The commission of inquiry into the Toomelah community exposed the disastrous lack of coordination and cooperation between the various arms of government. In spite of local demands for adequate housing, water, sewerage and other services which are available to most white communities, the pleas of the Toomelah people were ignored until violence flared in Goondiwindi. People living in abject poverty and squalor are not interested in the rights or wrongs of land rights, Aboriginal enterprises, treaties and the fantasies of Ministers and administrators. All they seek is a fair go and equal rights with other fellow Australians. Toomelah is but one example of what is going on in this country. Many Aboriginal communities have worse living conditions than Toomelah. The Namoi Reserve on the banks of the Namoi River, three kilometres from Walgett, is a case in point. The living conditions of Aboriginal Australians at the Namoi Reserve are an international human disgrace. Who are we to wave our fingers at South Africa when we allow our fellow countrymen, women and children to suffer under such appalling conditions? I say that with some feeling. I believe the establishment of the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) has been a mistake. It was our Government that established it. But that does not excuse the recent and current Ministers from responsibility for the wastage that has occurred since 1983. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted in the purchase of properties, hotels and enterprises which stand as monuments to the condemnation of the Aboriginal Development Commission, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the responsible Ministers. How many administrative disasters do the Aboriginal people have to suffer with humiliation? They are the people who suffer the most humiliation when they fail. How many of these projects must fail before we go back to basics and assess with the Aboriginal people the priorities of their needs? I think that the Senate Select Committee on the Administration of Aboriginal Affairs needed to be set up to examine the concerns about and allegations of wastage that have been about for some time. Let us look at the two other disastrous investments in the electorate of Gwydir. They have been mentioned many times. The purchase of Nardoola near Moree by the ADC was made, as the Minister has said, during the period of the former Fraser Government. It was purchased for $585,132. On whose valuation was the purchase incurred? Apparently, it was on the valuation of the Australian Taxation Office and the Valuer-General. At the time the local people and local valuers were amazed and astounded at the purchase price. Commercial viability was a secondary consideration. The overriding consideration at that time was the potential value to the Aboriginal community as a social resource. Between 1981-82 and 1986-87 $812,357 was poured into this social resource. This amount does not include taxpayers funds from other sources such as the Commonwealth community employment program and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Although statements were prepared by local Moree auditors, they were not signed by the directors of the Nardoola Aboriginal Corporation. Why? In the five years from 1 July 1982 until the year ended June 1987, the gross return from this $812,357 outlay was no more than $44,079. During those years the home on the property was burnt down, fencing materials were stolen, livestock and wool were alleged to have been stolen, and the property fell into total disrepair and was valued at $261,725 in March 1986. Now, the Minister tells us, in reply to my question on notice, which has been on the Notice Paper for 12 months, that `as the property was purchased for economic and social purposes, calculation of a net loss can only be notional.' I say to him: What rubbish! There is little interest locally in Nardoola among the Aboriginal people. Most Aboriginal people in Moree want better living conditions and see Nardoola as a costly waste of money when their friends and relatives are living in shocking conditions at Toomelah and elsewhere. The other notable example of the irresponsibility of the Aboriginal Development Commission was the purchase of the now well publicised Oasis Hotel on 14 November 1983. The Minister has indicated that the total cost, including the purchase price and further grants, amounted to $842,446, but no information is available to ascertain trading losses of that business because of so-called commercial secrecy. This hotel was handed over to an incorporated Aboriginal association called Gamilarai Ltd. This unfortunate association is now in difficulties because not all of its creditors have been paid. The ADC is owed money for outstanding loans, but the loans have been suspended until the Oasis is leased out which, hopefully, will enable it to trade itself out of difficulty. The hotel was purchased to create an economically viable business enterprise to provide job training but the venture was badly thought through by the Commission and the Government. Today, that hotel stands locked, barred up and closed and is another humiliation to the Aboriginal people. I do not blame the Aboriginal people; I blame the Aboriginal Development Commission, the Minister and the Government for allowing this disgraceful state of affairs to occur. I also mention one other matter: the incredible circumstances surrounding Trekka Aboriginal Arts and Craft Ltd and the way in which Margaret Valadian and Natasha McNamara have been treated by Minister Holding and some officers of his Department. I am pleased to note that the Minister will refer this case to the inquiry. The Government has failed the Aboriginal people because it has failed to establish priorities of needs. Aboriginal people generally have been the humiliated victims of maladministration, mismanagement and lack of accountability by successive Ministers of this Government. The desperate and glaring needs of the Aboriginal people have been overshadowed by promises of land rights; promises of a vague treaty; and promises of theoretical and academic solutions and salvation. The Aboriginal people are the victims of clumsy social experiments conducted by dreamy academics and bureaucrats and stupid Ministers who are often deep in some philosophical dreamtime. There is chaos in the administration of Aboriginal affairs and policy directions. Unfortunately, the inquiry could well fail because it is not a full, independent, judicial inquiry which I believe is necessary to bring about the changes which I am sure the Minister would want to see. The fact is that most Aboriginals are desperately trying to get into the mainstream of modern society as an ethnic group with every reason to be proud of their race. So, for goodness sake, let us get back to basics. Aboriginal people need help in the fields of housing, education, job training and health. I ask the Government to go back to the drawing board and deliver some basic human requirements to the Aboriginal people. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(4.39) —I thank the House for the opportunity to speak in this debate. Mr Cobb —We do too. Mr SNOWDON —I am sure the honourable member does not because he might learn something that he does not like. What I will seek to demonstrate during my contribution is the callous and contradictory way in which the Opposition has dealt with the matter of Aboriginal affairs. I point out to the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) that Nardoola was bought under a Liberal-National Party administration. The Opposition bought it during its administration. I would have thought that the honourable member for Gwydir, as a person who has been in this House such a long time, a senior member of this House, would have thought it appropriate to mention to the House that this Government, along with the New South Wales Government, has moved to rectify the situation at Toomelah. But oh, no! The Opposition has continued its vitriolic campaign, epitomised now by the honourable member for Gwydir-a person I have great respect for-coming into this House and making comments which deride the truth. He knows they deride the truth. Not only that; he knows that at the Namoi reserve which he referred to there is now a two-year program in place to rectify the situation there. But he chose not to tell the House. He is pursuing, and has pursued in his contribution here today, the same sort of course that has been sought by the Opposition since this Government was re-elected last year. The Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) is a creature of the Opposition, as we well know. I point out what Senator Chaney said in his second reading speech about the ADC on 5 March 1980. I hope the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) talks to Senator Chaney. He might teach the honourable member about respect for Aboriginal people and respect for the terms `self-determination' and `self-management'. They are things which the honourable member for Braddon, who is at the table, would not have a clue about. Minister Chaney said: It is the first time that a departmental function has been handed over to a commission in the way that is now proposed with the enterprise function of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. . . . . I can assure the Senate that the Aboriginal Development Commission Bill is consistent with the Government's policy of self-management. That has gone out the window. The Opposition has given it the boot, shafted it, flick-passed it somewhere else. It is no longer interested in the propositions of self-management and self-determination. I will demonstrate that very shortly. First, I refer a little further to Senator Chaney's speech. He said: All honourable senators should take some pleasure in that because all honourable senators who were here some years ago voted for the motion that Senator Bonner moved in this place seeking that recognition. Therefore, I believe that we should welcome this legislation which follows the resolution supported by all parts of this chamber. What was former Senator Bonner's resolution? I remind honourable members opposite in the context of their contributions here today. This is what Senator Bonner moved in his motion: That the Senate accepts the fact that the indigenous people of Australia, now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, were in possession of this entire nation prior to the 1788 First Fleet landing at Botany Bay, urges the Australian Government to admit prior ownership by the said indigenous people, and introduce legislation to compensate the people now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders for dispossession of their land. We know what has happened. The Opposition has adopted a cynical course of action which has sought to vilify Aboriginal people in recent weeks. More importantly, since this Government was returned to power last year, the Opposition has embarked on a course to divide this country. It has embarked on this course to divide the country along racial lines. We have seen it in two debates. We have seen it in the immigration debate and now we are seeing it again in the Aboriginal affairs debate. On three occasions we have come into this place and invited the Opposition to come with us, to join in a reconciliation, to join with Aboriginal people, and come to terms with the contemporary realities. But it has refused. It has refused to support the bipartisan statement suggested to this chamber by the churches. It has refused to support the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) proposal even though it knows full well what its merits are. It has refused to support the treaty proposition even though its worth is tacitly recognised by Senator Bonner's motion in the Senate. That is what the Opposition is up to. In the five minutes I have left I want to have a go at the Opposition's policy because I know what its policy stands for. I know that not many members of the Opposition have read it. I wonder whether the Opposition spokesman for Aboriginal affairs, the honourable member for Braddon, has read it. It is in contrast to what was a very well-meaning policy put forward by the Opposition when it was in government about land rights, self-determination, self-management and all of those things that Aboriginal people around this country still desire-contrary to what the Opposition might think and particularly what the honourable member for Gwydir thought. It seems to me that what the honourable member for Gwydir was saying when he said he wanted the ADC knocked off was that he believes that Aboriginal people should no longer have the right to self-determination and self-management. I reject that proposition. This Government rejects this proposition. It is something the honourable member for Gwydir should think about because what he is proposing reflects a sanctimonious and patronising attitude. The honourable member for Gwydir has decided this in his wisdom, helped by his crony Senator Tambling, the mug from the north, who has previously in the Senate said how much he supported land rights and ATSIC. Let me tell the House about his support of ATSIC. Senator Tambling said on 27 April 1988: I certainly agree with Senator Chaney and Senator Collins that in the past few months the Minister has been hard at work in a very elaborate, detailed and genuine consultative process around the community . . . I do accept that the Government has embarked on a very meaningful consultation process. From my experience, and that of Senator Collins, in the Northern Territory we can certainly appreciate the efforts of the Minister and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Now what do we have? We have a witch-hunt. The star chamber, the Senate Estimates Committee, is being used to slur the names of Aboriginal people throughout this country and undermine the wider community support for the concept of Aboriginal self-management and self-determination. This Government is addressing those issues. This Government has sought to remedy the problems the Opposition thinks it has identified in the ATSIC proposal. Yet the Opposition has sought to undermine the Government's objectives. The Opposition has sought to ensure that the ATSIC proposal is not enacted. And now it has been successful in frustrating the ambitions of this House. The Opposition has been successful in having the clowns in the Senate doing what they do best-using leaked documents which come directly from organisations under this Government in order to ask 400 questions. I think that is the number Senator Tambling has asked. Senator Tambling would not know what the questions meant. He would not have had the intelligence to put them together. Yet he has used them. The questions did not come from him, and what is more he would not know what they meant. Let me tell honourable members about the Opposition's policy. I will use a few short, precise words to define the Opposition's policy. It is paternalistic; it is assimilationist; it treats Aboriginal people with contempt; it undermines self-determination and self-management for Aboriginal people; it attacks the very basis of the land rights Act in the Northern Territory. The Opposition views Aboriginal people as an indigenous people with a dead culture. It hijacks Australian Labor Party policy. The only good thing in the Opposition policy is this: encourage the establishment of enterprises run by Aboriginal people, support AEDP, support CDEP, employ people in national parks. This Government has activated those policies. The Opposition should not come in here and bleat in support of a parsimonious matter of public importance in these terms: The Government's failure, in priorities and policies, to address the needs of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. Opposition members know that is not true. Let me conclude by saying that a couple of weeks ago that good Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), went to central Australia to visit some Aboriginal people near Ernabella. He and Senator Tambling both accused Aboriginal people of being orchestrated by the Minister. In fact, Senator Tambling in an interview on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program Territory Extra on 7 November 1988 said: . . . Charlie Perkins is crying crocodile tears. But it's really Hand that is the racist in this whole issue. He was asked why Mr Hand was racist. He said: The best example I can give you of that is, about a week ago, John Howard went to Ernabella in South Australia, and it was a pre-organised trip and it was to go in and genuinely find out was was going, going, just going on there. And what does Gerry Hand do, he walks in the day before, and sets the whole scene. . . Well, I'll be! He went on: . . . and sets it up and we find Aboriginal people standing up with pre-prepared press releases nicely duplicated, you know, criticising John Howard for a whole range of things. Why would they not criticise the Leader of the Opposition? He is a clown. He has gone out there and expected Aboriginals to bite the tripe that he gives them. What was Yami Lester's response to this sort of sanctimonious approach? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Motion (by Mr Leo McLeay) proposed: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the time for presentation and consideration of parliamentary committee and delegation reports on Thursday, 10 November, continuing for a period not exceeding 1 hour 40 minutes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) -Is the motion seconded? Mr Cunningham-I second the motion. Mr FIFE(Hume-Manager of Opposition Business)(4.51) —The Opposition does not oppose the motion moved by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay). We understand that additional time is required for the presentation and consideration of reports. We will facilitate that. But, in facilitating it, I draw attention to the fact that this is yet another way in which private members' time is being eroded. I would have thought that the Government might have made some additional time for the presentation and consideration of these reports available from its time. Today in Question Time we had another example of Ministers reading long answers to questions. Those answers really should have been ministerial statements. I do not want to take up the time of the House any further, other than to reinforce that point. I hope that the Government will not continue to intrude on the limited amount of time that is available for private members. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(4.52) —in reply-I point out to the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) that the motion that I have just moved had the unanimous consent of the Selection Committee. On that Committee serve the Whip of his Party, the Whip of the other Opposition Party and a number of Opposition and Government members. The report has nothing to do with the Government, or the Government allocating time. Indeed, as the Chairman of the Selection Committee, I deliberately did not write to the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) or to the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Fife) to seek permission to move this motion. I believe that the House has given the Selection Committee the distinct impression that it is up to the Selection Committee to decide on behalf of private members what business is to be brought forward on Thursday mornings. As I have said, the Selection Committee was unanimous in its decision. It has nothing to do with the Government. I suppose that it might be proper to say that it has nothing to do with the Opposition. We intend that Thursday mornings be occupied with business that has something to do with members as ordinary, private members of this House, not as members of the Government or as members of the Opposition. I hope-and I am sure-that the honourable member for Hume is not suggesting that in introducing this motion I am doing so on behalf of the Government. I am doing it on behalf of the Selection Committee, which was unanimously of the view that this facilitation should occur. Mr FIFE(Hume-Manager of Opposition Business) —With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to be helpful, let me say that I thought I made it clear that the Opposition is not opposing what is proposed. Indeed, we support time being made available for the presentation and consideration of committee and delegation reports. What I am saying is that the Government continues to absorb the time of private members. I hope that in the future the Government will make additional time available for private members' business. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr MILES(Braddon) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MILES —Yes, I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr MILES —Firstly, during the discussion of the matter of public importance today the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) gave the very strong impression that I spend a lot of time overseas. I want to place on record that that is not the case. I have been away as a leader of a political exchange delegation. In the last 3 1/2-almost four-years I have spent less than 25 days out of this country. It is certainly not the case that I spend very much time overseas. Secondly, one of the Government speakers indicated that I reject the concept of self-management and self-sufficiency in Aboriginal affairs. I certainly do not. Debate resumed from 7 November, on motion by Mr Humphreys: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Tim Fischer had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst supporting the general thrust of the Bill, the House is of the view that: (1) repatriation should be recognised as compensation, and not welfare, in acknowledgement of the service of veterans, war widows, ex-service personnel and serving personnel; (2) there has been a series of cutbacks and complex changes impacting on veterans, war widows and ex-service personnel described as a `penny pinching, miserable and narrow-minded cash-register approach' and typified by: (a) a $300 limit on certain categories of dental treatment within one year; (b) the halving of the country travel allowance for veterans referred to specialists and Repatriation General Hospitals; (c) the hardship imposed by recent changes in the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; (d) the imposition of a statutory patient contribution in excess of $5,000 per year from 1 January 1988 on veterans in nursing homes for war-related conditions; (e) the massive delays in the determining system, thus denying justice where veterans die before a decision is made; and (f) the 2% cutback applied to DFRDB pensioners in 1986 which has never been rectified despite promises by the Government to do so; and (3) the Government should take account of recent criticisms of Government policies, priorities and administration in relation to the repatriation system and make the necessary adjustments as a matter of priority'. Mr LEE(Dobell)(4.55) —The legislation before the House, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill, gives effect to the major recommendations made to the Government by the Veterans' Entitlements Act Monitoring Committee. As honourable members would be aware, that very important Committee was established by this Government on 18 May 1987 under the chairmanship of Justice Paul Toose. The Monitoring Committee was established after the Parliament passed the Veterans' Entitlements Act, which made major changes to the legislation which governs the payments to veterans. I understand that the Government, under the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys), has already announced that it will accept 28 of the Monitoring Committee's recommendations in full and another four recommendations in a modified form. I commend the Minister and the Government for speedily agreeing to and endorsing publicly those recommendations. The legislation before the House addresses nine of the Monitoring Committee's recommendations. We should recognise that payments to veterans are compensation, and not welfare. They are compensation to veterans for service given to their country in time of war. I hope that all honourable members would endorse that comment. I certainly do. The first recommendation put forward by the Monitoring Committee was for the payment of an additional allowance to retired veterans who are severely incapacitated. I commend the Minister for speedily agreeing to the establishment of a new allowance called the extreme disablement adjustment (EDA). This new allowance will be paid to frail, aged veterans who currently receive the 100 per cent disability payment and are, in addition, severely incapacitated due to war-caused injuries. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would be aware, there are now many veterans who are severely incapacitated but who are past the normal age of retirement and cannot receive the totally and permanently incapacitated (TPI) rate of payment. At the suggestion of the Monitoring Committee, the Minister has agreed that these veterans should now receive the extreme disablement adjustment, which, in effect, will give them a total of 150 per cent of the maximum general rate, that is, their existing 100 per cent plus the EDA allowance. For someone who qualifies for this new adjustment allowance, it will mean an increase in the amount that person receives from $84.30 a week in disability pension to a total of $126.45 a week in disability pension plus the extreme disablement adjustment. That certainly is something which I am sure will be welcomed by those frail, aged veterans who are incapacitated and who could do with that money. The payment is tax free at the moment and will remain tax free under this Government. Having heard the speech made last night by the shadow Minister for veterans' affairs, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), I imagine that Opposition speakers later in this debate will say, `That is fine, but you are the government that is responsible for tightening the rules for TPIs'. That is the argument we heard last night. The questions I put to Opposition members are: Would they, if they were in government, overturn the changes which were made in 1985? Would they expand and loosen the definitions of eligibility for TPIs? I am getting a little tired of hearing Opposition members claim that this Government is the government that is responsible for tightening the eligibility rules for TPIs. I remind the House that Liberal and National Party senators voted with Labor Party senators at the time to tighten the rules for TPI eligibility. The Opposition has recently released for the next election its policy on veterans' affairs. I hold that policy in my hand, and nowhere in it is there any promise to allow veterans who used to qualify for the TPI pension to again receive the TPI pension. I ask Opposition members: Are they telling us that they will remove the requirement that people still be receiving a remuneration when applying for the TPI pension? We have nothing from the Opposition, certainly not in this policy document, to suggest that it will change the rules. Another matter addressed in this legislation is a relaxation of the eligibility requirements which currently exist for the special and intermediate rate TPI pensions. At the moment veterans have to receive a 100 per cent disability pension as a first requirement before they can be awarded the TPI rate. The Government has sensibly agreed to relax that eligibility requirement from 100 per cent to only 70 per cent. That will make a considerable difference to those veterans trying to receive a TPI pension. One other matter addressed in the legislation concerns the controversial issue of the fixed application date of assessment. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in his second reading speech, said: The Committee cited the example of a veteran who is employed at the time when his or her claim is lodged, who expects to and who subsequently does retire due to war-caused disabilities before the claim is determined. This veteran would not be required under the new scheme to lodge a fresh application upon retirement. Such a person will be entitled to special rate pension for life, provided of course that all the eligibility criteria continue to be satisfied in all respects at the date of his or her retirement. The important point to note is that there has been some concern expressed by the veteran community. Some subbranches of the Returned Services League in my electorate have been very concerned that some of the determining authorities within the Repatriation Commission are strictly looking only at a person's eligibility at the date of application. I know that the Minister has received some correspondence on this matter, and I am pleased that he has speedily introduced legislation which clarifies this issue, which has been causing some concern amongst veterans in my electorate. It perhaps would have been better if this issue had not arisen in the way that it has. But since the problem has been raised by veterans, I am pleased that the Minister, through these amendments, is making it very clear that veterans will not be penalised if their war-caused injuries deteriorate after the date of application. Another issue I wish to raise this afternoon is that of legal aid for veterans. The Veterans' Entitlements Act is a very complex piece of legislation because it covers complex issues. One would have to go a long way to find a veteran who had the capacity and the legal training to understand all of the requirements of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Therefore, it is very important that veterans have the right to obtain expert legal advice on matters which affect their eligibility for service pensions, for disability pensions, and for other entitlements. It is very important that they be able to receive good quality legal advice. I am embarrassed to say to the House that the Liberal and National Party State Government of New South Wales under Mr Nick Greiner has not yet taken any action to overturn a decision of the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales to take away from veterans in New South Wales their automatic right to obtain legal advice on matters affecting repatriation. When veterans came to see me about complex veterans' affairs issues it was a great advantage for me to be able to say to them, `This is what you should do, but speak to the solicitor at legal aid who is the expert on veterans' affairs issues and he will ensure that you have expert and up to date advice'. I cannot say that to my veterans any more, because a means test is now applied in New South Wales to veterans who ask for legal aid. Before the Greiner Government's Legal Aid Commission took this decision, New South Wales veterans could obtain that expert legal advice on repatriation matters without having to satisfy a means test. Now New South Wales veterans, because of the decision by the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales, have to satisfy a very tight and strict means test. Many veterans in my electorate, and throughout New South Wales, cannot now get the legal advice they need, because of the decision by the State independent authority. I have raised this matter with the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate). I know he has written to the New South Wales Attorney-General, Mr Dowd. I am embarrassed to say that the Liberal Party still has not taken any action on this issue. New South Wales veterans have been writing to Mr Dowd. They have been raising the issue. I am embarrassed to say that that Government does not care enough about New South Wales veterans to get Mr Dowd to overturn that decision. I hope that perhaps some Liberal Party and National Party members in this chamber could approach Mr Dowd and get him to take some quick action on this issue. Another issue which needs to be addressed in this debate is another recommendation put forward by the Monitoring Committee on the Veterans' Entitlements Act. I understand that the Committee has put forward a proposal to replace the Veterans Review Board (VRB). It has put forward a proposal to abolish the three-member Veterans Review Board and replace it with a single delegate of the Commission. I have been advised by a member of Brisbane Waters Legacy in my electorate that, at the recent national conference of the Legacy organisation, the various subbranches and clubs of Legacy unanimously voted to oppose the Monitoring Committee's suggestion of replacing the VRB with a single delegate of the Commission. My own view is that it would be a backward step to replace a three-member Veterans Review Board with a single delegate of the Commission. We have to accept that the first level decision is made by a delegate; and that is a single person. If we have another single person hearing appeals, there is a chance that people will not get as fair a deal as they are now getting under the three-member Veterans Review Board. The last thing I wish to touch on is the policy which has been released by the Liberal and National parties for the next election on veterans' affairs issues. I believe it is in order to so so because of the nature of the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Farrer, the shadow Minister for veterans' affairs. The honourable member's amendment lists many areas in which veterans have been treated harshly by this Government. He made the claim last night that this Government had made severe cutbacks in veterans' affairs. I will cite one figure to the honourable member for Farrer and other Opposition members who continue to peddle the line that veterans' affairs have suffered massive cutbacks. The Liberal and National Party Government spent $1,323m on veterans' affairs in 1981-82, its last full financial year. This year this Government will spend $3.2 billion on veterans' affairs issues. That is an increase from $1.3 billion to $3.2 billion. I know that inflation has eroded the value of the dollar, but I have taken the trouble to adjust these figures for that effect. If we convert everything into today's dollars so that we have discounted the effect of inflation, we will see that in 1981-82, in today's dollars, the Liberal-National Party Government spent $2.1 billion on veterans; today, using dollars of the same value, we have increased that to $3.2 billion-almost a 50 per cent increase in real terms. Yes, the average age of veterans has increased during that period, but certainly not enough to account for a 50 per cent increase in real terms. I wish the Opposition would not keep trying to create some form of fear in the electorate by making outrageous claims that somehow or other there have been phenomenal cuts in veterans' affairs funding, because that is just not true. The honourable member for Farrer, the shadow Minister, listed a whole series of areas where he thought the Government had done the wrong thing. One of the areas in which he claimed it has done the wrong thing is on the question of changes made in 1986 under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Here I quote two paragraphs from the Liberal Party's veterans' affairs policy: There are a number of areas of concern arising from the Veterans' Entitlements Act including the tightening up of Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Pensions criteria. The Liberal and National Parties will remove anomalies and forms of discrimination on the grounds of a Veterans' gender, such as discrimination against widower of Ex-Servicewomen. No promise is made there to overturn the changes made in 1986, as the honourable member for Farrer often tries to imply in this House. Another part of the Liberal Party policy headed, `Disability Pensions and Other Benefits', states: The Liberal and National Parties in Government will continue to provide for the 100% Disability Pension, Intermediate Rate Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Pension and Special Rate Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Pension with one notable additional provision. And the policy goes on simply to explain that this great new alteration to the policy, the one change it will make, is the payment of an extreme disability adjustment-a provision already included in this Bill. So where is the great change? Where are the great things that the Liberal and National parties are promising for veterans? They are certainly not in the Liberal Party policy, because the one major promise in the policy is met by this Bill-the extreme disablement adjustment allowance. So I suggest to veterans that every time a member of the Opposition goes round to a Returned Services League club or to an RSL subbranch and seeks to suggest to them that if only the coalition were in government veterans who now receive only a service pension would suddenly be eligible for a TPI pension, they question those members closely because those veterans know in their heart of hearts that a coalition government would not change the eligibility rules for TPI pensions. The Opposition will not suddenly relax the criteria for TPI pensions, and veterans know that, but Opposition members do not have the guts and the honesty to be frank with veterans and tell them the real situation. They are counting on veterans not being able to get hold of a copy of the policy and they are counting on the fact that they will be able to have this policy in their back pocket. Tell veterans anything they like in private, and veterans will never be able to compare what is said to them, verbally, with what is written down in their policy because the policy is riddled with qualifications which will mean that veterans really get nothing from the Opposition. Listen to some of the phrases the Opposition uses: `when economic resources permit', `as resources permit', `we'll do all we can', `we'll do everything the responsible government can afford'. With all of these qualifications, the truth is that the Opposition is promising absolutely nothing for veterans. Mr Humphreys —`When they can afford it'! Mr LEE —And as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs suggests, there is the other qualification of `when they can afford it'. It is interesting that the shadow Minister for finance, the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson), is sitting at the table at the moment because I am sure he will do all in his power to ensure that the Opposition's policies will not allow any promises to veterans which will help them improve their position. Mr Humphreys —What about Andrew? Mr LEE —As the Minister suggests, the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), will also ensure that less money is available for veterans' affairs. As they go around the traps, Opposition members are saying that governments spend too much money. They are saying that even the Business Council of Australia's proposal to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs was too weak; it did not go far enough. That remark is on the record from the shadow Treasurer-that a proposal to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs did not go far enough, did not cut back government spending enough. Where does that leave the veterans? The Minister for Veterans' Affairs is concerned about veterans. Mr John Brown —A great Minister! Mr LEE —He is a great Minister, as the honourable member for Parramatta interjects. He is a Minister who has picked up the recommendations from the Veterans' Entitlements Act Monitoring Committee, and has already, in this Bill, implemented nine of those recommendations. The veterans will judge people by their actions and not by their words, which is all we are hearing from the Opposition-words which, in reality, mean nothing for veterans. I support the Bill before the House. Mr TAYLOR(Groom)(5.15) —First of all, I commend the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) for many of his bipartisan comments in what is clearly an area for bipartisan comment. However, before I say a few words about the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill, I should like to draw his attention to what the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) said in this place last evening. I refer him specifically to page 2532 of the Hansard record of 7 November in which the honourable member said: We know from my list of 10 cutbacks that the right thing has not been done in recent years for the veteran and the war widow. This must be reversed. That is what the coalition policy is all about. We want a fair go for veterans. That is what the Government should be about. Instead, it is taking these tentative steps in that direction and not seeking comprehensively to reverse some of its cutbacks. Also, I take up the point made by the honourable member for Dobell about the expenditure patterns. I point out to him that it is not a question of how much is spent but how well it is spent. Further, the policy document to which he referred is, of course, as he would recognise-and as has to be the case when an opposition exists-a broad blueprint for policy. Although I take the point that he is making, I do not think the point is well made. Like my colleagues in this place last evening-the honourable member for Farrer and the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White)-I support the general thrust of the Bill but with some reservations and qualifications. I will come back in a moment to two in particular. Before I do that, I refer to three key provisions in the Bill to which the honourable member for Farrer referred last evening and which the honourable member for Dobell briefly referred to previously. In the case of the extreme disablement adjustment, it provides to a severely disabled veteran, in addition to his or her disability pension, a further 50 per cent of the general rate if he or she, firstly, is beyond normal retiring age, is receiving or is eligible for a pension at 100 per cent of the general rate, is not receiving pension at the intermediate or special totally and permanently incapacitated (TPI) rate, and is severely disabled, as defined in the `Guide to the Assessment of Rates of Veterans' Pensions'. The Opposition commends that initiative but, as the honourable member for Farrer said last evening, clearly those criteria are highly constraining criteria and we draw the attention of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) to them. Clearly, they are in need of review. The second point is on the TPI criteria where, currently, to qualify for a disability pension at the intermediate or special rate a veteran must be receiving or be eligible for a disability pension at 100 per cent of the general rate, be unable to work for more than a certain number of hours each week, and be unable to work because of war-caused disabilities alone and suffer an actual remuneration loss. The change initiated by the Bill is that the veteran need only be receiving or be eligible for a disability pension at 70 per cent of the general rate. That is a very commendable initiative on the part of the Government. The third point is the adjustment of amputee rates of pension and certain allowances. The Bill adjusts amputee rates of pensions and certain allowances in respect of clothing, an attendant, recreation transport, and advance of travelling expenses. Adjustments in line with consumer price index (CPI) movements are allowed for but they are not the normal automatic half-yearly adjustments. Therefore, each year specific additional amendments are required to make annual upward adjustments in an isolated sense, and it seems to me, as it did to the honourable member for Farrer in this place last evening, that it would save money if this provision were amended so that CPI movements were allowed for on an automatic half-yearly basis. I commend those views to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I now return to the two points that need emphasis. Firstly-and the honourable member for Dobell referred to this-repatriation is compensation and not welfare. Again, I refer to what the honourable member for Farrer said in this place last evening, as recorded at page 2533 of Hansard: . . . repatriation is not welfare; disability pensions are not welfare; war widows' pensions are not welfare; service pensions are not welfare. They are compensation for what those people have suffered in the service of their nation. I think the veteran community would object to any suggestion of that particular Department coming under the social security umbrella. If the Government is considering such a move, either in the short term or in the longer term, I suggest that it should think carefully, because the veteran community will not accept it; nor indeed will we, in government, accept anything less than a discrete Department of Veterans' Affairs. The second point that needs emphasis concerns the series of cutbacks and complex changes impacting on veterans, war widows and ex-service personnel. I shall refer, once again, to the list to which the honourable member for Farrer referred last evening. Although I do not want to take up too much of the House's time, I shall quickly run through the changes and cutbacks in this area. In the May 1985 mini-Budget, the travel allowance was reduced by half, affecting country veterans in particular. The subsistence allowance was reduced substantially. The eligibility for some categories of service pensioners to utilise the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme was terminated. Also, there were some limitations on the dental scheme. In the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986, the following changes were made: totally and permanently incapacitated pension criteria were tightened, with some veterans in the retirement phase of their lives no longer eligible for TPI benefits; provision was made for the termination of dependants' allowance by computation, albeit on a voluntary basis; and although repatriation cover was extended to those who had served on HMAS Sydney and other support ships between Australia and Vietnam, recognition by way of the appropriate awarding of medals remains undetermined. Changes which arose from the 1986 Budget included the following: war widows and dependants, as well as service pensioners with their fringe benefits, no longer had access to the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme; and war widows receiving an age pension had their social security component frozen at a maximum level of $60.05. An additional Budget decision to reduce the permanent maximum level below the $60.05 was dropped following a successful campaign by the Opposition. Provision was made for the Government to claim from private health insurance funds, where the veteran was insured, the cost of hospital and medical treatment which hitherto the Government would have paid for. There was a six-week deferment, from early November of that year, of the CPI-related increases for veterans' pensions. Finally, under Budget-related legislation, the assets test resulted in over 13,000 veterans having their service pensions reduced or cancelled. More recently, there have been hardships imposed by the recent changes in the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme as the honourable member for Farrer pointed out very clearly last evening, the Government imposed a statutory patient contribution, in excess of $5,000 per year, to operate from 1 January 1988 on veterans in nursing homes for war-related conditions-something, I might point out which was previously free of charge. There was also the 2 per cent cutback applied to the Defence Force retirement and death benefits pensioners in 1986, a decision that has never been rectified despite the Government's promise to do so. On 20 October this year in this place, even the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) was moved to make some salutary comments to his Government colleagues when he said, as recorded on pages 1989 and 1990 of Hansard: However, my remarks today are strong criticism of those Ministers in the Hawke Cabinet whom I have often described as having cash registers for hearts and little understanding or compassion for war veterans or their widows. He went on to say: Since March 1983, the Hawke Government has eroded many of the conditions which had been gained, particularly under the Whitlam Government, and honoured by the Fraser Government. My argument is that the current Government should be more compassionate and more understanding in its policies. Finally, he said: It is about time that all the pennypinching, miserable and narrow minded people with cash register hearts had some compassion for some of the conditions of these ex-servicemen. Surely, Mr Deputy Speaker, they are very telling criticisms from such a long-serving Minister in both the Whitlam and Hawke governments. They are criticisms from a man with a long period of service in the Parliament. Mr Deputy Speaker, there is little doubt that ageing is a major problem in the community as we move towards the twenty-first century. It is a factor that is highlighted no more clearly than in the area of veterans, widows and their families. The average age of a veteran, depending on which statistics one studies, is between 69 and 71 years of age. The number of veterans over the age of 75 is increasing; and it will increase dramatically by the turn of the century. One in two or three of people in the community over 65 is a veteran. At the present time, Repatriation Commission estimates indicate that there are 400,000 veterans or war widows eligible for treatment at departmental expense. Of that 400,000, 20 per cent are over the age of 75. By the year 2000, that number of 400,000 will drop to 280,000; but, of course, those over the age of 75 will increase from 20 per cent to 67 per cent. Therefore, as a community we have an ageing problem over the next 15 to 20 years, and the veterans community demonstrates clearly that problem. Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall now refer to the report of a seminar held by the Returned Services League in Canberra on 3 September 1987. I shall refer to some comments that were made by General Morrison, who is the Services member of the Repatriation Commission. At that seminar he dealt with the way the Department should be dealing with the problem, as he saw it. He said that the way the Department dealt with the problem could provide a pilot for the Government when the community ageing problems increased dramatically during the next 15 to 20 years. He went on to talk about two issues. The first issue was the decentralisation of the Department's staff and resources to provide personalised help to veterans and war widows as they grow older, more feeble and less able to cope-with bureaucracy, of course, being one of the problems. He said that the current system of appointing general practitioners as local medical officers to care for veterans and war widows was the linchpin of the repatriation treatment system, and should be continued. Of course, that would fit in very well with decentralisation. I agree entirely with those remarks, although I appreciate the resource implications of what General Morrison said. The second matter to which he referred was the need to provide home help for those who were threatened with institutionalisation-in other words, that there was a need to make the homes of those who need help a care centre. He went on to say: I am sure that the vast majority of our clients would rather remain independent and in their own homes than be placed in nursing homes or hostels. He pointed out that there will be cases where there is a medical need for either nursing home or hostel care; and of course, the Department should pick up that arrangement. He said that with ageing there could be a deterioration in mental capacity, in the ability to write or answer questions in writing and in the ability to read or to understand lengthy explanations, as well as a decrease, often to a marked degree, in the ability to get around. Older veterans' unwillingness or inability to travel to repatriation offices in major cities or their confusion over a multiplicity of health care services could lead them, as General Morrison said, `to give up and seek relief in institutional care'. I welcome General Morrison's comments. As I understand it, he is also drafting a concept for the care of veterans beyond 2000 when the Federal Government's repatriation hospitals have been transferred to the State health systems. I hope that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who is seated at the table, will be calling for that report in due course. I conclude by drawing the attention of the House to what the honourable member for Farrer said in this place last evening, referring once again to the cutbacks, et cetera. He said that the Government should take account of recent criticisms of Government policies, priorities and administration in relation to the repatriation system and make the necessary adjustments as a matter of priority. I hope that the Minister will recognise that in his summing up of this debate and will take cognisance of what we on the Opposition benches are saying, that clearly we need to give a fair go to the veterans. Mr JOHNS(Petrie)(5.32) —I am pleased to speak in favour of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill. I am not happy to speak in favour of the amendment; in fact, I will oppose it. Although there is a fair amount of bipartisanship in this debate in as much as we are here really to congratulate the moves that will be ushered in by the new Bill, I think we should review where we have come from and consider some of our achievements in veterans' affairs. It is all very well for the Opposition to lay out a series of criticisms of the Government's position in veterans' affairs. It is all very well for the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) to criticise, as he did last night, the honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey) for quoting broad expenditure figures in veterans' affairs. She mentioned that about $2.3 billion was spent on veterans' affairs in 1982-83 and that up to $4 1/2 billion will be spent this financial year. We acknowledge that most of that increase is due to inflation, the indexation of pensions and the greater number of persons requiring pensions. Let me contrast that with the very small matters raised by the Opposition. I am not belittling them in the sense that they are not important matters, but they are pennies compared with the billions of dollars that this Government has been able to put into veterans' affairs. The main game in veterans' affairs has been about looking after the real value of veterans' pensions and benefits. We have done that exceedingly well. As veterans are at an age where they are beyond retirement they are in need of the best medical treatment, so we have concentrated a great amount of expenditure on looking after their health so that their incomes are secure and their health is as secure as medical knowledge can make it. That is where this Government has put its priorities. We can debate a number of fringe issues, but I do not think the Opposition seems to realise the necessity actually to pay for the benefits of this last massive wave of World War II veterans. We are talking about tens of thousands of men and women who are entering retirement and old age who require the best in health and who require good pensions. We have been more than able to index the value of pensions and we can guarantee them the best in medical help. That is some achievement indeed in these economic times. I acknowledge the point made by the honourable member for Farrer that repatriation is compensation, not welfare. We do not treat repatriation as welfare. We do not go around at the end of Budget sessions scraping up the last few dollars. The veteran pensioners get in there first-the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) makes sure of that. He makes sure that their pensions and the real value of those pensions are held. For instance, the move to integrate repatriation hospitals and the general State hospital system is because of, and in response to, the veteran community. It is not fair for the wife of an ill veteran in, say, Redcliffe in my electorate to have to travel all the way to Greenslopes, some 25 or 30 kilometres away, to visit her husband. A man may be in hospital for two, three or four months, given severe illnesses. It is not fair for a woman who is old to have to travel that distance. She may be unable to drive and, presumably, still has to run a household. We have solved the main game; we are looking after that major veteran community. The raising of minor matters by the Opposition would seem to belittle the Veterans' Affairs portfolio. I will not run through the Opposition's litany of criticisms as they simply do not help matters all that much. Let me go to those significant matters that were picked up in the report of the Veterans' Entitlements Act Monitoring Committee. In fact, let me refer to the establishment of that Committee. Some two years ago we introduced the Veterans' Entitlements Act. That was the first uniform rewriting of the Repatriation Act since about 1920; it was the first time that it was brought together, renewed, reviewed and put to this Parliament. It needs to be said and repeated that at that time there were two huge problems in the repatriation area. The first related to the widows' pension and the second related to the definition of totally and permanently incapacitated (TPI). Until about 1985 the Repatriation Commission had to prove beyond reasonable doubt in the case of a widow that a veteran's death was not related to his war service. In other words, there was a negative burden of proof. Thousands of cases were being pushed through involving veterans dying of unknown causes-for instance, medical science could not tell us how a veteran had died of a given cancer. It was impossible for any rational decisions to be made about the relationship between a veteran's death and his or her service. That was unfortunate because it led to a flood of claims whereby the Government and the Commission could not distinguish fantasy from fact. They could not distinguish between a person who had well and truly died because of a war caused injury and a person who had died for other reasons. I thought the whole process of awarding pensions because of war service brought the whole Act into disrepute, certainly into disrepair. One of the major reforms of this Government was to allow the decision-makers to make rational, sensible decisions about the connections between war service and a veteran's incapacity or, indeed, death. It did not mean, as some veterans thought, that it was a device by which a government could deny veterans or widows a pension. In my experience, the decisions have been generous, honestly made and fair. They are made on a rational basis which does not require the veteran to prove that his injury arose directly as part of his war service. He simply requires some medical knowledge, usually, of the relationship between an injury or a particular habit that he may have picked up during the war, such as smoking, and a subsequent injury or condition, such as heart disease or emphysema or whatever. It is not a difficult point to prove-as long as there is some rational and often scientific basis to the connection, then the Commission or the Board has no problem whatsoever in awarding that pension. I believe that is an excellent reform of the last couple of years. The other area where there was great confusion and where I believe the Opposition is still confused, because it keeps emphasising the difference between welfare and compensation, is in the TPI area. The TPI, the special rate of pension, was always known to be a compensation for a digger who, when he returned to civilian life, was unable to work because of his war experiences through injury or psychological damage or whatever. That worked well for 30 years post-World War II. When most of those veterans, as a group, came close to retirement, many were feeling the ill-effects of old age, and of a lifetime of work and some of the effects of their war service-a combination of all of those things. After some time the Act was simply unable to distinguish the fact that the TPI was an award in lieu of the ability to work. In the last couple of years many disability pensioners were being awarded the TPI at an age beyond which they would never have worked. They had retired. This was unfortunate, because it lowered the real value of the notion of the TPI. It simply became something to be achieved by a veteran, rather than to be awarded to a veteran who could not work to support his family. Again in the previous Act there was a clarification which said that a worker who reached 65 could no longer be considered for TPI. This meant that there was a community-accepted age at which people retire and that if someone had well and truly retired the fact that he became ill after that time was not sufficient to allow him to be granted the TPI. We recognise that that left a number of disability pensioners who, having retired, became severely disabled. The Government has recognised that perhaps they should be due for some extra compensation; not a compensation for being unable to work, because that clearly would be wrong, but a compensation because of extreme disablement. As part of this Bill, the Government is now seeking to compensate those beyond retirement age who are not on a TPI or special rate pension for severe disablement by granting them the general rate of pension plus 50 per cent, so that they will be well and truly cared for to the extent that money matters. Honourable members should never forget that we are talking about old people with great physical disability and, to the extent that money can really matter to them, we are prepared to come to the party. I suspect that what really matters to them is the best in medical care, the best in hospital services. That we can give, and that we have promised to continue to give. If I can return to the TPI for a moment, an argument was put forward by the Returned Services League (RSL) and other groups that there should be a new test for the TPI. The current position is that war-caused disabilities alone should be the cause of a veteran's inability to work. The recommendation to the Government was that a different test be made asking whether the veteran would have been able to work but for war-caused disabilities. In other words, some of the veteran community were asking that there be an addition: let us look at the mixture of non-war-caused disability and war-caused disability leading to someone ceasing work. The problem there is the confusion about a person's working life, perhaps the 40 years spent at a job post-war. It confuses the notion of the TPI as a compensation for those who cannot work with the whole notion of workers' compensation which arises in the civilian area. The Government, quite rightly, has sought to separate those two notions. It is necessary to prove that it was the war-caused disability that stopped a man from working and, if that is so, that person deserves the TPI pension. Finally, moving again to the extreme disablement adjustment, I was a little annoyed to read, in the latest RSL national newsletter, a letter from the Australian Capital Territory branch advocate of the RSL, Peter Kelly, who regards the new extreme disablement adjustment as `a con'. I presume he means a confidence trick. The heading to the article is `Veterans conned and cheated'. Quite frankly, that is unfair. The person obviously does not understand the notion of TPI as compensation for an inability to work and does not understand the notion of the extreme disablement adjustment. No-one is claiming that many veterans will receive the extreme disablement adjustment. In fact, the figures I have to hand are that something like 500 successful applications will be made in the year 1988-89 and perhaps around 1,000 successful applicants in 1989-90 at the cost of some $3m. The Government is acknowledging a group of people who really are severely disabled and who might well benefit from some extra income, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the award of the TPI or with the whole notion of a TPI pension. I conclude by congratulating the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) for his good work in having this Bill introduced. I know that as a government we will continue to receive inaccurate and unfounded criticisms. We will brush aside those that are indeed unfounded and, if any are founded, then I can assure the House that the Minister will be the first person to listen and to react. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(5.48) —I welcome this opportunity to participate in this debate on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill. During the nearly four years I have been in this Parliament, I have spoken on a number of occasions about matters that relate to veterans' affairs, because this issue is crucial to many thousands of people in my electorate of Gilmore. I think is is also crucial to a lot of thinking Australians who appreciate the efforts and sacrifice of a lot of people who have, in times gone by, given something to this country that a generation of Australians such as myself have never been called upon to give and hopefully will never be called on to give in the future. I thank the House for the opportunity to participate in the debate. Before I commence on the areas that I want to speak on today, I would just like to take up a couple of the points that have been made by a number of speakers on the other side of the House in the course of this debate. Earlier this afternoon I heard one member of the Government suggesting that Opposition members were going around the countryside attending Returned Services Leagues clubs and sub-branch meetings and so forth, frightening members of the RSL community. Mr Cleeland —That is true. Mr SHARP —It is not true. Although the honourable member tries to assert that, in his ignorance, it is not true. The majority of members on this side of the House, as I am sure is the case on the Government side, are keen to provide a service to their constituency, and in particular to the RSL constituency within their electorates. We are not in the business of frightening those people, and I might add that in most cases those people are beyond frightening. They have seen more things that are likely to frighten them than we could ever put before them. I make that point because it is most unfair of members of the Government to suggest, as the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) suggested, that we go around the country frightening people. We do not. I, and I know my colleagues in the Liberal and National parties do also, go out there with the view of trying to deal with the genuine concerns that the veteran and ex-service community has in dealing with this Government. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Johns), went on about the fact that a number of people within the RSL organisation had misrepresented what the Government is trying to achieve through this legislation and through other Bills that have been put before this House over recent years. The honourable member for Petrie said that these allusions by members of the RSL are totally incorrect. But why do so many people in the veteran and ex-service community have the feeling that in recent years they have been given a poorer service from the Government, through the Department of Veterans' Affairs, than in the past? Certainly we all appreciate the administrative difficulties that the Department of Veterans' Affairs has. It is the subject of many complaints through my electorate office, some of which are valid and some of which are not, but I think the underlying principle behind these complaints that people in the ex-service community are now putting forward is that in the last 3 1/2 years there have been a number of setbacks from the veteran community. I well remember that during my first year in this House, I think in May 1985, the Government made substantial changes to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill which resulted in this House being recalled to deal with matters that had been set upon us by the Senate. I recall also that the Government finally accepted 41 of the 42 amendments that the Opposition parties put forward, purely and simply because it recognised that its Bill of May 1985 had been deficient and had actually done a lot to frighten the veteran community. It had, in real terms, taken away a lot of the things that the veteran community had been given the impression was its right and its fair compensation. As a consequence, the Government had to accept 41 of the 42 amendments that we proposed. It recognised at the end of the day that we were right and it was wrong on those particular accounts. So there is a feeling dating back to May 1985 that veterans are being poorly treated by this Government. I have a very large number of veterans living in my electorate, particularly in the coastal areas around the Shoalhaven district. Of course there are a number of active service personnel at HMAS Albatross and the Army parachute training school, and there are also those people working at HMAS Creswell but who live in my electorate-HMAS Creswell being in the seat of Fraser, in the Australian Capital Territory. So I have a large number of veterans; I am in good contact with them and they do genuinely feel hard done by. Their feelings were well represented by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) when he spoke in this House recently of his concerns about the Government's direction in dealing with the veteran community. The honourable member for Reid, who I think is the longest serving member of this Parliament, said: However, my remarks today are strong criticism of those Ministers in the Hawke Cabinet whom I have often described as having cash registers for hearts and little understanding or compassion for war veterans or their widows. That, coming from an honourable member on the Government side, a person with close contacts with the veteran and ex-service community, is substantial criticism of the way this Government has been treating our ex-service men and women over the last 3 1/2 years. The honourable member for Reid went on to say: Since March 1983 the Hawke Government has eroded many of the conditions which had been gained, particularly under the Whitlam Government, and honoured by the Fraser Government. It is that very sentiment that is felt very much amongst the ex-service community today. Is it any wonder, when we look at the deprivation that many of them suffered throughout the First World War, the Second World War and of course the Korean and Vietnam wars? Of course the honourable member for Reid was a victim of that suffering, having been a prisoner of war under the Japanese. He points out that the things that prisoners of war suffered were incomprehensible to the generation of Australians of which I am a member. As he points out, 550,000 Australians served in all theatres of the Second World War. Some 19,000 of them were killed in action. I think there were some 8,000 prisoners of war captured by the Germans and the Italians, all bar 300 of whom returned-the 300, of course, being killed or having died during their internment. There were 22,000 prisoners of war under the Japanese, only 14,000 of whom returned. The rest, of course, all died. Of those who returned, about half survive today. It is those who survive today, who have retired and are now finding that ailments that are a direct result of their imprisonment during the Second World War are causing them severe health and financial problems, and of course lifestyle problems, who feel an enhanced and acute need for good services from Government, and that is why the feeling exists in the veteran community today that the present Government is not living up to the expectation that was created by Ben Chifley, a former Labor Prime Minister, when he said: On this Parliament rests the responsibility of seeing that the right thing shall be done. It is the responsibility of this Parliament to ensure that the right thing is done. Since the Labor Government has been in power we have noticed a number of provisions being removed from the ex-service and veteran community. I will detail some of these. The travel allowance has been reduced by half, to a flat 11.6c per kilometre, with the reduction in government expenditure already totalling $3m. This affects country veterans in particular. Of course my electorate is a rural seat and the veterans who live there have on many occasions to travel to Sydney or Canberra for specialist treatment. They may have to attend the Concord General Repatriation Hospital, in Sydney. The halving of the travel allowance has had a severe financial impact of those people. It also means that they are not properly compensated for the cost of the accommodation or the meals they need in the course of their medical treatment in Sydney, and this has a big impact particularly on country veterans. The subsistence allowance for veterans, which I have just mentioned, has been reduced substantially resulting in their finding they are not able to be properly compensated. That has meant a saving to the Government of nearly $500,000. Of course this is why the honourable member for Reid refers to this Government as a collection of people with cash register hearts. The eligibility of some categories of service pensioners to utilise the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme has been terminated, and under the dental scheme four categories of treatment have been limited to a maximum benefit of $300 annually. Changes have arisen from the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Totally and permanently incapacitated pension criteria have been tightened up, and in fact veterans in the retirement phase of their lives are no longer eligible for the TPI pension. Once again that is referred to in the speech by the honourable member for Reid. Provision has been made for the termination of the dependants allowance by commutation, albeit on a voluntary basis, and there will be no further increase in the dependants allowance. Repatriation cover has been extended to those who served on HMAS Sydney and other support ships between Australia and Vietnam, but recognition by way of appropriate awarding of medals remains undetermined to this day. Some changes have arisen from the 1986 Budget. War widows and their dependants, as well as service pensioners with their fringe benefits, will no longer have access to the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme, but will still have access to the national health scheme at no cost. War widows who also receive an age pension will have their social security component frozen at a maximum level of $60.05. An additional Budget decision to apply a reducing permanent maximum level below $60.05 has now been dropped following a successful campaign. Provision has been made for the Government to claim from private health insurance funds with which veteran's may be insured the cost of hospital and medical treatment which hitherto the Government would have paid for. There will be a six-week deferment from early November of the consumer price index related increases for veterans' pensions. Under the Budget and related legislation the assets test continues to apply to veterans' service pensions. This has resulted in over 13,000 veterans having their service pensions reduced or cancelled. The coalition remains committed to abolishing the assets test in these areas. Many people of our generation do not quite understand that veterans' entitlements are not social welfare payments; they are a right. They are a compensation that has been earned by the effort and suffering of those people who have served our nation in times of need in the past. I think it is very important that the Government understands some of the reasons why people in the community feel frightened. It is not because members of the Opposition are frightening them; it is because of the perceptions that this Government is transmitting to the community. I assure the Government that those perceptions are not well received. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), who led for the Opposition parties in the debate on this legislation, is worthy of compliment from members on this side of the House. I often hear Government members praise their Ministers for a job well done. I think it is time that we on this side of the House gave credit where credit is due. It is due to our shadow Minister for veterans' affairs, the honourable member for Farrer. He has worked tirelessly with the veteran community over the last few years. Dr Hewson —A good man. Mr SHARP —As the honourable member for Wentworth points out, he is well recognised amongst the veteran community as being a good man; someone with a genuine and sincere interest in their concerns because he is a veteran and knows and understands their concerns from his own experiences. The policy that has been brought forward by the Liberal and National parties is a credit to him. This policy is entitled `A Fair Go for Veterans'. We intend to give all veterans a fair go when we return to government. A second reading amendment has been moved by the honourable member for Farrer on behalf of the Opposition. I congratulate the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys), who is at the table, for taking an interest in and listening to this debate. So often we see extreme disinterest from Ministers in debates on matters relating to their respective portfolios. We hope that the Minister picks up the points that the honourable member for Farrer has made. I believe those points represent the thoughts and concerns of many people in the veteran and ex-service community. I come back to some of the clear points with regard to this Bill. It is an attempt to provide a better service to veterans in our community. The Opposition is not opposed to the Bill. We support the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Farrer. We hope that in the process all members of this Parliament understand the tremendous responsibility that rests upon our shoulders to provide good service, good care and good consideration to the ex-service community-the ex-service men and women. It is worth pointing out that many people in the community would not like to be termed a `servicer', as the legislation attempts to describe those people, according to the stylistic guidelines that have been brought forward by the Office of the Status of Women within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Those sorts of contributions by that group of people are totally useless and a waste of taxpayers' money. The ex-service community does not appreciate this name change. They are ex-service men and women. They look forward to remaining so. They look forward to obtaining good service and good legislation from this Parliament. They want good care and consideration from this Parliament and this Government and from future governments and parliaments. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(6.05) —I ask the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) whether he and the shadow Minister for veterans' affairs, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), have discussed the second reading amendment moved by the opposition with the shadow Minister for finance, the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson), who is at the table. I ask whether the matters raised in the amendment have been costed and what is the cost. Are they part of the quality cuts in expenditure that the shadow Minister for Finance would agree with, or would he disagree with them? That is the sort of shallow rhetoric we tend to get from members of the coalition when they speak on matters in this House. They are long on saying what is wrong with Government matters, particularly when those matters involve questions of Commonwealth expenditure. They are very short on costings and on providing any detail of their intentions in terms of the benefits they would provide, and the rate of such benefits, were they in government. Instead, the shadow Minister for finance sits quietly writing-no doubt costing the proposals that shadow spokesmen present, and wondering whether, were he on this side of the House, he would be in a position to fund their proposals. I know that the shadow Minister for finance will not tell the House, the Australian people, or the veteran community how much these proposals will cost. I notice that he is making a phone call. Perhaps he is ringing the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to see whether he can tell us how he can cost the proposals, or whether he will make `quality cuts', what the nature of those Opposition cuts or how they will impact on the veteran community. The amendment moved by the honourable member for Farrer is nonsense. The honourable member for Gilmore said that he feels a bit peeved about the fact that Government members say that Opposition members are frightening veterans. The reality is that they are. One has only to read the coalition amendment to see that it is frightening those people who are covered by the Veterans' Affairs portfolio. It really is nonsense. If one looks at the coalition policy on veterans' affairs one will see that it does not detail in any way, shape or form the rate of pension or the eligibility criteria for the pension. There is no detail whatsoever. Its entire policy for veterans is qualified by statements such as this: `as resources permit'; `that responsible government can afford'; and `when economic resources permit'. Its policies are hedged by words which do not provide for costings. Should the Opposition ever be in a position to grace this side of the House-and God forbid that that should ever happen-it intends to go along with the nonsense that it put forward in 1987 to slash Commonwealth expenditure to the bone. Let us not forget that in 1987 the Opposition proposed to make cuts of $16 billion. Despite questions from Government spokesmen as to how such cuts would impact on veterans and pensioners, despite the time that has passed since the election, Opposition members refuse to debate the matter in this House, refuse to give costing and refuse to detail who would miss out because of such massive cuts. It is nonsense for the coalition to say that this Government is not concerned about veterans. The fact that the Minister at the table went to the trouble of setting up an independent monitoring committee; the fact that there was full consultation with the veterans community; the fact that the Government, after receiving the monitoring committee's report, immediately responded to that report with this legislation, is indicative of the Government's concern for those veterans. For the Opposition, to put up an amendment which includes the expression `repatriation should be recognised as compensation and not welfare' really speaks of the paucity of view in the Opposition. Does anyone in this country deny that? Has anyone in the Government denied that? Does anyone suggest that that is not the fact? It has been the fact since this country had veterans, since the end of the First World War. What is the nonsense of putting such a thing up? What value is it when the debate really is about how much, where the money comes from, the quality of services and the affordability of services. That is what the debate is about, not simply asking this House to recognise that ex-servicemen are entitled to compensation. Of course they are. Of course they should be. I note that last night the honourable member for Farrer and the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) ranged far and wide in the debate and raised many matters far outside the contents of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill. I raise some concerns which I have expressed to many veteran members in my constituency. I have raised them as a member of the Returned Services League (RSL). The reality is that our veterans are getting older. The numbers of veterans between now and the year 2000 will reduce. At a time when veterans want the best lobby and assistance to ensure they are politically represented in this place, they are getting the worst representation that they have ever had in the long history of the Returned Services League. We currently have a league which is concerned to become a political lobby group, not so much concerned with veterans' benefits and welfare but with all sorts of things. Be it trade unions, conservation, immigration, you name it, the RSL is into it. I have expressed to veterans in my RSL group that the age of members in this Parliament, logically, is reducing. There will in the future be fewer members of the Australian Parliament who have any memories of events which occurred between 1939 and 1945. Vietnam is to many Australians history, not something that happened during their lifetime or in their memories. As members of this House come from a younger generation and those of us who have memories of those events get older and die, I wonder who will be around to ensure that those veterans are still protected politically and that those veterans get the compensation they deserve. When the RSL is increasingly becoming a joke in the community and is seen by so many younger members of our community as irrelevant to contemporary conditions, I wonder just what sort of a deal veterans will get as these younger members of the Australian population who hold that view about the RSL move into this place as politicians. The RSL to me and to many Australians has a fundamental role to play in ensuring that veterans are well represented. It is the most powerful lobby group that veterans have. The day that the veterans move away from that organisation will be a sad day for them. The fact that the RSL is now wanting to enlarge its membership to include people irrespective of whether they have served in the Services and is totally opening its membership indicates to me that the current leadership of the RSL is more concerned about the future of the RSL as an organisation than as a veterans organisation. The day the RSL becomes a body in which veterans have the minority membership and non-veterans the majority membership will be the day that the RSL, in my view, loses much of its political clout. That day will be the day that veterans will no longer have an organisation which truly represents them. That concern is one that I have expressed to the servicemen in my electorate. I am pleased to say that they understand that concern. They understand it because they know that the moment their organisation is no longer veteran controlled and is controlled by some of the right wing lunatics we see in this country and who now so often speak for the RSL is the day they will not be represented at all. It is about time that more politicians stood up in this place and expressed concern about that. They should be concerned not so much about the views held by some of these people-they are nonsense views in any event and do not have any credibility in the community-but rather about the effect on the RSL itself and on veterans themselves. I say without question to this House that I know that in my electorate the vast majority of RSL members are strong Australian Labor Party supporters. We should never forget that the returned servicemen are primarily the workers who came from blue overall conditions, fought, came back and are still strong Labor people. I am proud to represent them and put their point of view for them. The Bill, of course, is well worth while. I do not know why we are debating it. I do not know why the Opposition just does not agree with it and support it strongly without putting up nonsense amendments. It is worth while noting the increase in the August Budget and the effect that that will have on the veteran community. It is interesting to note that income support has increased by 2.5 per cent. It is up now to $3.252m. That I find very valuable. The amount for health is up. It is noticeable that housing assistance has increased by 55.7 per cent, which is quite a massive increase. Does the Opposition believe that the process of consultation whereby the veteran community is asked to come to the consulting table and put recommendations to the Government is not the way to go about providing proper benefits for veterans? I think it is time the Opposition stood up in this House and told us how it would go about it. I ask the shadow Minister for veterans' affairs, the honourable member for Farrer, who is at the table, when he is going to produce to this House costings of the proposals contained in the Opposition policy statement. Are they approved by the shadow Minister for finance, the honourable member for Wentworth? What will be the effect of the tax proposals when eventually the Opposition comes up with a tax proposal? Will there be moneys in the Opposition's proposal to pay for the increased costs? How can the Opposition possibly say to this House, until it has a tax policy, that it has money to do it? Where are the quality cuts to Commonwealth expenditure going to come in? How will they affect veterans? I believe that until those questions are answered the coalition still stands condemned for failing to debate the full issues. It has failed to produce full details on its tax and veterans policies. I await with some anxiety for all of those matters. I will be pleased when this House can in fact debate them. Debate interrupted. Mr HAND(Melbourne-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Today at Question Time the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) asked me a four-part question. I answered that question: Yes, there was an internal inquiry conducted into matters concerning the funding arrangements for NAIHO by my predecessor. That should have read-given that it was 1986-`An audit of the organisation was conducted by the accountants Arthur Anderson and Co. in 1986 at the request of the Department'. I want to correct the record. It was not internal; it was an external audit done at the request of the Department. The rest of the answer stands. The matters going before the bodies that he referred to certainly will go there. Debate resumed. Mr PRATT(Adelaide)(6.19) —At the outset may I support a couple of points made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland). Comprehensive costings and proposals have been put forward by the Opposition, as the shadow Minister for veterans' affairs, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), has indicated. We also reaffirm strongly that there will be no cutbacks on veterans under a coalition government. There are a number of positive aspects to this legislation for which the Government should be rightly commended. I plan to deal with those first. It will take only a minute. Firstly, and possibly most importantly, the extreme disability adjustment to be enacted by this Bill is a welcome move. The EDA, to reduce it to its diminutive, provides to a severely disabled veteran an addition to his or her disability pension. This means that if the veteran concerned meets a number of criteria he or she will receive a further 50 per cent of the general rate-an extra $42.15 a week. The criteria are as follows: the veteran must be beyond the normal retirement age, must be receiving or be eligible for a pension at 100 per cent of the general rate, must not be receiving pension at the intermediate or totally and permanently incapacitated (TPI) rate and must be severely disabled, as defined in the guide to the assessment of rates of veterans' pensions. Apart from the fact that the criteria are somewhat too stringent-to the point where only absolute cot cases will qualify-the extra benefit enacted by the EDA provision is welcomed by the Opposition. I have some more praise for the Government in this very sensitive area of veterans' affairs. Currently, to qualify for a disability pension at the intermediate or special rate, a veteran must be receiving or be eligible to receive a disability pension at 100 per cent of the general rate, be unable to work for more than a certain number of hours each week and be unable to work because of war-caused disabilities alone, and suffer an actual remuneration loss. The change initiated by this legislation is that the veteran need only be receiving or be eligible to receive a disability pension at 70 per cent of the general rate. This freeing up of eligibility requirements is also welcomed by the Opposition. I move on to the third bouquet for the Government, regarding the application date. At present, to qualify for a disability pension at the intermediate or TPI rate, a veteran must meet all the eligibility criteria on the day he or she lodges his or her claim or application. The change initiated by this legislation will mean that a veteran will qualify for a disability pension if he or she meets all the eligibility criteria at any one date between the date of lodgment of claim and the date the decision is made. This is a further step forward and again is welcomed by the Opposition. It is interesting to note that the speaker who led for the Government on this Bill last night, the honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey), mentioned only these three points, the three aspects of the legislation on which I have congratulated the Government. That speaker missed another positive aspect of the Bill, that which frees up the remarriage provisions. The current position is confirmed in this legislation, that is, where a dependant of a deceased veteran had remarried prior to 28 May 1984, no war widow's pension is payable. But there is good news for some. Those who remarried after that date are eligible to retain the war widow's pension. However, it should be pointed out that this Government, due to its clumsy approach, has created two categories of remarried war widows-the lucky ones who remarried after the magic date and the unlucky ones who remarried before it. This gives us a clue as to why the Government's first speaker neglected to mention this aspect of the Bill. It is typical of the Hawke Labor Government's cynical and contemptuous attitude to veterans, pensioners and retirees in our community. The changes and cutbacks in veterans' affairs during the term of the Hawke Labor Government are a disgrace. It is a nonsense to suggest, as did the Government speaker last night, that Labor has doubled the veterans' affairs budget. The bare truth is that Veterans' Affairs has spent twice as much because it is being used twice as much as veterans get older and their health begins to fail. The Department's own figures show the average age of veterans to be 71. This is a real world example, a factual indicator of one of the most insidious aspects of the sneaking, creeping socialism that is an integral part of this Labor Government. Part of Labor's agenda is to hand the repatriation general hospital system over to the States by 1995, or earlier if some States have their way. With the average age of veterans being 71, the next seven years is precisely the time that the veterans will need the repatriation system most. More than 200 veterans, pensioners and their spouses attended a public meeting I convened in my electorate less than a fortnight ago, using the excellent facilities that the Gilles Plains-Hampstead Returned Services League branch maintains. They were unanimous in their resolve to save the repatriation system and maintain a separate department of Veterans' Affairs. Discussion in the Senate Estimates Committee D hearings showed that a structural change is well under way within the Department to facilitate all veterans' matters becoming the concern of State authorities. At my `Save the Repat' meeting, a number of veterans complained about being turned away from the Daw Park repatriation hospital in time of emergency. One man, a TPI pensioner, who spoke from the floor at that meeting, said that he had been refused three out of four times-on two occasions as he lay in the back of an ambulance. There was no room at the inn. Yet, when specifically questioned at Estimates Committee D hearings, an officer of the Department denied that this was the case. I quote from the Hansard transcript of Estimates Committee D for 10 October 1988. The following question was asked: Are veterans being turned away from any of the RGHs for either elective surgery, medical treatment or any other reason? The answer was: In terms of elective surgery, we believe that at Heidelberg there may be two or three per week being turned away, and at Greenslopes about eight per week. We believe there are none at all in Daw Park nor Hollywood. With reference to medical treatment or other purposes, the same officer said: Heidelberg estimates that 40 a week are turned away . . . For Daw Park and Hollywood it is again nil. Clearly, the Department and the veterans are at odds, and the veterans are wild about it. To paraphrase Prime Minister Ben Chifley, clearly this Parliament has a responsibility to these people. Obviously, that responsibility is not served by handing over the repatriation system to the States, which are already using its facilities to a point where veterans are being turned away. That responsibility is clearly not served by the new scheme of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) to catch age pensioners with the new rules concerning the income test, which make it impossible for the elderly, veterans included, to protect their life savings from the ravages of inflation. I encourage the Hawke Labor Government to consider more of the positive changes engendered in some aspects of this legislation, but I condemn it for its penny-pinching, miserable and narrow-minded cash register approach. As our second reading amendment states, whilst we support the general thrust of the Bill, we are of the view that repatriation is compensation, and not welfare, in acknowledgment of the service of our veterans, war widows, ex-service personnel and serving personnel. There has been a series of cutbacks and complex changes impacting on veterans, war widows and ex-service personnel representing, as I said, a penny-pinching, miserable and narrow-minded cash register approach that is typified by a $300 limit on certain categories of dental treatment within the one year, the halving of the country travel allowance for veterans referred to specialists and repatriation general hospitals, the hardship imposed by the recent changes in the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme, the imposition of a statutory patient contribution in excess of $5,000 a year from 1 January last on veterans in nursing homes for war-related conditions, the massive delays in the determining system, thus denying justice where veterans die before a decision is made, and the 2 per cent cutback which was applied to Defence Force retirement and death benefits veteran pensioners in 1986 and which has never been rectified, despite promises by the Government to do so. I conclude my contribution in supporting the attitude of members on this side of the House to veterans' affairs by reminding the House of the statement made by the shadow Minister for veterans' affairs. His catchphrase, which all members of the coalition support, is `a fair go for veterans'. I repeat: repatriation is compensation, not welfare. Sitting suspended from 6.28 to 8 p.m. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(8.00) —In speaking to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) and seconded by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), I start by noting that there is probably no better example to be found of the difference between the rhetoric of the Government and what it actually does than in an examination of the conduct of veterans' and war widows' affairs under the present regime. The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill which is before the House is one of the less controversial Bills. And so it should be, because one of its main provisions is a direct pinch from the Opposition's policy. There have been many removals of and cutbacks in the entitlements of veterans and war widows during the successive terms of this Hawke-Keating regime unmatched by any previous government. The Treasurer (Mr Keating), the would-be Prime Minister, deserves special recognition for that state of affairs. It is under his stewardship that retirees generally, and veterans and their dependants in particular, have experienced the greatest decline in living standards since the Great Depression. This has taken place over a period just in excess of 5 1/2 years. We on the Opposition side and those affected are entitled to ask: why is there this seemingly indecent concentration on veterans, war widows and their dependants? Why has spending for these purposes been subjected to the machete that the Treasurer so cheerfully wields? Why do we have all those ridiculous programs that finance minority groups to parade their prejudices around the country at taxpayers' expense? Why not slash funds for artists in residence employed by unions, for spurious make-work programs, or for a whole catalogue of wanton waste identified by the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee? Those are legitimate questions for which there are no legitimate answers. The reason, of course, is that the reductions in and the removals of entitlements are merely cost-cutting measures. The Government's priorities are made abundantly clear in its treatment of veterans, war widows and their dependants. It is for the purpose of highlighting those priorities that the Opposition has moved its second reading amendment in terms expressed by my colleague the honourable member for Farrer. He has tabulated the extent and dimensions of measures which have figured so prominently in the dramatic drop in living standards to which I have referred. Some have had a more dramatic effect than others, but it is the cumulative effects over the terms of the present Government that have caused the damage that has been done. It is the relentless assault on veterans and war widows benefits in successive measures that has set the scene for the greatest drop in living standards since the Great Depression. I take just one example which is typical of many of a particular type brought to my attention by constituents. The relevant parts of my constituent's letter are succinct and straightforward enough to quote verbatim and in full and I do so: Thank you for your letter of June 88, and for your offer of help to people in your electoral area. This is a matter of taxation that should be corrected. Aged pensioners with a small other income are being assessed income tax on their small total income. I have an income of $5674 for 1987-88, and a part pension of $4282 for 1987-88. The pension is reduced on account of the income and I do not receive any pensioner's concessions. I am not complaining about this, but I am complaining of being assessed $1187 tax on a total income of $10,047 for the year 1987-88. There we have it. Not only have benefits been slashed but also income tax has become a factor not previously applicable to pensioners with the purchasing power of the pensioner whose letter I just quoted. As I explained to that gentleman, the Government's lack of consideration for retirees seems to have more to do with collecting information which must be disclosed in tax returns lodged by pensioners, thus enabling cross checking by the Department of Social Security, than with any sound principle of government. It is indefensible that, although this man and veterans and other pensioners like him may earn certain income which will not affect entitlements to partial pensions and associated benefits, they are, nevertheless, obliged to file a tax return and to pay income tax. The fact that the total income tax payable by such individuals is negligible in terms of revenue for the Government is not enough to persuade it that those with the obligation should not have to bear either the inconvenience or the cost. Of course, it is as sure as night follows day that the Treasurer will do next year what he should have done last year. With an eye to the next election he will want to be seen to be pulling another rabbit out from that copious space under his hat, the undertaker's hat that the cartoonists depict as part of his uniform. One does not have to be a student of magic or of those other than the Treasurer who practise the science of illusion to know what is to happen next. Around May next year when the Treasurer announces his illusory tax cuts we will be told that pensioners of all kinds, including veterans and war widows, will no longer be up for income tax if they are in circumstances similar to those set out in the letter from which I have already quoted. A further cynical deceit will be practised in the grand tradition of similar cynicism which has become a hallmark of this Government. It can be confidently anticipated that from July next year the Government, as part of its grand plans for deception in the run-up to the next election, will increase the tax-free threshold so that veteran beneficiaries and other pensioners will not have to pay income tax as they do at present. The tricky part in selling the deceit will be to convince everyone to overlook or forget the fact that the inequity to be remedied was created by and was an inevitable consequence of the problems created without help by the selfsame Government which will claim credit for at last finding a remedy. It is the old straw man trick: build one up, then take the credit for knocking it down, and expect the electorate to say in the ballot box, `Thank you very much, your eminences, for saving us from an even worse standard of living'. That is entirely consistent with the arrogant thinking and demeanour of the Treasurer. In the meantime, pensioners like my constituent will have paid income taxes for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89 to an extent never before experienced under any previous Commonwealth government. There can be no group of people more disadvantaged over the terms of successive Keating-Hawke governments than retirees and those approaching retirement. Veterans, war widows and their dependants have probably suffered more than most. There has been a succession of legislated changes including, but not limited to, assets and means testing, health care, taxes on superannuation funds, and removal of incentives for individuals to provide for their retirement without imposing unduly on taxpayers. Each change has dealt a blow to the living standards of retirees on fixed or investment incomes, including those who supplement benefits by obtaining rewards for their own personal exertion. Because there have been so many changes over the period, great uncertainty has been created and, as is well known, I am sure, uncertainty is probably the greatest cause of worry to pensioners, particularly amongst those who are no longer young. A good example affecting veterans and war widows was the mini-Budget announcement last May, which foreshadowed the Government's intention to count, for pension purposes, ongoing annual income earned on, but not distributed to investors in, certain investments such as insurance bonds. That was dropped on veterans and war widows out of the blue, as the saying goes. It is also one of the most recent examples. The subsequent abandonment of that part of the measure which would have required such income over the three previous years to comprise the basis of initial means testing, and taking that form, confers no credit on this Government either. That abandonment was not because of any matter of great principle or some pang of conscience suddenly occurring to the Government; it was because of a State election in the offing in Victoria, and the political heat was too great. Another constituent has written to me to give clear examples of how, earlier, assaults by this Government on the incomes of retirees have materialised. Veterans and pensioners generally will identify if not with the detail then certainly with the spirit of the real and perceived wrongs perpetrated by this Government on retirees in all categories. I quote from the letter from that constituent and I ask the question: Is it just another unintended consequence of careless legislation? This is what my constituent had to say: The subject of my letter is retirees' rollover investments. The reason for writing to you is to bring to your notice the substantial disadvantage that may occur with time to retirees' investments. Only 5 per cent of superannuation contributions made prior to June 30th 1983 are taxable. A person retiring earlier than age 65 may roll over superannuation money in approved deposit investment funds until age 65. One would imagine that the pre-June 83 component would be preserved intact but this is not so. If it is invested in a rollover fund it is steadily and relentlessly eroded. Suppose a hypothetical sum representing 1 year pre 83 and 1 year post 83 i.e. a 50:50 division of the sum. If this is rolled over for a further year the amount is now assessed as 1 year pre 83 and 2 years post 83 i.e. the sum now becomes 33% pre 83 and 5% taxable and 66% post 83, at a higher tax rate. The passage of time sees a constant erosion of the pre 83 portion. This is set to destroy it as quickly as possible. I doubt the morality of it. Here is an example of my own. Retired May 1987 age 60. A lump sum of $13000 was rolled over by investing in HAMBROS A.D.F. $9978.03 was pre 30th June 83 and $3021.97 post 83. The fund lost money because of the October crash but the following figures, a year later, show that the losses were borne almost wholly by the pre 83 portion, where it hurt most. The redemption figures were: $7843.45 pre 83 and $2909.84 post 6/83. There is very little difference in the post 83 portion but quite a slaughtering of the tax advantageous pre 83 fund. I question the morality of the system. Meantime I'm retrieving my pre 83 money as quickly as possible and paying tax on 5% of it. That is typical of the sentiments constantly relayed to my colleagues and me. The full gambit of our concerns and criticisms has been more than adequately dealt with by previous Opposition speakers including the honourable members for Farrer, McPherson, Groom (Mr Taylor) and Adelaide (Mr Pratt). In thereby having the opportunity and the comparative luxury to dwell on some of the detail of our concerns and criticisms, I can do no better than to instance the objections of none other than the President of the Legacy Club of Perth. Mr J. C. Lillie had some particularly telling observations to make about the announced intention to place some 53 prescription drugs in common use on what was loosely described, in the announcement, as a `Special Authority List'. The President of Perth Legacy is not a person whose opinions and observations can be taken lightly. His interest is bred of concern and of first-hand experience. As the elected leader of an organisation which currently offers support to some 7,000 dependants of those who have served their country in war and who have died, the President of Perth Legacy is, one might say, uniquely placed. The Government would do well to listen to him. He claims, as the Opposition parties have said on countless occasions, that his members, `are concerned at the continuing erosion of benefits to war widows in the area of pharmaceutical benefits'. One should remember that that concern was expressed as a result of field evidence and it was not the outcome of bureaucratic procrastination based on who knows what criteria. The worry engendered by uncertainty which followed the announcement to remove 53 drugs from the pharmaceutical benefits list was unnecessary in the event. The President of Perth Legacy had this to say about it: We strongly resent the recent decision of the Commonwealth Government to place 53 prescription drugs on a `Special Authority List' and believe that: 1. Decisions as to the best drug for a patient should be made on medical justification not price; 2. The best person to decide about the patient's medication is the patient's doctor-not a public servant; 3. The new procedure may cause delays in patients receiving urgently needed medication; 4. Patients with acute illnesses may be denied access to the most appropriate medication. He went on to conclude: The recent legislation- meaning the announcement, I presume- means that a Public Servant and not the patient's Doctor now has the final decision as to whether a particular patient will be supplied with the drug which his Doctor considers to be the best appropriate medication. The fact that the Government, in the face of resentment like that, now intends, I think, to recant and perhaps relist some 30 or more of those prescription drugs into the pharmaceutical benefits list shows how thoughtless and inconsiderate was the original decision. On its own this example might have been dismissed as a mere aberration but it cannot be dismissed so lightly. It is but one of a whole raft of successive measures over the past 5 1/2 years which have disadvantaged veterans, war widows and their dependants. Just as important, and perhaps even more so is the worry inflicted on those who are not so young any more. It is part of the mean, penny-pinching attitude relentlessly adopted by the Government, and referred to in this House by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) a couple of weeks ago. It is not just the provision of relevant legislation which qualifies and quantifies benefits; there are also tax measures of the type I have already mentioned. The assault on the living standards of veterans, war widows and their dependants continues on all sides and unabated. It is to be deplored. The Government deserves the condemnation foisted upon it from time to time in this connection. It is in the light of this situation that the second reading motion amendment has been moved and refers to, among many other criticisms and concerns of the opposition, a series of cutbacks and complex changes impacting on veterans, war widows and ex-service personnel. As the amendment states, the Government should take account of recent criticisms of government policies, priorities and administration in relation to the repatriation system, and make the necessary adjustments as a matter of priority. Regrettably, we see no sign of that, but we look forward to the day when reality sets in. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(8.20) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank all those honourable members who contributed to the debate. It was a very interesting debate. I listened intently to what was said. It is very pleasing to see that the Opposition will not oppose the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill-nor should it. The contributions made by the honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey), the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee), the honourable member for Petrie, (Mr Johns), and the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) were all outstanding. I would like to congratulate the honourable member for Groom (Mr Taylor) and the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) on their contributions. The last speaker, the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), carried on a bit. The honourable member for Curtin, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) and the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Pratt) brought many issues to the attention of the House. They included references to the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme, war widows, the peacekeeping force and prisoners of war. I have here a copy of the veterans' affairs policy of the Liberal and National parties and I cannot see anything about the retention of the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The Government knows that veterans will not be fooled by all of the rhetoric used by the Opposition in the debate. The honourable member for Groom should have a look at that policy document; he should read it through. There is not one mention of the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme in the policy; there is not one mention about war widows being placed back on the scheme; there is not one mention of whether they will look after war widows and increase their pensions; and there is nothing in the policy about prisoners of war. Those honourable members should have a look at what is said in their policy about what they will do about prisoners of war. I know they are very deserving and that all honourable members think about them. But what will the Opposition do? Honourable members might remember what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said to the Business Council of Australia. He said that we should do away with Veterans' Affairs. Mr Peacock —I never said anything of the sort. Mr HUMPHREYS —The Business Council of Australia said that. I did not say that the honourable member said that. Mr Peacock —I didn't say it. Mr HUMPHREYS —No, but the honourable member said that those recommendations did not go far enough. He qualified that later on. I remind honourable members opposite to have a look at their policy. I am glad to see that the shadow Minister for veterans' affairs, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), is at the table. Maybe he will be able to explain to the House later on where the Opposition policy deals with the issues that honourable members opposite have been talking about. Hopefully he will do that. The honourable member for Farrer has moved an amendment containing matters far removed from the contents of this Bill. I will deal with the matters mentioned in the amendment later, but before that I will bring the debate back to the Bill before the House and certain other extraneous matters canvassed by the shadow Minister. During consultations held before the debate, the honourable member for Farrer and the National Secretary of the Returned Services League (RSL) expressed concern over certain aspects of the Bill and asked that I give assurances as to the operation of clause 10 and clause 21 (b) of the Bill. Clause 10 sets out in some detail the manner in which a decision maker deals with a claim for disability pension or an application for an increase in the rate of disability pension. Clause 10 requires the Repatriation Commission, the Veterans' Review Board (VRB) or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to assess the rates of pension payable to a veteran from the application day up to and including the date of their decision. The effect of this amendment in relation to intermediate or special rate pension is to ensure that a pension is payable from the first day in the assessment period on which all the relevant criteria are met. That rate of pension would continue for life under the provisions of section 24a of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. In relation to the general rate pension, the amendment requires that if the rate to which a veteran is entitled varies because of changes in the degree of incapacity, the rate of pension payable during the assessment period can vary accordingly. For example, where the veteran's incapacity on the day of application is assessed at 50 per cent of the general rate and deteriorates prior to determination, a higher rate of, say, 80 per cent can be paid from a day prior to the determination day. In such an example the veteran would receive 50 per cent from the application day and then 80 per cent from the day of the deterioration to the day of determination and thereafter. Because of his concern over the words `from time to time', the honourable member for Farrer has suggested that the clause be amended. I do not agree an amendment is necessary. The proposed amendment in the Bill does what the Government intends-that is, it enables payment of the pension at the appropriate rate from the first day during the assessment period the veteran becomes eligible for that rate. The honourable member has sought an assurance that no veteran would be denied benefits because of the change of terminology made by clause 21 (b). Clause 21 (b) will substitute the term `prisoner of war' in paragraph 85 (4) (b) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act for `detained by the enemy'. This is purely a presentational change requested by the Ex-Prisoners of War Association to revert to the words previously used in the Repatriation Act. I am happy to assure the honourable member and the veteran community that the amendment does not affect eligibility nor is it intended to result in any change to existing or future entitlements. The honourable member has expressed some concern that the reference in paragraphs 23 and 24 (1) (a) to new section 21a is anomalous in that the latter provision does not come into effect until royal assent whereas the former is specified to have come into effect on 22 May 1986. The technical effect of this would appear to be that paragraphs 23 and 24 (1) (a) would refer to a provision which did not exist prior to this Bill receiving royal assent. The honourable member has sought an assurance that this amendment will not adversely affect any existing or future claims or applications which are determined on or after royal assent. Such claims or applications, where they involve an assessment of the degree of incapacity of a veteran from his or her war-caused conditions, will be required to be determined in accordance with new section 21a. I am happy to give this assurance. Another concern is the eligibility criteria for the proposed extreme disablement adjustment (EDA). This concern was also raised by the RSL during consultation. The honourable member perhaps overlooks the fact that the Government adopted the specific recommendation of the Veterans' Entitlements Act Monitoring Committee to set the criteria in the Bill. The target population of the EDA identified by the Monitoring Committee is a small group of frail and aged veterans seen to warrant extra compensation. The EDA is an extension of the general rate and is not based on a work related test as is the special rate. It follows that a veteran needs to have reached a pension rate of 100 per cent before proceeding to the new higher rate of, effectively, 150 per cent. Experience with the application of the criteria will indicate whether the needs of the target group has been satisfied. The matter of whether the Veterans' Entitlements Act should provide for coverage of United Nations peacekeeping forces in Iran and Iraq and naval clearance divers has also been raised in debate by the honourable member. The Australian military contingent in Iran and Iraq, and the naval clearance divers in the Persian Gulf, have the cover available to all serving members of the Defence Force under Part 4 of the Veterans' Entitlement Act. In addition, they have the cover provided by the Commonwealth Government employees compensation scheme. It is not necessary to include any legislative amendment in respect of the peacekeeping forces or naval divers to provide them with adequate cover. However, appropriate action to gazette the military contingent as a peacekeeping force to give it the benefit of the more beneficial standard of proof is in hand. I will take up with the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) the question of determining the service of the naval divers to be `hazardous service' to put these personnel on the same footing. In respect of minor benefits and allowances, these are increased annually, based on the consumer price index movements in the previous July to June financial year. This has occurred since the 1980-81 Budget. I will seek to index automatically minor benefits and allowances in the next Budget. I now turn to the Opposition's proposed amendment. This is an obvious device to lead debate away from the Government initiatives in the Bill and yet again to generate unnecessary anxiety within Australia's ageing veteran community. Let me put some of these matters right, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member has requested that the Government treat repatriation as compensation. I am amazed that the honourable member would make such a request. Surely he is aware that pensions payable for war caused or defence caused incapacity or death are already treated as such and are tax and income test free. This Government is acutely aware that it must recognise the changing needs of the veteran community and provide adequate compensation. This awareness is reflected in the Bill which is presently before the House. For example, the introduction of the extreme disablement adjustment clearly demonstrates the Government's awareness and willingness to respond to the identified needs of the veteran community. The honourable member for Farrer referred to the $300 limit on certain categories of dental treatment. Criticism such as this overstates the effect of the $300 limit, which applies only to the more expensive categories of treatment, such as bridge work and gold inlays. The most important basic dental care and ordinary acrylic dentures are not subject to any limit. Dental care required as treatment for war caused injury or disease, or as a result of cancer, is also exempt from the limit. The $300 limit will be addressed as part of the current review of the local dental officer scheme being undertaken by my Department in consultation with the Australian Dental Association. The travel allowance for veterans who use their own vehicles to travel for treatment was aligned in 1985 with allowances paid by other Commonwealth agencies for similar travel. The allowance paid by DVA is currently set at 12.28c per kilometre and covers normal running costs such as petrol, tyres and repair components associated with attending medical appointments. The subsistence allowance for meals and accommodation covers the reasonable expenses incurred in undergoing treatment. The changes to the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme (RPBS) do not impose hardships on veterans. They more closely align the drugs available to the veteran community with those available to the non-veteran community under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. However, while we ask local medical officers normally to prescribe the drugs available under the scheme to the rest of the community, other medic- ation may also be provided where clinically justified through the prior approval prescribing arrangements of the RPBS. As the honourable member for Farrer has indicated, the Government decided that, from 1 January 1988, all entitled persons in an institution for nursing home care will be required to pay the statutory patient contribution. About 6,000 entitled persons receive nursing home care annually, at the expense of the Department. About 880 have been affected by this decision. The patient contribution of around $117 a week represents a contribution towards the cost of board and lodgings for which patients would be responsible at home or in hostels. Most DVA beneficiaries in nursing homes have always met the patient contribution. However, prior to 1 January 1988, the Repatriation Commission accepted financial responsibility for the patient contribution of those beneficiaries admitted to nursing homes specifically as a result of war caused disabilities. The Repatriation Commission will continue to meet the major portion of the cost of nursing home care up to the maximum Commission benefit. This currently ranges from about $400 per week to around $600 per week, depending on the State in which the veteran resides. Financial responsibility will also be accepted for all other medical costs additional to normal nursing home care. It must also be remembered that all age pensioners in the general community have to meet the patient contribution and many veterans would have more income than their civilian counterparts. Many receive disability pensions in addition to service pensions. I thank the honourable member for Farrer for raising the question of delays in the determining system. At the primary level, there has been a marked reduction in delays. Between June 1985 and June 1988, the average time taken dropped from 347 to 171 days for claims for the acceptance of disabilities and from 280 to 142 days for applications for increases. The Government acknowledges that there is still room for improvement at the primary level in this regard. The Government has accepted all four recommendations made by the Veterans' Entitlements Act Monitoring Committee which were aimed at reducing delays. A strategy for implementation is being developed. In relation to the recommendations of the Veterans' Entitlement Act Monitoring Committee, which is what we are really debating tonight, I have given the honourable member for Farrer full and detailed answers to the questions he asked. I remind the House that the honourable member for Farrer stated in his policy speech that the Opposition will do all sorts of wonderful things that responsible governments can do when economic resources permit. Of the 58 recommendations of the Veterans' Entitlements Act Monitoring Committee, a body which the honourable member for Farrer stated he supported, the Government accepted 28. We accepted a further four in a modified form and another 20 are receiving further consideration. Mr Tim Fischer —It was released before the report. Mr HUMPHREYS —Do honourable members know how many of the recommendations the honourable member for Farrer accepts in his policy speech? Can you explain to me-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The Minister will address his remarks to the Chair. Mr HUMPHREYS —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am certainly doing that. I am saying to the shadow Minister for veterans' affairs that the veteran community will not be fooled by his policy. Do honourable members know how many of the recommendations of the Veterans' Entitlements Act Monitoring Committee the honourable member for Farrer accepts in his policy speech? Three of the recommendations. Mr Tim Fischer —That was done before the report was released. Mr HUMPHREYS —That does not matter. The veteran community will not be fooled. I accept the wonderful contributions that have been made and again I thank those honourable members who contributed to this debate. The Government rejects the amendment moved by the honourable member for Farrer. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Tim Fischer's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. B. Mildren) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J.Beazley, K. C. Kent, L.Beddall, D. P. Kerr, D. J. C.Bilney, G. N. Klugman, R. E.Blanchard, C. A. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Blewett, N. Langmore, J. V.Bowen, Lionel Lavarch, M. H.Brown, Robert Lee, M. J.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCourtice, B. W. Morris, PeterCrawford, M. C. Mountford, J. G.Cross, M. D. O'Keefe, N. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Sawford, R. W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, JohnGear, G. Scott, LesGorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R.Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W.Johns, G. T. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. Macphee, I. M.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. 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.Cobb, M. R. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Taylor, W. L.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Jull, D. F. Darling, E. E. Cameron, DonaldDuffy, M. J. Woods, R. L.Dawkins, J. S. Katter, R. C.Hawke,R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirm- ative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Clauses 1 to 3-by leave-taken together. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(8.47) —In the context of this committee debate of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill I would like to draw attention to the application dates pertained to in clause 3. I would like particularly to highlight to the Committee the fact that a number of allowances dealt with in this Bill on a specific basis are not automatically indexed. We raised this matter during the second reading debate and when I first studied this Bill I discovered that allowances relating to amputees, the attendant allowance, and other special categories required specific legislation each year to gain consumer price index increases, whereas service pensions, war widows' pensions and disability pensions were all automatically indexed. I produced an amendment which read: Clause 3, page 2, after sub-clause (4) insert the following sub-clause: ``(4a) The amendments made by section 28a have effect for the purposes of the relevant period com- mencing on 15 June 1989 and each subsequent relevant period. Commencement: 15 June 1989.''. I had proposed a subsequent amendment after clause 28 that, in effect, would bring about automatic indexation of those areas which are not yet indexed and which should properly be indexed, especially, for argument's sake, for amputees-be they from the First Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, or from service in other units with the Australian Army, Navy and Air Force or service for their country generally. I am pleased that in his reply in the second reading debate the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) accepted the principle of an application now and consideration of automatic indexation of these allowances. I accept the victory the Minister has extended to me in relation to this matter inasmuch as he has now told the House that he will recommend the automatic indexation of these allowances. I am pleased that I have been able to draw the attention of the House and the Committee to this matter. I am pleased that the Minister has responded favourably on the clause now before the Committee. I hope that the next time we see this legislation, perhaps after the Budget next year-and there might be a change of government by then-there will be provisions for the automatic indexation to which I refer. Might I say, just in passing, that in this context the Minister referred to our policy. Our policy provides for matters of this kind. He referred to the fact that the independent Veterans' Entitlements Act Monitoring Committee report recommendations were not dealt with in our policy. Let me inform honourable members, briefly, that that report came down after I had released the policy. The policy, all about a fair go for veterans, was released during the winter recess and it was after that that the independent monitoring committee brought down its detailed recommendations. I do not move this specific amendment; I just refer to it. I am glad the Government has indicated its acceptance, in principle, of the amendment and I say again that next time we see this legislation hopefully an amendment along the lines of the words I have drawn to the attention of the Committee will be brought forward by the Government so there will be automatic indexation of these special allowances. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(8.51) —I do not want to delay the Committee; I know that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) wants to get going. I thank the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) for his contribution, but it would be nice if he would put some of the amendments he is raising tonight into his policy. Then we would all be happy. I am sure the veterans would be happy, too. Amendment negatived. Clauses agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(8.52) —This final section of the Bill before the Committee includes clause 10, which has been a matter of considerable concern to veterans organisations. It deals with the proposed section relating to the application of pensions during the assessment period at various rates as the condition of the veteran might vary after he lodges his application, from the application date through the assessment period to the final determination. Under clause 10, at the bottom of page 5 of the Bill, there is this phrase `from time to time', and the Returned Services League and other organisations have been particularly concerned about that. In fairness, the Minister did refer to that in his summing up of the second reading debate, but it concerned me particularly that he used some words in that summing up which actually stopped short of saying `from the first day during the assessment period' from which the veteran might qualify for the varied rate of pension rather than the general rate of pension. The Opposition has no argument about the special rate and the intermediate rate totally and permanently incapacitated pension, as explained by the Minister. I accept that. That is covered; that is dealt with; that is not the problem. The problem relates to the general disability pension assessments between 10 and 100 per cent during the assessment period. I would ask the Minister in this committee stage to vary slightly his advice to the Committee on clause 10, to be absolutely precise and say it is from `the first day' during the assessment period rather than from `the day' during the assessment period, as I heard him say in his summing up at the end of the second reading debate. These are important matters. They go to the question of detailed justice for veterans, for war widows, for ex-service personnel and for Defence Force retirement benefits beneficiaries, who suffered a 2 per cent cut in 1986-a cutback not yet restored by this Government despite comments from time to time that it might eventually get around to doing that. The Opposition has subjected the legislation to detailed scrutiny. We accept the other assurances given by the Minister in respect of coverage under the change of description for detainees, who are to be redescribed as prisoners of war, and we accept the other advice and information he has given. I simply ask on this phrase `from time to time' that he restate his assurance by utilising the terminology `from the first day' rather than `from the day' during the assessment period. Mr LEE(Dobell)(8.54) —I believe this amendment will help clear up the question about the period of time the assessing officer should take into account when determining these disability pensions. I wish to place on record my appreciation to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) for clearing up this problem which has arisen. It is certainly a matter which has been drawn to my attention by several veterans in my electorate who believe they have been disadvantaged because the assessing officer has in some cases looked at their disabilities just on the date of application. There has been some debate as to whether the changes we made in 1987 disadvantaged those people. I am pleased to see that the Minister, through this legislation, is clearing up those concerns of the Returned Services League sub-branches in my electorate that have raised this matter with the Minister. We should remember there are two different types of cases here. First of all there are veterans who perhaps on the day they submit their application are in the work force and therefore could qualify for a totally and permanently incapacitated pension. It is in their interests that people take account of their circumstances on the date that they apply, because they might retire before a decision is made. The second type of case is that involving a veteran who perhaps applies and then his war caused disabilities worsen before a decision is made. It is important that determining officers take account of that deterioration in certain cases. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(8.56) —I would like to clear up this matter for the Parliament. I shall go through it again-I was reading very quickly before-because the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) wants particular specifications. It enables payment of pensions at the appropriate rate from the first date during the assessment period that the veteran becomes eligible for that rate. I hope the honourable member for Farrer is happy with that, as I know the veteran community is happy with it. I can also assure the Committee that the veteran community is happy with this legislation and the good- heartedness of the Government. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(8.57) —I will not detain the Committee other than to say that that is a slight variation from the wording given by the Minister in closing the second reading debate. That is why I quite properly raised the matter, and that is why there is a need for the House to go into the committee stage on these matters. There is a big difference between `from the first date during the assessment period' and, as I believe he said previously, `from the day or date during the assessment period'. We will study Hansard tomorrow with interest. More importantly, this legislation now goes to the Senate dealing with the extreme disablement adjustment and the other matters which have been discussed in detail. With that clarification, with that assurance, the position is different and much improved. I accept that and I appreciate the Ministers affording that assurance to the Committee on this important Bill. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Humphreys)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 28 September, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(8.59) —The Opposition will not oppose the Loans Securities Amendment Bill. The purpose of the legislation is to amend the Loans Securities Act of 1919. The Government claims that the proposed amendments will make possible a more flexible approach to Commonwealth overseas debt raising and management activities in the interest of more cost effective management of the Commonwealth's external debt portfolio. Mr N.A. Brown —It gives flexibility. Mr PEACOCK —It gives a flexibility that is lacking at the moment. It means we can do swaps with various debt provisions at better interest rates than we might presently have, and therefore it is worthwhile. Mr N.A. Brown —But it is a negative contribution. Mr PEACOCK —I will touch on the negative contribution in another debate. In particular, the Bill enables the Commonwealth to use a wider range of modern borrowing instruments-which I will explain in detail to the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) later-and will assist in the management of foreign currency exposure with currency and interest rate swaps and other hedging techniques. The honourable member for Menzies never hedges his position, so I will have to explain that in financial terms. The Opposition has no objection to such initiatives. As it is, we welcome changes which allow better management of the Commonwealth's foreign debt portfolio. However, the Bill also brings to mind the Treasurer (Mr Keating) tripping around the world, as he did recently, allegedly paying off Government overseas debt. During both a trip to Tokyo and one to Europe, the Treasurer announced the repayment of a number of yen and Swiss franc loans respectively. The Treasurer hailed these as personal triumphs. Unfortunately, when we look behind the rhetoric, there is little to praise. First, the repayment of this debt is made by the taxpayer. The money used to pay off this debt has been ripped out of the hands of the taxpayer through bracket creep. The fact is that last year's surplus of about $2 billion and the estimated surplus of $5.5 billion for this year have been overwhelmingly achieved by increases in taxation. An extra $5.7 billion in income tax is being collected from individuals. That is a 13.6 per cent increase-even higher than the 10 per cent growth in the previous year. The share of individual taxes in total tax revenue has now jumped to over 54 per cent. Since 1985-86 it is estimated that about $7 billion will have been ripped off taxpayers simply through taxpayers creeping into higher tax brackets. Mr Pratt —It is a disgrace. Mr PEACOCK —It is indeed disgraceful. The honourable member for Adelaide represents an electorate in which the impact on lower to middle income earners was significant. Apart from his extraordinary attraction as a candidate-it was the main impetus in getting him elected-the other element in getting him elected was the disenchantment of people with the Government's taxing policies. Those policies are driving hard into the electorate of Adelaide, they brought him to this Parliament and they will return him at the next election. So $7 billion has been ripped off taxpayers through bracket creep. As I said, it is estimated that that figure will rise to $10 billion by the time our long awaited tax cuts are delivered in July 1989. Is it not interesting how the debate on most Bills in this Parliament turns to the question of tax? Unfortunately, it is more than interesting for those low and middle income earners who are being poleaxed by Labor's tax ripoff. Another point to note about the Treasurer's showy repayment of foreign debt is his misleading statements on their significance. These repayments of Government debt are a welcome development. However, they do not in any way represent, as the Treasurer says, the restoring of our `national sovereignty'. Australia's current account deficit must be financed by a net capital inflow. That net capital inflow is made up of official and private capital. It is ridiculous for the Treasurer to masquerade outside Australia as paying off some of the Government's net foreign debt under the guise of restoring our `national sovereignty'. For instance, in what was unquestionably a rambling answer to a question without notice that I asked the Treasurer on 20 October, he said: As the Government diminishes its own debt abroad, there is therefore a gain on the net income transfer and that gain is reflected in yesterday's current account figures . . . Simply put, that answer was wrong. The Treasurer either does not know what he is talking about or he is being downright misleading concerning Australia's foreign debt. The current account deficit for September brings the total deficit for the first quarter of 1988-89 to $3.8 billion compared to $3.4 billion in the same quarter last year. Official capital outflow was over $1 billion, but private capital inflow of nearly $5 billion in that month was required to finance the current account deficit plus the Treasurer's debt repayments. Simply put, our net capital inflow has actually increased; hence, as a nation, our obligation to foreigners has increased. All that the Treasurer has achieved, if anything, is to change the mix of the net capital inflow from the public sector to the private sector. The Government simply cannot escape from the fact that since it came to office in 1983 Australia's net foreign debt has nearly quadrupled and now stands at $89 billion. The Treasurer has masqueraded around the world as having allegedly repaid debt, yet the debt has increased at home while he was away. The reason for it is absolutely basic: it is economic mismanagement. In its first two Budgets the Keating-Hawke Government's fiscal deficits swallowed our national savings to the tune of about $15 billion. As a result they forced Australia to borrow increasingly overseas. Despite the recent surplus we are still suffering from this fiscal vandalism. Our net foreign debt stubbornly keeps rising. The Government is continually regaling us with claims that our external position is improving. The actual figures are less inspiring. That the pace of adjustment of our huge foreign debt is too slow is shown by three simple facts: first, the fact that net exports are expected to make a negative contribution to gross domestic product yet again in 1988-89; secondly, the fact that imports of capital goods as a share of total imports fell again in 1987-88; and, thirdly, the fact that investment in mining and manufacturing is expected to show little, if any, real growth in 1988-89. Senator Walsh, as is usual after a Budget is brought down, told us the truth. As he said on the Face to Face program a few weekends ago: Any country which has a foreign debt the size that Australia has and a continuing current account deficit is very vulnerable to international pressure. That is why Moody's Investor Services Inc. continues to refuse to restore Australia's AAA international credit rating. The Budget strategy is unquestionably precariously based on continued strong commodity prices. The riskiness of the Budget is highlighted by International Monetary Fund forecasts that 1989 will see an easing of world commodity prices due to slower world economic growth. The recent decline of the State Bank of Victoria's commodity price index, which has fallen by 12 per cent in US dollar terms since 10 June, certainly does not augur well. The fragility of our balance of payments position certainly has implications for next year's tax cuts. Does the House remember what was said about the tax cut? It was said that it would be the biggest tax cut in the history of this country. Those were the words of one of Labor's de facto Cabinet members, Mr Kelty of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. On 25 August this year, in response to a question by me in this House on the funding of next year's tax cut, the Treasurer said that the tax cut would be funded from the Budget surplus. Terrific! He will walk away from reducing public demand-if he is so worried about overheating of the private sector, by cutting Government expenditure to pay for the tax cuts. As well as quadrupling the debt in a period in which we have high inflation rates, high interest rates and high rates of taxation, he will give the tax cut based on the surplus. In reality, the Treasurer is intent on providing next July's tax cuts without cutting government expenditure. In the absence of reductions in government spending the Government cannot possibly provide the promised and much needed tax cuts, next July without blowing out the balance of payments even further. The Opposition has consistently argued for tax cuts funded by reductions in government spending. Reductions in outlays release labour and capital to the private sector, including export and import competing industries. Tax cuts increase the incentives to both work and invest. Moreover, cuts in government spending will curb growth in public sector demand, as I said, permitting a rise in private sector demand without risking a further blowout in imports. Following the validity of that sort of argument, the Opposition's fiscal policy, in conjunction with our industrial relations policy, will improve Australia's competitiveness and productivity. Finally, I want to raise another aspect dealing with the Bill we are debating tonight. The two recent repayments of yen and Swiss franc debt revealed a very large exchange rate loss over the duration of the loans. Some management! Because the Commonwealth had not effectively hedged these loans, it realised a foreign exchange loss of about $144m on the Swiss franc debt and a loss of $212m on the Japanese loan. That is over $350m in losses in just these two loans. Failure to adequately protect itself against foreign currency movements is unquestionably a condemnation of the Government's past debt management. The cost of hundreds of millions of dollars should not have to be borne by the taxpayer. The amendments we will introduce to this Bill should go part of the way to addressing these problems. But the reality is that the Government has failed in its management of our debt. Quite apart from increasing it, the Government has been unable to manage it effectively. Hopefully these amendments will assist the Government in doing that. But the root cause is the weakness of the Australian dollar against such currencies as the Swiss franc and the Japanese yen. That weakness itself stems from a weak and vulnerable economy buffeted by the cruel winds of the international marketplace. The Government has to hasten the pace of economic adjustment and make the Australian economy less vulnerable. The changes in this Bill address some of the symptoms of the problem facing Australia. More emphasis, however, must be given to the necessary fiscal task and the necessary micro-economic reform. The Opposition's proposal to cut back taxes based on cuts in government expenditure and its labour market reform agenda provide that necessary focus to strengthen the Australian economy. As I said at the outset, we will not oppose this legislation. But I move the following amendment to the second reading motion: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House notes that the administration of the legislation by the Government has been less than satisfactory in that: (1) the management of public debt by the Government has seen a rise in the public debt interest component of the Commonwealth Budget to such an extent that it is now larger than expenditure on education and is equivalent to that spent on defence; and (2) Government policies in the past saw a swallowing up of Australia's domestic savings by the public sector and caused Australia as a nation to borrow more from overseas, resulting in net foreign debt quadrupling over the term of this Government to $89 billion.' Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Shack —It certainly is, Mr Deputy Speaker. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(9.14) —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in his comments said that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) did not know what he was talking about. He said that either the Treasurer did not know what he was talking about or he was misleading the chamber, which is not true. Of course, if there is anyone who does not know what he is talking about when it comes to economic matters it is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, because if we analyse-as I will proceed to do-the elements of his speech and the case he tried to put up against the Government today, we will see that not only is it riddled with contradictions but in the end there is no case at all for the Government to answer. The fundamental point is the claim that Australia's foreign debt has moved increasingly from the public sector to the private sector. We are supposed to view this as some kind of serious problem. The central point is that because of the actions of this Government the public sector debt has been reduced and continues to be reduced. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition tried to make light of the fact that the Federal Government has paid off some of its foreign debt, some of its Swiss debt and some of its Japanese debt. It is a historic thing to be able to pay off one's debt. The Opposition should tell me how many countries at the moment are actually paying off debt as distinct from interest on debt. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that the Treasurer was wrong in talking about debt repayment as a restoration of our national sovereignty. Of course it is a very important action in restoring our national sovereignty. That does not mean that we do not continue to have a foreign debt problem. Of course we do. But there is a very great difference for those who try to make parallels between Australia and other countries that have large foreign debts. Two-thirds of Australia's foreign debt is not debt by government but debt by private individuals and companies. It is not owed by the people of Australia as a whole; it is owed by various individuals who borrow that money. That is a very important difference. Those people who try to say, `We're heading down the road of Brazil or other countries that have a large foreign debt' are drawing the wrong parallel. The bulk of Australia's foreign debt is private debt, not public debt as is the case with other countries. To imply that because of our foreign debt somehow Australia is going broke is nonsense. As I said, the bulk of that debt is private debt. Of course, at some stage those individuals and companies which have borrowed that money will have to repay that debt but that is not a burden on the Australian people as a whole or on the Australian taxpayers as a whole. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that. For him to be saying there is some problem in the reduction of the public sector debt and the increase in the private sector debt is, of course, a nonsense. On the basis of this fallacious beginning we had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition talking about how the estimates of the Budget were precariously based because they were established on the basis of certain commodity price assumptions. He did not give any details as to what commodity price assumptions were supposed to have gone so wildly wrong that they would in fact undermine the Budget estimates. As far as we understand it, there are none. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has any, let him put up or shut up in relation to this matter. Let us have a look at whether there have been such dramatic changes in commodity price movements that the Budget estimates are in serious trouble. If they are, why has the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not raised this matter with the Treasurer in Question Time? He has not done so because there are no problems. This is just another one of his statements which imply that something may go wrong. That is all we have had from the Opposition in this House in the last few years on economic policy. It says, `Well, let's hope things go wrong so the Australian people might vote out the Labor Government and put in a conservative government'. It does this rather than looking at the positives and the constructive suggestions that might be put forward for the development of this nation and for increasing the economic opportunities of people in this country. All we have had is the Opposition putting forward the idea, `Let's hope something goes wrong'. This reminds me of the Leader of the Opposition's famous statement before the last election when he said, `The times will suit me'. He meant that he hoped the economic circumstances would become so dreadful for this country that he would therefore be elected. Everyone knows what he was hoping for and everyone knows that what he was hoping for did not come true, even though we experienced our biggest terms of trade crisis since the war. Australia's terms of trade had not fallen so much, in fact, since the Great Depression as they fell in that period in 1986. Notwithstanding that, this Government developed a strategy that coped with the problem. It has now regenerated a very strong economy. To talk further about the contradictions of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, he said, `The Government will have to do something to control an overheated economy'. What is an overheated economy? Surely it is a strong economy. The Deputy Leader then proceeded to say, `The economy has severe weaknesses'. On the one hand, he says that the Government will have to do something about the overheating of the economy and, on the other hand, he talks about its severe weaknesses-obviously a contradiction. Let me assure honourable members and the people listening to this debate that the economy is in a very healthy and strong position, and it is going to get stronger. The Government has had to put measures into place because of the strength of the economy. It is because of the economy's strength that we have had to control monetary policy in a tougher way than perhaps we might have liked-because there was a danger of the economy overheating. Why would we do such a thing if the economy were weak and needed an additional boost for growth? Obviously we would not have done such a thing. Again, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is quite wrong on that point. Then we had put to us the same solutions we have heard from the conservatives for the last four or five years. There has not been a single new idea from them in the last four or five years. In two elections the Australian people have rejected those ideas, but we still get them. What are they? The conservatives say that if they were in government they would cut public spending even further than we have managed to cut it. Mind you, every time one of their shadow Ministers speaks he or she advocates spending in some new area of government. Mr McGauran —That is incorrect-absolutely incorrect. Dr THEOPHANOUS —That is not incorrect. During the last election we totalled up all of the Opposition's promises to the Australian people and found dishonesty. On the one hand, the Opposition said that it was going to cut public spending and, on the other hand, it made a huge list of promises. The Australian people saw through that. They refused to vote for the Opposition, even though the economic circumstances were difficult, because they did not believe in the nonsensical approach it put forward. If the Opposition, in government, reduced public services even further it would get into a difficult situation regarding the provision of services. The cuts that we have made in government have been responsible. If the Opposition were in government, either it would make no further cuts because politically those cuts would not be possible or, if it made such cuts, it would create a public uproar and serious social division. The same pat formulas we have had for the last 4 1/2 years are put forward by the Opposition in relation to solving the problems. These formulas stem from the neo-conservative ideas of the Thatcher Government in Britain. They are the same ideas. As I have said, those ideas have been rejected by the Australian people in at least two elections. We get no new thinking, no new vision in the Liberal Party. We just get the same old stuff. The fact that Margaret Thatcher herself has moved away from these ideas and developed quite different ideas in the last few months has passed the Opposition by. The same old-fashioned, Thatcherite ideas are put forward by the Opposition as the solution to Australia's economic problems. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition talks about how the coalition, in government, would be able to increase productivity and competitiveness. By what process? By the processes which it used when it was last in government-a process whereby it set one Australian against the other, a process whereby it had no cooperation from the trade union movement because it continually tried to bash the trade union movement? Is that the approach the Opposition would use to increase productivity and competitiveness in Australia? What nonsense! The fact is that the Opposition still has not grasped the central concept of the economic strategy that has been pursued by the Labor Government, that is, the prices and incomes accord with the union movement, and the fact that that accord has been able to increase competitiveness, productivity and employment in a dramatic way. We have the best employment record of any Western country because of the accord with the trade union movement. Whilst the Deputy Leader of the Opposition raves on about how the Opposition would do things differently, about how it would manage the debt differently, the fact is that if its strategies were imposed we would have a huge increase in unemployment, reduced growth and increased social tension and we would be in no position to deal with the restructuring of Australian industry. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says that the restructuring of industry is proceeding too slowly for the Opposition. Everyone would like to see the restructuring of industry proceed at a faster pace. But we could not get that faster pace by the methods and approaches suggested by the Opposition. On the contrary, we would get the opposite. Factories would close. We would get more unemployment. More imports would pour into Australia because the conditions for production in Australia would not be present. If people want to know what would happen if we adopted the kind of approach advocated by the Leader of the Opposition, which was pursued by him when he was the Treasurer, they should consider what happened between 1981 and 1982-when 250,000 Australians were thrown out of work, factories were closed and manufacturing was brought to a standstill. That is what happened in the last year of the Fraser Government. For the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to get up here and give us the same pat solutions-which, obviously, he has got from his Leader, but which have not been thought out-rather than seriously considering the restructuring of Australian industry and how that restructuring can be speeded up in a proper way indicates that honourable members opposite will be in opposition for a long time. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned a specific issue. He talked about how the repayment of our Swiss and Japanese loans has resulted in some kind of loss. It is true that their repayment has resulted in a loss. One of the reasons for that is the lack of flexibility which the Treasurer has had in dealing with Australia's loan portfolio. The Government has brought in new measures, through the Loans Securities Amendment Bill to give the Treasurer that flexibility. He will not have to go through the complex arrangements which were previously required and which involved the Governor-General. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition accepted that this is part of the way of addressing the problems. It is an important part. Therefore, the Bill ought to be supported. But he then said that we still have a weak Australian dollar because we have a weak and vulnerable economy. I come back to a previous point. The Australian economy is not weak at the moment. It is strong. In every area of endeavour the growth estimates for the economy are being outstripped year by year. Even when the Government aims for a certain level of growth and tries to reduce it we outstrip that level of growth. We outstrip it because, as I said, the economy is essentially strong, and it will continue to be strong. The foreign debt is a problem; but, as I said, the foreign debt problem is being tackled in a very responsible way by the Government and the Treasurer. It will be tackled even further in the future through the measures we are putting into place. As I said before, private foreign debt-that very important component and overwhelming proportion of the foreign debt-is not the responsibility of the Government; it is the responsibility of private individuals. So those people who try to misrepresent Australia's situation by talking in raw terms of the foreign debt rather than in terms of the proportion which the Government owes are not doing this country a service. The economy is in a very strong position. The position in relation to dealing with the foreign debt will be further strengthened by supporting this Bill. I urge the House to do so. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(9.31) —I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), and my colleague the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) for participating in this debate. The matters before the House are very narrow. In response, the large Budget surpluses recorded in 1987-88 and forecast in 1988-89 have given the Commonwealth the opportunity to repay both the external and domestic debt, which will bring ongoing budgetary savings through lower debt servicing costs. In 1987-88, the Commonwealth repaid the equivalent of $A1.6 billion in foreign currency debt, comprising $0.3 billion in scheduled maturities and $1.3 billion in early retirement. The Commonwealth also retired $2.2 billion in domestic debt. In 1987-88 it was the first time in the 35 years for which comparable records have been kept that a Commonwealth government has repaid both external and domestic debt in the same year. In 1988-89, the Commonwealth expects to repay the equivalent of $3 billion in foreign currency debt. This is expected to comprise $0.9 billion in scheduled maturities and $2.1 billion in early retirements. The Commonwealth also expects to retire $2.5 billion of domestic debt this year. Many of the overseas loans currently outstanding were loans that were borrowed under the previous coalition governments. For example, more than 40 per cent of the maturing debt and early calls being repaid in 1988-89 were borrowed by the current Government's predecessors. The debt retirement program has been highlighted by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), and quite properly so, during his recent trips to Japan and Europe. In Japan, as honourable members will be aware, the Treasurer announced measures to retire the equivalent of $A700m in yen denominated debt. In Europe he announced measures to repay the equivalent of $A800m in Swiss franc denominated debt. He also announced the early recall of the Commonwealth's floating rate note issue for repayment by November 1989. The Commonwealth Government did not borrow from international capital markets in 1987-88 and there is no plan to borrow overseas in 1988-89. As a result, foreign currency debt is expected to fall from almost 6 per cent of gross domestic product in June 1986 to around 3 per cent of GDP in June 1989. The proportion of foreign currency debt and the Commonwealth's total debt portfolio is also expected to return to around the average level of the 1980s, which, to date, is around 18 per cent, although it remains significantly above the 10 per cent of the 1970s. The current Government has also reduced its reliance on overseas borrowings by reducing its foreign exchange requirements on the domestic foreign exchange market. I want to draw the attention of the House to the point made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in respect of the level of overseas debt. I draw the attention of honourable members to page 52 of the Economic Roundup for October 1988. Table 23, on that page which deals with Australia's external debt and debt servicing, shows that at the end of June 1988 Australia's total gross debt was $115.091 billion. Of that amount, $31.469 billion was government debt. That is general government debt, but almost all of it is Commonwealth debt. When one takes the $31.469 billion and offsets that against the official reserve assets of $20.831 billion, the net government debt is some $10.7 billion, which includes a small State fragment of debt. Overall, that is a vastly different picture from the picture portrayed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, because he quite glibly and quite easily included in his figures the private sector debt adverted to by my colleague earlier. The other matter raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition related to the early repayment of those loans. That has been covered by my colleague also in terms of the savings made by bringing forward the realisation of a loss on the Swiss franc loans and the Japanese yen loans. The loss on the currency depreciation is there; it is simply a matter of when it is brought forward-either at the termination of the loan, the expiry of the loan, or at the earlier date. If one offsets the loss on the exchange rate by bringing forward the repayment or redemption of those loans against the higher costs that would have been incurred in borrowing those loans at domestic interest rates, they are almost equal. But the Government's decisions to bring forward redemption, to repay overseas loans, to repay domestic debt, are moves which are very much welcomed by the Australian community. As I said, when one looks at the Commonwealth Government proportion of total overseas debt, one sees that it is but the minor proportion. The Opposition's amendment is not acceptable to the Government. I simply say in conclusion that the way forward to making this country more efficient, more competitive, lies through the award restructuring process that I have outlined in this House on a number of occasions. It does not lie through the confrontationist industrial relations policy of those who now sit opposite. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says that the Opposition has a fiscal policy in conjunction with an industrial relations policy that it would want to implement to increase competitiveness. I ask: Where will it make the cuts it so eagerly claims it would make? Mr McGauran —How about Medicare for a start? Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member wants to cut Medicare? Mr McGauran —Three billion dollars wastage. Mr PETER MORRIS —The abolition of Medicare, as the honourable member for Gippsland is suggesting, is one. Mr McGauran —You are misrepresenting me. Mr PETER MORRIS —A $3 billion cut in Medicare. Mr McGauran —No, there is up to $3 billion. Mr PETER MORRIS —That is No. 1 priority. I call members of the Opposition `financial schizophrenics', because before dark they want expenditure cuts and after dark they want more money spent. My friend the honourable member for Gippsland is a prime mover on more money being spent on roads; he wants expenditure increased. I say to the honourable member for Gippsland and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: `Specify where your cuts are; gain some credibility; stay with your policy of confrontation on industrial relations; and you will ensure that Australia does not become competitive and will ensure unreliability of the delivery of our products'. The Government rejects the amendment and commends the Bill to the House. Amendment negatived. Original 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 Peter Morris) read a third time. Debate resumed from 12 October, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(9.40) —The Opposition supports the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment Bill. It will achieve two purposes: the first is that under the new structure set out in the Bill dealing with the pay and terms and conditions of employment, the Director-General of the Organisation will be required to exercise more personal responsibility, and that is a good thing. The second objective that will be achieved is that, at the same time, the Organisation will be obliged to take account of government public pay policies. We believe, to put it concisely-there is no need to speak about it at length-that both of those objectives are desirable to be achieved. For that reason, the Opposition supports the Bill. There are other matters about the Organisation which give the Opposition some concern, and although today is not the time for a lengthy analysis of them, let me simply say that the Opposition continues, in the first place, to have concerns about the objectives of the Organisation and whether we have the objectives straight and whether they are the objectives that are needed for this country. On other occasions the Opposition will have more to say about this, but the Bill has a narrow ambit and it is not appropriate to go into these other matters at length on this occasion. Secondly, I doubt whether the great publicity drive that the Organisation seems to have been engaged upon is all that desirable. Certainly I have seen no evidence that it has achieved any desirable ends, and organisations that keep talking about themselves in the way in which this particular one has been doing raise some queries in my mind as to exactly what objectives they are desiring to achieve. Thirdly, it should be said-and again this is something that can be developed on another occasion-that the role of the Inspector-General continues to intrigue us. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) tabled, only a couple of weeks ago, I think the second of the Inspector-General's reports. He is now becoming like a minor poet, having produced two very slim volumes, and one really wonders what he does. One can safely assume that he does a fair amount of work behind the scenes, and I venture to say that his unpublished reports might make more interesting reading than the published reports that he has bequeathed to posterity, which seem to be of little value at all. In fact, I understand that some of his unpublished works could well become minor classics if, in the future, they are released to the public. His other communications passing between his own office and the Attorney- General's office would, no doubt, interest many people, as they have already done. However, we will probably have to wait for a future generation to read these-if the public at large ever reads them. But the time has come, after having had the benefit, such as it is, of these two slim volumes, to be asking ourselves just exactly what it is that he is achieving, and perhaps on some future occasion the Attorney-General might enlighten us on this intriguing subject. However, these are matters that we can pursue on other occasions. I conclude this brief speech where I started-that is to say, the Opposition supports the Bill because it does seem to achieve some desirable objectives. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(9.44) —When members of this House debate aspects of the intelligence and security services of Australia, I am always reminded of the observation of Mr Justice Hope: Australia needs a good system of intelligence and security services. This need has become more apparent now than perhaps it was in the past . . . Australia cannot hope to know everything that is going on in every part of the world. But we can try to keep informed about what people are doing and planning in areas of special significance to us. That requires us to be more discerning in choosing subjects for intelligence collection and assessment. If Australia is to have a good system of intelligence and security services of the highest professional standards, then the services must attract and retain people of first-rate quality and dedication. In return, Australia's intelligence and security services must be able to offer potential employees not only competitive but excellent employment packages that will include generous salaries and conditions of service. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the employment provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act. Outmoded references to the Public Service Board and the Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department are removed by this Bill. Although the amendments themselves are of a routine housekeeping nature, nevertheless they are necessary and urgent. Since the abolition of the office of Chairman of the Public Service Board, the terms and conditions of employment of Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) staff cannot be varied. As a consequence, national wage case increases that have been awarded to all workers cannot be passed on to Australian Security Intelligence Organisation staff. Section 8a of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979 already enables the Minister to give guidelines to the Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to be observed by the Director-General in the performance of the Organisation of its powers and functions. The amendment contained in clause 4 of this Bill will extend to provisions of section 8a to enable the Minister to give guidelines in accordance with the section to the Director-General in the exercise of his powers of determining salaries and terms and conditions of employment of staff under sections 85 and 86 of the principal Act. Indeed all guidelines under section 8a of the principal Act are required to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days after they are given, except where to do so would be contrary to the public interest by reason of prejudice to security, defence, international affairs or the privacy of individuals. Clause 6 of this Bill amends section 86 of the principal Act by omitting, inter alia, references to the Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department. The reason for this amendment is that the provision is now outdated. This reference to the Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department goes back to the 1956 Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act when it referred to the Solicitor-General who was, at that time, also Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department. Clearly, it is no longer appropriate for the Secretary to determine pay and conditions of employment of staff of another Commonwealth agency. Clause 8 of this Bill repeals sections 34 and 35 introduced to the principal Act in 1986. This is necessary as a consequence of the abolition of the Public Service Board. The other unproclaimed sections-33, 36 and 37-relate to a change in the employment relationship of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation staff with the Dir- ector-General. Under the Act as it presently stands staff have a contract with the Director-General. The basis of their employment is therefore contractual. The amendments made in sections 33, 36 and 37 of the 1986 Amendment Act have the effect of changing this employment basis to a statutory one. Consideration is being given to whether a move away now from contractual based employment is in the best interest of ASIO. If the Government concludes that it is preferable for the employment base to remain contractual then Parliament will be asked to repeal sections 33, 36 and 37. The administrative reforms contained in this Bill will serve well the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. However, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation has never faced greater challenges than it does today. Over recent years, the work of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation has undergone a considerable change in emphasis. Originally the organisation was founded to counter espionage attempted by foreign powers. It became popularly associated with the gathering of intelligence on possible sources of internal subversion, particularly after its first success in securing the defection of Petrov. More recently, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation has placed considerable emphasis on the countering of attempted extensions of international terrorism to Australia. At present, the weight of ASIO's duties would appear to require a return to a greater emphasis on its traditional counter-espionage activities, prompted by the increasing sophistication of defence related technology to which Australia now has access. Since the Second World War, Australia has been included in the dissemination of intelligence from the Western alliance. It is generally assumed that this exchange takes place under formal agreements, but it has been the policy of successive governments to neither confirm nor deny the existence of any such arrangements-the last occasion being by Senator Gareth Evans on 30 May 1985. Nevertheless, it is known that much information both of a tactical and a technological nature is exchanged-for instance, United States of America (USA) photo-satellite reconnaissance pictures of Soviet deployments at Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam. Nor is this exchange one way; recently disclosed details of the Petrov affair have indicated that Petrov's information was significant in undermining the then active Soviet intelligence network in North America. Furthermore, joint defence operations in Australia have produced defence and security information shared by Australia and the cooperating nation. The first of these was the British nuclear tests, followed by the joint project at Woomera. Today, this activity is represented by joint Australian and US facilities particularly the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap. Throughout the same period Australia has been developing an independent intelligence-gathering capability. Although the Australian Secret Intelligence Service provides a conventional means of gathering information on the region, it is sometimes said the most effective information has been produced by the Defence Signals Directorate. This is especially the case after two successive reviews of the nation's security agencies by Mr Justice Hope. In his General Report of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies published December 1984, Justice Hope said that: In 1974 Defence Signals Directorate was impressive by any Australian standards and is impressive now . . . I have no doubt that this will continue to be the position. Defence Service Directorate's activities have expanded since 1974, and its skills and technology have thus far substantially kept up with this expansion. Since the report of the last Hope Commission, the Hawke Government has taken steps to ensure that the Defence Signals Directorate continues to expand its technological expertise. In the 1987 Defence White Paper it was announced that: The Government plans to enhance our independent intelligence capabilities by establishing a large satellite communications station in Western Australia. This will contribute to Australia's security in our area of strategic interest. The station will be totally Australian owned and will be manned and operated by the Defence Signals Directorate. There are two important aspects of this activity which link directly to the developing role of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. The first is that the basis of Australia's military security and its capacity to become more self-reliant in its own defence lies in effective intelligence. The 1987 Defence White Paper also said: A high level of strategic intelligence is fundamental. This allows us to review developments in the defence capabilities and political positions of other countries and to monitor them for changes that could affect us directly . . . By continuing to develop our own capabilities and by supporting existing arrangements for intelligence sharing with allied countries, the Government will ensure that our needs for strategic intelligence of high quality will continue to be met. As the extent and importance of this intelligence increases, so does the risk that foreign governments will attempt to gain access to it. Not only does such information have a value in its own right, but knowledge of the nature of such intelligence could well be used to support `disinformation' campaigns to complicate its assessment. Secondly, as the intelligence networks of major powers are organised on a global scale, it must be assumed that access to US and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) information will be sought wherever it is available and, due to our alliance connections, Australia is one such place. The nation's access to this international intelligence has been guaranteed by ASIO's ability to maintain an effective counter-intelligence operation. As Australia's independent intelligence gathering grows in strength and quality, the same precautions will apply with, however, the important development that increasingly the nation's security depends on the ability to maintain the flow of intelligence. It is fundamentally important that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation has a strong capability in countering industrial espionage. The Hawke Government has placed controls on the export and re-export to certain countries of technology which could be used for military purposes, ranging from computers to metals and synthetic rubber. This action was taken in mid-1987 when the Hawke Government decided to adhere formally to the guidelines established by the Paris-based Coordinating Committee on Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM) restricting the flow of commercial-military technology to certain countries. COCOM comprises all North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries, except Iceland and Japan. Countries excluded under the COCOM agreement are Afghanistan, Mongolia, Albania, North Korea, Bulgaria, Poland, China, Romania, Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the German Democratic Republic, Vietnam and Hungary. Australia has a reputation as a reliable recipient of sensitive Western technology and high technology exports are increasing rapidly. Australia is therefore obliged to cooperate with its Western allies in restricting the flow of hard-won high technology that might assist the military capability of countries excluded under the COCOM agreement. It is essential that Australia's high reputation is maintained so that local companies and the Australian Defence Force are not disadvantaged and continue to enjoy ready access to advanced Western technology. It is not the first arrangement made by the Australian government covering the exchange of high technology information. Since 1964 Australia has been a party to the America, Britain, Canada, Australia (ABCA) agreements. These agreements are aimed primarily at the cooperation, collaboration and interoperability of the armies of the US, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada and involve the constant exchange of technological data. Although the security of this information has primarily been the responsibility of the Army and, of course, the Department of Defence, the capacity of Australia's internal counter-espionage agencies to prevent the development of any sophisticated attempt to breach such security has been critically important in the confidence of the parties in the exchange of information. This confidence is exemplified in the fact that Australia is one of the few countries outside NATO and Japan which has full access to all US military systems offered for sale-for example, Pave Tack, now fitted to Royal Australian Air Force F111s, is operated only by the United States Air Force and the Royal Australian Air Force. The military effectiveness of the Australian Defence Force depends heavily on the ability to maintain a technological advantage over likely regional competitors. Security of access to the latest NATO standard technology must be guaranteed. The effectiveness of ASIO in preventing illicit gathering of details of such technology is essential in maintaining the confidence of allies that they can safely sell such equipment to Australia. However, Australia's membership of COCOM is important for the development of Australia's high technology industries since the export of sensitive technology is prohibited to countries that are not members of COCOM. Another advantage of Australia's membership of COCOM is that Australian companies are able to incorporate advanced components into equipment of their own development and manufacture which may then have export potential in addition to the domestic market. The threat to the integrity of important military technology arises not only from the activities of certain nations but also from attempts by private individuals and corporations who steal and sell such technology. Honourable members will recall the treachery of certain employees of the Japanese corporation Toshiba which has since resulted in the Soviet Union acquiring new low-noise propulsion systems for many Soviet submarines. The implementation of the provisions in this Bill will strengthen the capability of ASIO to protect the integrity of high technology acquired under the agreements to which I have referred. This Bill is designed to allow meaningful improvement in the salary and conditions of service of employees of ASIO. The Hawke Government values the important work being done by ASIO. It has always had the support of this Government and it will continue to have our full support. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(9.50) —The Bill before the House, the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment Bill, improves substantially the salaries, terms and conditions of Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) staff. For that reason, the Bill enjoys the wholehearted support of the Opposition. I am particularly pleased by the fact that under the Bill the Director-General of ASIO will be able to take into account public sector policy on pay and conditions, as well as recognising the special circumstances associated with employment by ASIO. Who could deny that special circumstances exist for all employees of ASIO? It is almost trite to say that ASIO officers deserve good conditions of work. They have a very demanding job, often with long hours and sometimes unrewarding work. I think most honourable members would agree with me when I say that special characteristics are needed to act as an ASIO officer-characteristics such as thoroughness, patience and an unusual degree of dedication to the service. Above all, there is a requirement for ASIO staff to have a commitment to their country-a commitment to Australia. For that reason a number of us in the Opposition had many concerns with the shift of ASIO from its Melbourne headquarters to Canberra in late 1986. Indeed, we are advised at page 7 of the 1986-87 ASIO report to Parliament that `230 officers were compulsorily retired by the Director-General'. That report tells us that on 12 March 1986 the Director-General wrote to all the officers stationed at headquarters advising them that from 30 November 1986 they would have to shift to Canberra so as to perform their duties. At the same time, given the Government's insistence that the shift take place rapidly, officers were told that they had until 30 June in the same year to indicate whether they were prepared to transfer. Is it any wonder that at a press conference on 28 September 1988 the incoming Director-General of ASIO, Mr John Moten, revealed that some 70 per cent of ASIO staff had left as a result of the shift from Melbourne to Canberra. The new Director-General was candid, in keeping I would think with the new image of ASIO, when he said that the move `was almost devastating'. For that reason it is terribly important that the Government address the most fundamental conditions of employment for ASIO officers. Failure to provide the necessary remuneration and incentives for ASIO officers will further weaken what is already a very weak base. The truth is that ASIO is largely staffed with inexperienced officers. However keen and dedicated they are, nonetheless they have to make up for the loss of senior and experienced staff as a result of the shift. I agree with the new Director-General, Mr Moten, when he says that in the long run the shift to Canberra will be of benefit to ASIO. He believes that it will allow ASIO far better to obtain links and cooperate with the various intelligence agencies throughout the Western world or, more specifically, the Western alliance. Nonetheless, the Government must understand that, as a priority, ASIO staff should be properly treated so as to overcome-again to use the new Director-General's wording-this `devastating' staff loss. On the Government's past record there is a presumption that it is less than sympathetic to all of ASIO's needs and, sadly, objectives. I do not believe that the Australian Labor Party (ALP) has ever taken ASIO seriously. It has always maintained that ASIO was engaged in activities which undermine the ALP. Conspiracy theories have always abounded at ALP conferences. Look at the way that so many members of the ALP embraced Peter Wright when he fought the battle against the tyranny of the British Government, represented by Sir Robert Armstrong, the Secretary of Cabinet, when that Government sought injunctions to prevent the publication of Mr Wright's Spycatcher book. They thought he was a hero. It was a good chance to attack the Poms anyway. It was also a chance to reveal the conspiracy by MI5 to topple the socialist British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. For the first time their very worst fears were brought to light by Peter Wright, the supposedly highly placed MI5 agent who specified in his book that a conspiracy existed embracing a large number of MI5 officers. In recent days Peter Wright has recanted. In a British interview he was asked just how many MI5 officers were involved in this conspiracy to topple the democratically elected socialist Prime Minister. He replied that not everybody in MI5 was involved in this conspiracy. He was then asked exactly how many were involved in the conspiracy. His reply was along the lines `basically myself'. To the ALP, MI5 was supposed to be the prototype of security intelligence organisations, that is, that such organisations are always the instruments of service for the conservative side of politics. I do not doubt for a moment that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), a good and honourable man, would have a very serious commitment to ASIO, to the effectiveness of its operations against domestic terrorist violence as well as counter-intelligence. Nonetheless, a presumption exists that the ALP is hostile to ASIO as it is to other security organisations. Let me give an example of that. I will not go too far far back in history. One cannot forget the Murphy raid on ASIO headquarters in Melbourne in 1973. According to a number of commentators and observers in the intelligence community, that was the beginning of the end of ASIO. I certainly would not go that far, but the truth is that ASIO has never quite recovered from that. Let me move on lest anyone should think that I was delving into ancient history. The Combe-Ivanov affair saw the Government run away from ASIO at 100 miles an hour. There will always be a sensitive morale problem within the ASIO under an ALP government. The latest example of the Government's neglect of ASIO, even the downgrading of its importance, was when the Government ignored ASIO's advice that a Soviet official be expelled for espionage activities prior to the visit of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the Soviet Union in the middle of this year. I understand that the Prime Minister would have had a difficult decision to make. He was about to embark on a tour of the Soviet Union under the banner of glasnost. It was a tour during which the Soviet Union laid out the red carpet, made the Prime Minister feel very important, and gave him a very rare chance to play a role on the world stage. So there was the attraction, the lure, which proved irresistible, of self-aggrandisement by the Prime Minister. That had to be weighed up against the implications for our relationship with the security organisations of our Western alliance partners. In my view, the Government should not have rejected the advice from ASIO, particularly when, in its annual report to the Parliament, ASIO informs us that some 50 foreign intelligence operatives are at work in this country. I would think that most, if not all, are attached in a diplomatic capacity to one or other of the foreign missions. ASIO does not recommend the expulsion of an official of another country very lightly. It is prepared to identify and maintain surveillance on a surprisingly large number of intelligence operatives. That is the considered judgment of ASIO, and I am certainly not going to second-guess it, but it highlights the fact that, if ASIO wanted a Soviet official expelled, knowing that it was more or less on the eve of the Prime Minister's visit to the Soviet Union, there must have been good reasons for it. The Government either supports ASIO or it does not. One of the events in the last couple of years that has concerned me greatly and has significantly contributed to a weakening in the public's eyes of the effectiveness of ASIO has been a decision by the Security Appeals Tribunal. You would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that Tribunal was established under the ASIO Act to handle appeals from ASIO security classifications of public servants. A judgment handed down held that past membership of the Communist Party, in itself, was not sufficient ground for ASIO to disqualify somebody from security clearance. Surprisingly, it has even been suggested by people close to ASIO who should know better that even present membership of the Communist Party is not sufficient disbarment from access to security documents during the course of employment. I reject that notion and quite frankly I do not agree with the decision of the Security Appeals Tribunal. I do not intend to engage in an exercise of examination of the workings of communist organisations in this country, but I will say that on this occasion the Government is delving into the realms of the ridiculous if it does not believe that somebody with at least recent membership of the Communist Party, not to mention present membership of the Communist Party, poses a security threat. If such a person does not, then who does? Why bother having a security classification scheme? All ASIO can do is ask somebody whether he or she has ever been a member of the Communist Party. If the interviewee replies, `Yes, I have' presumably ASIO then asks, `Do you still adhere to the beliefs of the Communist Party?' If the reply is yes, ASIO then asks, `Would you ever use physical violence to achieve the objectives of the manifesto of the Communist Party?' If the interviewee replies no, the next question in this line of thought, I would imagine, would be, `Would you ever deliver documents of a security nature available to you to other members of the Communist Party?', to which the answer obviously would be no. In that case, ASIO cannot go beyond that. The burden of proof of security reliability in a case like this must surely rest with the public servant. Apart from using a truth drug or torture-heaven forbid-how does ASIO ever know the true intentions of a person other than by his or her track record? What predisposition do such people have, and who can belong to the Communist Party and be a true democrat? There are other problems for ASIO which I hope the Attorney-General will address in summing up and on which I hope the Government will take action. For the life of me, I still cannot accept the need for or the role of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. This is also a brainchild of this ALP Government. To what extent does the Government want ASIO to be accountable? In the first instance, it is accountable to the Attorney-General and, through him, to the Cabinet and in turn to the Parliament. It is accountable to the Australian Audit Office and to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on ASIO, of which I am a member. We have to draw the line somewhere. Just what does the Inspector-General do? What we do know is that expenditure for the Inspector-General's office for the year ending 30 June 1988 was almost $265,000. What did we get for that? We got a glossy cardboard cover with three pages inside it which told us practically nothing. He told us in that minuscule report that there were 13 complaints against ASIO during the year-eight from the public, four from within the organisation. He found that three of these were beyond his jurisdiction and he dismissed all the other complaints except one which is still being considered. I would have no problems with the role of the Inspector-General under those circumstances but for the fact that it is so hopelessly expensive. Mind you, some sections were deleted after the Department of Defence expressed concern that he was making public some highly sensitive material on the Defence Signals Directorate. Even so, I think it would still be a very short report. The Inspector-General does not stop there, because he makes a complaint that the law has frustrated his inquiries in that he does not believe that he can properly counsel dissatisfied ASIO staff because under the Act employees are prohibited from divulging work-related information to him-and so they should be. So why do we have this supposed ASIO watchdog? Why do we spend so much money? I do not think that we need an Inspector-General whilst under our Westminster system the Attorney-General must front up to the Parliament, nor do I think that this Inspector-General, by nature of the law and the need for secrecy, can perform any sort of serviceable role. Do we trust ASIO under the present accountability requirements or do we not? I have sought to bring together a number of threads and call upon the Attorney-General to assure us of the Government's deep and abiding commitment to ASIO, because when these threads are drawn together and examined collectively the presumption that has existed for decades that the ALP is hostile to ASIO is reinforced, if anything. We know that ASIO is an integral part of the security of this country. Whatever happens between the superpowers, whatever the easing of tensions in the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States and western Europe and eastern Europe, the fact is that we must remain vigilant. After all, there have been serious allegations, seemingly authoritative, that the second ranking official in the Soviet Embassy is considered to be a KGB spy. Mr Valery Zemskov has been referred to by an international publication as a senior member of the KGB. Mr Zemskov, a very urbane, witty and influential diplomat, dismissed these allegations in typically impressive style when he said: . . . I have to disappoint you . . . I am a career diplomat. I spend all my time in the foreign service. I'm quite satisfied and happy with my job . . . He went on to say that he found it very flattering to be in the limelight. The Attorney-General really needs to support ASIO. This legislation will do so to some extent. The Government must address morale problems. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.20) —I thank all honourable members for their contributions. The honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) quite effectively dealt with the relevant parts of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment Bill and supported them. The Bill now allows the Director-General to determine terms and conditions of employment-that is an advance on the previous situation-and of course guidelines will be provided to enable the Director-General to relate to those terms and conditions. That has been brought about because there is no longer a Public Service Board, and also there was no need for the Secretary to my Department to be part of a tribunal that previously had that responsibility. I thank the honourable member for Menzies for dealing with those matters. The Bill relates to policies concerning terms and conditions by way of remuneration, and also brings the terms and conditions themselves within the control of the Director-General. I thank the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) for his contribution. He gave a very learned expose of what the task of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) has been and is, and its enormous number of difficulties. We are all deeply indebted to ASIO for its work. It is an essential part of our democratic structure. I have the highest regard for all of its officers. The former Director-General did a marvellous job in arranging what one might call the removal of ASIO from Melbourne to Canberra. That was not an easy task but it was done with the greatest of skill and integrity. ASIO has been fully occupied, basically, with dealing with counter-terrorist activities, which in many ways have concerned people in Australia. I want to go quickly through some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). The honourable member for Gippsland is a colourful speaker, but he really does not do himself justice when at times he creates the impression that there have been some problems with ASIO-for example, that it was obliged to move from Melbourne. The honourable member should know, and I think he could easily have found out, that the previous Government built new headquarters for ASIO in Canberra. It was a recommendation of the Hope Royal Commission on Security and Intelligence that ASIO be moved to Canberra. It had nothing to do with the present Government and I do not know why he destroyed some of the more valuable parts of his argument by stating that. Mr McGauran —I was simply making the point that there is an inherent problem. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member was very critical of the move. He would have known that an earlier Government spent a lot of money, millions of dollars, constructing a building in Canberra. He would have known that that was a recommendation of the Hope Royal Commission, but he never adverted to that. I have to remind him of that. He then said that the move may have affected morale and staff. Look at what is said in a report of what Mr Wrigley, the former Director-General, has said about that. Mr Wrigley said that a number of claims that the Government had allowed ASIO to lose valuable staff were incorrect. He said: ASIO staff numbers are slightly higher than when I came in mid-1985. In fact, they were at full strength, at a level of about 738 staff. He went on to say: Because only about half of ASIO's total staff worked in headquarters, the 70 per cent loss there represented only a 32 per cent loss overall. Most of those lost were clerical rather than intelligence people. Naturally what we would call supplementary staff would not have seen their way clear to move from Melbourne; they would have found alternative positions. So ASIO is very strong and morale is very good. It will get even better now that we can fix terms and conditions more speedily. It does not do the debate any good to suggest that there is something wrong with ASIO. As I say, it is a first-class organisation. I make no comment on the Security Appeals Tribunal other than to say that of course there will always be argument as to what a judicial tribunal might say. The judge on the Security Appeals Tribunal was appointed by the Fraser Government. Setting up a tribunal and making appointments had nothing to do with us; they already existed. I pass no other comment; nor am I able to. The position of Inspector-General is again a recommendation from Mr Justice Hope, made on the basis that there should be some opportunity for people who feel that ASIO is not carrying out its charter to have their complaint independently investigated. I am delighted to know that the reports are so thin and contain so little information. That proves that ASIO has not got much to answer for. There are always plenty of people who will complain. The fact is that the honourable member just wanted to use up a bit of time, but he could have done that by praising ASIO and realising that the issues we are discussing are no cause to be so derogatory of the system. I make the point that, in a bipartisan attitude, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is privy to all information-the lot. That was not mentioned. These are the problems we have. Suggesting that there is something wrong with ASIO is a waste of time. It is a first-class organisation of extreme value. If I might say so with some sense of humility, it has not in any way deteriorated under my administration, and I give it my fullest support. We have a new Director-General who will do a first-class job. Morale is very high. Individuals may at times feel that they have a grievance, but such matters do not come to me; they are dealt with within the Department itself. I do not know why I need to talk about Spycatcher or Peter Wright. Again, that matter has gone to the judicial tribunals of Australia. I have some interest in those tribunals, and they are amongst the best in the world. If people fail in the witness box, if they fail under cross-examination, we should not blame the judge; we should blame the people who gave the evidence. That is the problem. It is not much good suggesting that because someone comes to Australia his evidence cannot be tested. In fact, if someone comes to Australia and does well in the witness box. he should do well elsewhere in the world. I thank honourable members for their contributions. The legislation will be a great asset to ASIO, and I thank all honourable members for their support of this splendid organisation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr PRATT(Adelaide)(10.28) —The problem of our social and moral attitude is one of enormous proportions. I raised this matter in a question to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) today in reference to pornographic and X-rated videos. We lock up people in gaol because they have offended against the community in some way. We lock them away for the safety of the community but, more importantly, to deprive them of their freedom-to deprive them of their freedom to drive to the beach on a hot day, to have a job, to vote, to go shopping, to go down to the pub, to sleep, et cetera. The deprivation of sex is probably one of the toughest punishments of all, and if this was not an intended part of the prison system we would not have separate lockups for men and women criminals. We would lump them all together, in the same place. Yet, despite the fact that we have separate men's and women's prisons and despite the fact that on 29 June this year all State governments in Australia recommended to the Federal Government that it place a ban on X-rated video material, sex is not only a fact of life in our State prison systems but also it is readily available. At this point let me delineate what we are talking about here-so-called non-violent erotica that makes up the X category; material that portrays women eager for sexual experience of any kind and ever ready for any opportunity for sexual activity. Any member of this House will know that this is fantasy in the extreme. However, this concept is frequently manifested in group sex scenes depicting diverse sexual activity which makes up a major part of this kind of X-rated material. The Joint Select Committee on Video Material received evidence that this kind of material-I cannot call it entertainment-engenders in the viewer a sexually callous and manipulative orientation towards women. To the habitual viewer, it represents women as being highly promiscuous and available and is certainly not what I would call a healthy attitude to half of our population. I am not a wowser; I am not a prude. I have worked in rough and tough areas. I guess that one such area is Parliament. But this material is degrading and cheap. It desensitises both adults and children. Those who scoff and say that non-violent erotica is harmless should bear in mind that a number of researchers state that non-violent pornographic videos are even more harmful than the violent variety. The fact is that while the States have unanimously legislated against the X-rated category, while they have with one voice rejected this blight on our respective communities, X-rated videos are rife in our gaols by way of the mail order system or the ability of the head criminal to dictate to the gaoler what material he wants, and the material is brought in from the video stores. It is pathetic in the extreme that South Australia's prison system, in particular Yatala Labour Prison in my electorate, caters for this service. I have demonstrated other ways of obtaining this material. The top dog in the prison pecking order peruses the mail order catalogue and passes on his selection to the warder, who then orders some of that material from Canberra, when available. The convicted rapists, sex offenders, paedophiles and molesters can sit in Yatala, with one hand on the fast forward button of the video recorder watching a replay of their crimes and fantasies. I have in my hand a copy of one such mail order catalogue which came into my possession. I obtained it from a company in Fyshwick yesterday afternoon. This company is a hive of industry, but it keeps a very low profile in the area. It is difficult to find the company, as it seems to move frequently. It has had more moves than a gypsy's camp. This centre of activity furtively beavers away, with the lowest of profiles, aiming to attract the least possible attention from its neighbours, as would an illegal gambling den or a massage parlour. It relies on the whispered word or advertisements in a dirty magazine to promote its sordid wares. This is not the stuff that Australians fought and died for on foreign shores. This is nothing to be proud of. This is the sort of stuff that is doing the morals of our young irreparable damage. Canberra, this national capital for politics and pornography, should lobby loudly and strongly to see the latter removed forever. This fine city is the headquarters for the National Library, the High Court of Australia, the Australian War Memorial and the Australian National Gallery. Self-government is just around the corner. The Hawke Government should come clean and help make a decision to ban this rude, crude, lewd and grotty industry. The recent Select Committee took three years to decide on the new- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(10.33) —I have previously in this place addressed the matter of an allegation made by Senator Tambling from the Northern Territory that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) is a racist. I quoted from a transcript of Territory Extra, an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program, of 7 November 1988 in which that allegation was made. Senator Tambling said: The best example I can give you of that is, about a week ago, John Howard went to Ernabella in South Australia, and it was a pre-organised trip and it was to go in and genuinely find out what was going, going, just going on there. And what does Gerry Hand do, he walks in the day before, and sets the whole scene, and sets it up and we find Aboriginal people standing up with pre-prepared press releases nicely duplicated, you know, criticising John Howard for a whole range of things. After that visit by John Howard, Mr Yami Lester, the Chairperson of the Anangu Pitjantjatjara, made a statement-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will refer to Mr Howard as the Leader of the Opposition. Mr SNOWDON —Most certainly. Mr Lester made a statement which was condemned by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) because he alleged that the whole thing had been orchestrated by white advisers and by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Today Mr Yami Lester released a press release with an attached statement which I will now read into Hansard. It states: On 30th October 1988, Mr John Howard visited the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Lands at Itjinpiri near Ernabella. A week earlier the Liberal and National Parties had released their new policy on Aboriginal Affairs. On that day, I welcomed Mr Howard on behalf of Anangu Pitjantjatjara. I also told him that the new policy was not good for Anangu. It was a policy that would do much harm. I asked Mr Howard to let us work with him in making a new policy that would really work, not a rubbish policy. I am angry now. Mr Howard and Senator Tambling and others are saying that other people put words in my mouth. Mr Downer —The Leader of the Opposition. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the honourable member for Mayo that the honourable member for the Northern Territory is reading from a press release. Mr SNOWDON —The statement continues: Do they think that because I am blind and I am black that I cannot think for myself? Do they think I can not use my own tongue and talk for myself. They say Mr Hand came to Ernabella the day before to tell me what to say. Mr Hand did come to Ernabella on 29th October 1988. He has spent a lot of time talking with us in the past year. A few weeks before he had spent 5 days on our Lands. Anangu had talked to him about our worries for health, for education, for housing, for police aides and other things. Mr Hand came back to tell us what he was doing about these worries. He had promised he would do this and he kept his promise. You must understand I did not talk with Mr Hand about my speech. I do not need someone else to tell me what is right or wrong, what is good or bad for Anangu. I will tell you something. We were glad Mr Hand came to talk about what he was doing about our worries. But we were also glad when he left so we could talk more about Mr Howard's visit the next day. Late in the afternoon we sat in the creekbed at Itjinpiri. About 40 Anangu sat there. We went slowly through the Liberal and National Party Policy. We talked about it for a long time. When we were finishing our talk a lot of people got their copies of that policy and covered them with sand in the creek bed. They left some corners of the papers sticking out. They were buried behind Mr Howard when he was talking on Sunday. People told me they could still see the corners sticking out. Mr Howard walked over some of them while he was there. Anangu did this because they did not like the policy. They were sorry about it. They want it to go away. It is a bad policy. In my speech I talked as Chairman for Anangu Pitjantjatjara. I said what our people wanted me to say. Did Mr Howard and Mr Tambling expect me to ignore their new policy, their new plans for us if they become government? I am blind so I cannot use notes when I make a speech. I sometimes get a friend to help me, to remind me what I want to say next by reading what I have prepared. It is my speech, not my friend's. Mr Howard and Mr Tambling say white people put ideas in our heads. That is not true. Our heads are not empty. When Mr Howard came to Ernabella, he had many advisers with him. None of them were Aboriginal. I will say no more about that. We want to work with Mr Howard, with his party and the National Party. We are not happy about everything the Labor Party does. We will not be treated like children. Do not use us for your political fights. We speak for ourselves. Those people have condemned outright the policy of the Opposition with regard to Aboriginal affairs. I will state what that policy is aimed at. First and foremost, it is the intention to undermine the confidence of the white Australian community in the ability of Aboriginal people to manage their own affairs. Once that is achieved Opposition members will have won the battle to white-ant the proposal to establish the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. That is what their campaign is all about. If, along the way, people's characters are assassinated, people's reputations smeared and their civil liberties thrown to the wind, it does not matter to the Opposition. It can hide safely behind parliamentary privilege. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(10.38) —Tomorrow the citizens of the United States of America will vote to elect a new President. Therefore, it seems an appropriate time to examine the record of the man who will soon be vacating the White House. It will be some years down the track before Ronald Reagan's many outstanding initiatives during his eight years as President of the United States are properly analysed, and the significance of many of his achievements fully recognised. Like many before him-and probably many who will follow-history will no doubt judge him far more kindly than some of his contemporaries whose opinions are clouded or influenced by factors such as political preferences and ideological differences. One thing, however, is beyond question: Ronald Reagan has succeeded in renewing the faith and restoring the pride and confidence of Americans-in themselves; in their great country; and in all that America stands for and being an American represents. He has elevated the sagging morale of a nation that had begun to question where it was at, and where it was going. And he did it so successfully that he won, and retained, office with two landslide victories. He has also shown that age is not-as it should not be-a major factor or deterrent in determining one's ability to participate in the public and/or political arena. Perhaps one of the most contentious areas of President Reagan's administration was his policies on world peace. The reasons behind his advocacy of the concept of peace through security-reductions in offensive weapons in conjunction with defensive strategies and initiatives-were summed up by his 1980 presidential campaign statement: Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the United States was too strong. The inability to defend oneself never has been, is not, and is never likely to be, the best or most effective way of guaranteeing or maintaining world peace. Reagan's peace initiatives have been based on the realistic and accurate premise that, `nations do not distrust each other because they are armed. They are armed because they distrust each other'. His approach to world peace issues and his policies of non-proliferation, deterrence and diplomacy recognise and reflect this fact. An editorial in the Australian Financial Review of 16 May this year, entitled `The Strange Record of Ronald Reagan', opened with the statement: It is easy to bag President Ronald Reagan, and by now it is a sport which almost the entire world delights in following. But instead of succumbing to the temptation to jump on the `let's have a go at Reagan' band wagon, the author of this editorial presents a rather refreshing evaluation of the Reagan years and, I believe, a very accurate analysis of Reagan's leadership style and achievements. Again I quote from this editorial: It is also by now a plain historic fact that this rather unusual form of world leadership has not led to any disasters-indeed, that over the years it has compared more than well in terms of results with many US presidencies. . . . He has led the United States, and therefore most of the non-communist world, . . . in a style which has been totally his own. The principal thing that can be said about this is that it is a triumph of democracy. In whatever way it may be viewed, the Reagan era has in no way been a disaster. . . . On balance, Mr Reagan emerges as the kind of amazing politician who may actually have been the right man in the right place at the right time. Whether the same thing will be said about his successor is something the whole world will be waiting to find out. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(10.41) —Townsville Grammar School celebrated its centenary this year. It was on 16 April 1888 that Townsville Grammar School opened its doors and admitted 23 boys as students. There are grammar schools in other States, in England, and no doubt in other countries, but the grammar schools of Queensland are unique. They were set up in terms of the Grammar Schools Act passed by the Queensland Parliament in 1860. The Queensland Government sought by this method to bring the benefits of secondary education to the youth of Queensland. Boys and girls grammar schools were established in Ipswich, Brisbane and Rockhampton and boys grammar schools in Toowoomba, Maryborough and finally, on 16 April 1888, in Townsville. Management of each grammar school is vested in seven honorary trustees, four of whom are Government nominees, and three subscriber representatives. The current trustees are the Chairman, Mr Frank Dixon Sim-to whom I am indebted for the preparation of this speech-Jim Thompson, Professor Ted Scott, Errol Wenck, Mrs Marcia Bird, Ross Marsh and Arthur Bloxham. The first headmaster appointed was Mr C. H. Hodges. However, he did not arrive until the commencement of 1889 and in the interim the school was under the control of Mr E. F. Upward, who had conducted a private school in Walker Street, Townsville which he had called St John's High School and the building `Edgecombe'. Mr Hodges stayed at the school until the end of 1900. I mention two important events during his headmastership. Firstly, during the second term of 1893, Miss Mary Foley was enrolled as a student. Her father, the member of parliament for the district, could see nothing in the Act which precluded him from enrolling his daughter and, as a consequence, Townsville Grammar School became the first coeducational grammar school in Queensland and indeed the first coeducational secondary school on the mainland of Australia. Miss Letitia Crowder was enrolled at the beginning of third school term of 1893. Both Mary Foley and Letitia Crowder passed Sydney Senior Examination in 1896 and subsequently joined the Education Department. Mr F. T. Millar was the Headmaster of the school from 1901 to 1904. During his term, the school suffered one of its greatest catastrophes. On 9 March 1903 Cyclone Leonta almost destroyed the main building of the school. The school opened in 1905 with a new Headmaster, Mr P. F. Rowland. He was to lead the school with great distinction until the end of 1938. Mr Rowland was a dynamic personality revered by generations of students. He was known and respected throughout the north not only for his leadership in the field of education but for his `Essays in Brief' published weekly in the Townsville Daily Bulletin. His tenure encompassed the First World War, and the names of the 150 old boys and masters who fought in that conflict, including 21 who gave their lives, are recorded on the honour board in the vestibule of the present administration building. Mr T. B. Whight took over the headmastership at the commencement of the 1939 school year. Amongst his assistant masters who also started then was Mr M. W. Blank, who was to assume the headmastership in 1948. With the entry of Japan into the war on 7 December 1941, and subsequently with the fall of Singapore, Townsville was brought directly into the front line of potential conflict. Schools were closed, many families left for supposedly safer areas in the south, and the Royal Australian Air Force took over this school. Mr Whight, in the 1946 school magazine, had this to say: The attack on Pearl Harbour prevented the realisation of our great expectations. Enrolments were immediately cancelled by telegram and telephone and local enquiries ceased. These years were indeed difficult ones for Mr Whight; it was not surprising that he decided to relinquish his headmastership and return to Sydney at the end of 1946. Mr A. C. Logan was Headmaster from the commencement of the 1947 school year. In 1948 Mr M. W. Blank assumed the headmastership. Mr Blank brought great vigour and determination to the task of rejuvenating the school. Numbers increased. Nineteen fifty-five saw the building of the then science building. The new dining room, kitchen, the senior dormitory-schoolroom building and the memorial swimming pool were added during his tenure. The Headmaster, Mr Blank, had indeed rescued the school and accomplished much. Mr L. S. Daniels was appointed Headmaster from the commencement of 1966. By then the concept of government aid to independent schools was firmly accepted and the Schools Grants Commission established. The present Headmaster, Mr Alan Morwood, took over the headmastership at the commencement of the 1976 school year. Townsville Grammar School now has approximately 600 students, both boys and girls, day students and boarders. My children, Eamon, Amelia and Joseph, attend Townsville Grammar School, which is one of the finest schools in Australia. The people of north Queensland congratulate Townsville Grammar School on its centenary, its distinction and its provision of education to the people of north Queensland. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.46) —I wish to draw the attention of the House to a very serious problem occurring in my electorate of Gippsland at this very moment. It is the threatened withdrawal of private hospital benefits for aged patients in two bush nursing hospitals, Heyfield and Mirboo North. It is causing a great deal of stress to aged people, their families and the communities in which they live. Madam Speaker, this is an issue that you would be well aware of, but other honourable members of the House may not because the bush nursing hospital system is unique to Victoria. It is a system that has been strangled by Medicare slowly but surely since its introduction five years ago. We are now at the last chapter of a very sorry saga. The situation is that there are a number of patients at the Mirboo North Bush Nursing Hospital and lesser number at the Heyfield Bush Nursing Hospital who may well have their benefits withdrawn by the Hospital Benefits Association Ltd and the Australian Natives Association. Given that the percentage of people who now insure with private health funds is down to an astonishing 51 per cent from a high of 85 per cent prior to the introduction of Medicare, the private health funds simply cannot afford to pick up the tab for the small number of patients in bush nursing hospitals who are there for other than medical reasons. The blame cannot be laid at the feet of the private health funds, as the Federal Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) seeks to do. The truth is that the responsibility for the situation we have now reached which is causing so much fear and uncertainty for these aged people and their families lies with the Government. In the first instance the Government should make adequate arrangements for the supply of nursing home beds so that these people are not in hospitals. They are in acute bed hospitals and the private health funds are paying out some $35,000 a year for each of these patients to remain in that care. Of course, the economics are such that, when this is added to all of the other deadly blows to the private health funds inflicted by Medicare, the funds simply cannot afford this any longer. There is nowhere for these people to go. There are no nursing home beds available in Gippsland; nor would I think there is a spare bed anywhere in Victoria. Look at what the Hawke Government has done to the health funds. It has reduced its contribution to the hospital benefits reinsurance trust funds from $100m in 1982 to $1m in 1988-89. It has abolished the Commonwealth bed day subsidy to private hospitals. It has increased the benefits funds have to pay for psychiatric and rehabilitation patients. The Government has presented the funds from accumulating special reserves to cover long term patients. It has forced the funds to pay for prosthetic implants previously provided by the state. All of these moves, plus others, have reduced the capacity of the health funds to meet the costs of hospital patients who by rights should be in nursing homes. That is the place for them-not in acute beds. There is a great deal of anxiety throughout a number of small communities in Gippsland directly affected by the Government's latest measure in this area. The Federal Minister described the health funds as callous and their behaviour as unacceptable. In point of fact, those words apply to the Minister's policies, which have forced the funds and their contributors into an impossible position. I call on the Government to take account of these aged patients at the Mirboo North and Heyfield bush nursing hospitals and in other places throughout Victoria. Approximately 145 patients are in these small country and bush nursing hospitals. Only one-Pyramid Hill-has been advised by the health funds that its long term patient refunds will be withdrawn. But Mirboo North and Heyfield are at very serious-indeed critical-risk. I call on the Government to take care of these aged people and to accept its proper responsibility by providing a sufficient number of nursing home beds. Mr KENT(Hotham)(10.51) —I would like to make some comments on the latest attempts by the Australian Medical Association (AMA) to increase doctors' incomes. Let me say at the start that I have the greatest respect for general practitioners. However, my respect does not extend to the AMA. Usually when workers ask for a $5 or $10 increase in pay there is a large outcry from the Opposition. It is some time now since the AMA announced its proposals for increased doctors' pay, yet honourable members opposite have been strangely silent. I have been patiently waiting for them to condemn the AMA, but in vain. So I thought I would take up the issue for them. The Government is willing to accept changes to the charging system, but only if it results in improved services and only if it does not lead to an increase in the cost of health both to individuals and to the community. Under the new AMA proposed fee structure, patients would be charged according to the content of the service provided rather than according to the time spent providing the service, which is how the system presently operates. The fee structure proposed by the AMA will in no way improve the standard of care given to patients. The AMA proposal is only a cynical attempt to increase doctors' incomes at the expense of consumers and taxpayers. The current average yearly earnings of general practitioners are very high compared with average weekly incomes. Doctors have received a 5.4 per cent rise in schedule fees which was introduced on 1 August this year. Since the election of our Government, the standard general practitioner consultation fee has increased by between 40 and 60 per cent. This compares more than favourably with increases in the consumer price index. Doctors have done very well for themselves, given the general level of restraint that has been shown by the general community. If these proposals are implemented, this massive pay rise will be met directly by patients, most of whom do not earn the same high salaries as their doctors and have not received a 40 to 60 per cent pay rise in the last five years. Yet, despite this, the AMA has proposed a new fee structure which will raise the average yearly incomes of doctors to $156,000-a 30 per cent increase over the current level. Patients will have to pay in one of two ways. Firstly, the cost of a visit to a general practitioner will increase dramatically. Under the present system a standard consultation at a surgery during business hours costs $18.60, which means that the patient has to pay $2.75 after the Medicare rebate. Under the AMA's proposals, this will increase to $21.50, meaning that $5.65 will have to be paid by the patient. Secondly, if the Government increased the Medicare rebate to cover the increased charges, the taxpayer would be hit by nearly $680m. This would mean increased taxes. The current schedule fee the Government recommends to doctors is a charge that the Government considers to be fair and reasonable for a particular item. This recommended fee covers practice costs and provides a reasonable income for the doctor. The Government has no powers to enforce such fees and doctors are free to charge what they wish. The only power that patients have over doctors' charges is to shop around. Before they go to the doctor, people should ring up and inquire whether the doctor is charging under the new AMA proposed scheme. If he or she is, the patient should go elsewhere. In my electorate I have had my Hotham prices watch group carry out a survey of general practitioners to discover how many have adopted the new pricing scheme. Of 21 respondents to this survey, only three general practitioners-or 15 per cent-have adopted the new scheme. I am glad to say that the AMA does not have the support of the vast majority of general practitioners in this latest endeavour of private enterprise to stick its snout in the public trough. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.56) —This evening I would like to say something about the presidential election in the United States, which is taking place at this very moment. It is my strongly held view that it would be in the best interests of the people of Australia, as well as in the best interests of the people of the United States, if George Bush were to be successful in that election. I am sure that honourable members on the other side of the House would agree with me that what we, as Australians-as supporters of the Western alliance-need, and what is best for the people of the United States, is to have in the White House somebody who has experience. The experience of George Bush as the American Ambassador to the United Nations, as the American Ambassador to China, and as the United States Vice-President for eight years, far exceeds the experience that Governor Dukakis has had. His experience is confined almost solely to the boundaries of the State of Massachusetts. It is also extremely important for the Western alliance, including Australia, that the United States continue with its foreign policy of peace through strength. It is the Bush administration which would continue the policy of peace through strength-not offering to give up every weapons system the United States has before negotiations with the Soviet Union begin. I have noticed with great concern that Governor Dukakis has offered to give up weapons systems such as the MX missile, Midgetman and even the strategic defence initiative system before beginning negotiations with the Soviet Union. I submit that that does not make much sense. George Bush would certainly not do that. He would certainly continue to negotiate with the Soviet Union from a position of strength. That policy has been an overwhelming success during the period of the Reagan Administration. It has forced the Soviet Union to the negotiating table on international matters, particularly intermediate-range nuclear force weapons. It has forced the Soviet Union to the negotiating table over Afghanistan and to withdraw from Afghanistan. It has forced it to wind back its involvement in Africa. It is forcing the Soviet Union to reduce its involvement in Central America. It is very important that the United States maintain a policy of economic growth. Again, that is what George Bush is committed to doing-not increasing taxes, which is a policy so familiar to Australians. We have seen it from our own Treasurer (Mr Keating) and Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). That is the policy in the United States of Governor Dukakis. George Bush has said that there will be no tax increases, that the Budget deficit will be wound back through a freeze on spending and that economic growth will generate additional revenue. But there will be no increase in taxes. So, there will be no stifling of economic growth in the United States. If economic growth in the United States is stifled, then it is a sure thing that a country such as Australia, already struggling with a balance of payments crisis and declining living standards, will suffer all the more. The final point I make relates to international trade. George Bush has continually supported the cause of lower protection and a freer international trading regime. Whilst we in Australia have reservations about some of the things the Republican Administration has done in the area of international trade, it is important for this country that protectionism, as advocated by Governor Dukakis, be cast aside and we have a freer international trading regime. If the Americans vote for Governor Dukakis, it will be a step into the wilderness, into the unknown. If George Bush wins, there will be certainty and security. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Beazley to move- That- (1) standing order 48a (adjournment of House), as amended by sessional order, and standing order 103 (11 o'clock rule) be suspended for the remainder of the sittings this week; and (2) in relation to the proceedings on the following bills, so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the bills: Government Business Enterprises (Miscellaneous Reforms) Bill 1988; Superannuation Amendment Bill 1988; Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill 1988; States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill 1988; Child Support Amendment Bill 1988; Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; Triticale Levy Bill 1988; Triticale Levy Collection Bill 1988; Rural Industries Research Amendment Bill 1988; Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1988; Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; Broadcasting (Limited Licences) Fees Bill 1988; Broadcasting (Retransmission Permits and Temporary Transmission Permits) Fees Bill 1988; Broadcasting (National Metropolitan Radio Plan) Bill 1988; Radio Licence Fees (National Metropolitan Radio Plan) Bill 1988; Naval Defence Amendment Bill 1988; Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1988; Income Tax Rates Amendment Bill 1988; Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988; Lands Acquisition (Repeal and Consequential Provisions) Bill 1988; Migration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988; Mr Peter Morris to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Foreign Takeovers Act 1975. Mr Scholes to move- That- (1) the disposal of glass products in any public area in the ACT and Territories under the direct control of the Commonwealth, other than in an appropriate authorised collection or dumping area shall be a serious offence; (2) persons convicted of such an offence shall be liable to a penalty of not less than 8 hours of supervised rubbish clearing in public areas in the Territory not including time taken to travel to the site; (3) wehere the offence includes the deliberate breakage of glass products, the sentence shall be a minimum of 24 hours actual time; (4) recurring offences after the initial conviction will attract a doubling of the penalty on each occasion; and (5) this House recommends that the self-governing Territories and the States enact similar legislation. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 374) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 November 1987: (1) What was the date of acquisition of the ``Nardoola'' property in the Moree district for the Aboriginal community. (2) In what name was the property title vested. (3) What was the purchase price. (4) Was technical and financial advice sought prior to the purchase; if so, from whom was it sought. (5) What was the estimated average return from the enterprise. (6) From what source were funds made available for the purchase of the property. (7) What capital was made available from his Department or the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) for each financial year of its operation until 30 June 1987. (8) For what purposes were capital grants made in each financial year to 30 June 1987. (9) Were the operational expenditures audited for each financial year; if so, by whom were they audited. (10) Were funds expended for the purpose for which they were allocated. (11) What were the gross returns received from the property in each year of its financial operation. (12) What were the outlays to achieve the gross returns. (13) Was a net profit gained from ``Nardoola'' in any year of its operation. (14) What capital items were either stolen or destroyed by fire during the course of its operation. (15) What was the net loss to his department or the ADC during the life of the investment. (16) Was any value derived by the Aboriginal people from this investment. Mr Hand —The Aboriginal Development Commission has provided me with the following information in response to the honourable member's question: (1) Settlement of sale occurred on 19 February 1982. (2) Property title was vested in the name of the Aboriginal Development Commission. (3) $585,132. (4) A detailed report was prepared by an agricultural consultant, North West Farm Management Consultants. Further studies were also carried out by ADC rural staff. In addition two independent valuations were obtained from the Australian Taxation Office and the Valuer General. (5) Potential for commercial viability was a secondary consideration in acquiring this property, the over-riding consideration initially being the pro- perty's potential value to the Aboriginal community as a social resource. (6) Funds were made available from the Aboriginal Development Commission. (7) and (8)-Capital grants, loans to 30 June 1987, and purpose Year Purpose Amount $ 1981-82 Purchase of property 585,132 1981-82 Operating expenses (loan) 10,000 1982-83 Operating expenses (loan) 31,000 1983-84 Construct manager's residence (grant) 62,000 1983-84 Operating expenses (grant) 13,000 1984-85 Operating expenses (grant) 59,000 1985-86 Operating expenses (grant) 28,700 1986-87 Operating expenses (grant) 23,525 TOTAL 812,357 All details above represent ADC funding. Other sources of funds, e.g. Commonwealth Community Employment Program (CCEP) through the then Department of Employment and Industrial Relations are not included. (9) Audits are held on file, as follows. The statements prepared by the auditors were not signed by the directors of the Nardoola Aboriginal Corporation. Year (ended 30 June)-1982 G. B. Wood, Central Northern Aboriginal Corporation Accounting Service; 1983 Sutherland, Reid and Farrar, Moree; 1984 Sutherland, Reid and Farrar, Moree; 1985 Sutherland, Reid and Farrar, Moree; 1986 Sutherland, Reid and Farrar, Moree; 1987 Not yet available. (10) The audited statements (unsigned) show that the funds were used for the purposes outlined under the response to points (7) and (8). (11) The following details are taken from annual profit and loss statements: (Nardoola Aboriginal Corporation's management dates effectively from the beginning of the 1982/83 financial year.) (a) Year ended June 1983 Horse, sheep, cattle, sorghum sold-$36,127 (b) Year ended June 1984 Cattle, wheat sales-$6,028 (c) Year ended June 1985 Interest on sales proceeds (cattle)-$819 (d) Year ended June 1986 Wheat sales-$1,105 (e) Year ended June 1987 Results not yet available. (12) See response to point 8 above. (13) No. (14) Fencing materials remaining from a CCEP project were removed on 23 or 24 May 1987. The matter was reported to the police on 10 June. A house on the property was destroyed by fire on 25 June 1985 and insurance of $10,000 was subsequently paid into the farm's operational account. (15) The property was valued in March 1986 at $261,725. As the property was purchased for economic and social purposes, calculation of a net loss can only be notional. The downturn in rural property values has had substantial effect on the value of the property. (16) Yes. The Nardoola Aboriginal Corporation has social objectives. Some training and employment outcomes were also created by other funding, under the National Employment Strategy for Aboriginals and the Commonwealth Community Employment Program. (Question No. 621) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 18 February 1988: (1) What was the original purchase price of the Oasis Hotel at Walgett, NSW, paid by the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC). (2) What was the date of the purchase of the hotel by the ADC. (3) What was the total cost of the 2 major renovations of the hotel. (4) What is the total sum of capital funding provided by the ADC as `prop-up' financial assistance to meet day-to-day running expenses since the purchase of the hotel. (5) What has been the total sum for wages and salaries and from what source was this funding derived. (6) What have been the trading profits or losses for each of the financial years to 30 June 1987. (7) What is the accumulated financial loss of the hotel to 30 June 1987. (8) Have all outstanding creditors been paid in full; if not, will all outstanding debts be honoured and by what date will they be honoured. (9) What was the original reason for purchasing this type of business. (10) What benefit has been gained by the Aboriginal community or the community as a whole as a result of the ownership of this hotel. (11) How many individuals benefited from any on-the-job training. (12) What are the future expectations of the hotel. Mr Hand —The Aboriginal Development Commission has provided me with the following information in response to the honourable member's question: (1) A total of $428,211 was expended to purchase the hotel and the business, and to pay out an existing lessee. (2) 14 November 1983. (3) $120,000 in 1985 and $116,475 in 1986. (4) The Commission provided a total working capital of $177,760 (in loans and grants). (5) Labour costs were charged as a normal expense against the whole income of the company, Gamilarai Ltd, made up from trading income and funds provided by the ADC. The Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET) has also provided assistance for trainees. The ADC has no details of the funding provided by DEET. (6) and (7) It would be inappropriate for the Commission to provide information in relation to the profits and losses of Gamilarai Ltd. The company is an independent incorporated body and information on the matter should be sought direct from: The Secretary Gamilarai Ltd PO Box 23 Walgett, NSW 2832 (8) Not all creditors have been paid. This is a matter for Gamilarai Ltd to resolve with its creditors. The ADC is owed money for outstanding loans. (9) The business was purchased to create an economically viable business enterprise with Aboriginal ownership, to provide job training and employment and a much needed social facility where Aboriginals could gain enjoyment while being encouraged to drink responsibly. (10) The ownership of the hotel provided opportunity for some community members to gain experience and employment in the hotel industry. The fact that the hotel did not become a commercially viable operation has resulted in an unacceptably high opportunity cost in terms of training and employment. (11) Full details have not been provided to the ADC by Gamilarai Ltd. However, the number of people employed at the hotel for a substantial period would exceed 20 persons in total. (12) The Board of Commissioners in August decided to suspend repayments owing by Gamilarai Ltd on ADC loans until the Oasis Hotel is leased out. The Board approved transfer of title to the hotel to Barwon Aboriginal Community Ltd on condition that the hotel must be leased out for commercial operation for a period of 5 years with a further option of another 5 years. A mortgage will be executed to this end. Barwon will be required to apply all income derived to paying out the debts of Gamilarai Ltd. (Question No. 712) Mr Blunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) What was the total expenditure in 1986-87 by the Minister's Department and instrumentalities and organisations responsible to the Minister, for (a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) opinion research. (2) What were the major items in the advertising budget. (3) What were the major public relations initiatives. (4) What subjects were covered by the opinion research. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Department of Treasury (including the Insurance and Superannuation Commission) 1. (a) Total expenditure on advertising by the Department of the Treasury in 1986-87 amounted to $2,958,777.46. (b) Total expenditure on public relations by the Department of the Treasury in 1986-87 was $237,740.58. (c) Total expenditure on opinion research by the Department of the Treasury in 1986-87 was $180,081.51. 2. Expenditure on advertising by the Department of the Treasury consisted of advertising for information dissemination purposes and administrative advertising. The latter includes items such as job advertisements and public notices. During 1986-87, administrative advertising expenditure accounted for $33,682.35 and information advertising accounted for $2,925,095.11. The following items comprised information advertising expenditure: government loan raising; tax reform; and Fringe Benefits Tax. 3. The Department engaged a public relations company to carry out work in respect of tax reform. 4. The subject of tax reform was covered by the opinion research conducted by the Department. Australian Taxation Office (ATO) 1. (a) The Department of Administrative Services has advised that total expenditure on advertising by the Australian Taxation Office in 1986-87 amounted to $2,725,397.95. (b) Total expenditure on public relations by the Australian Taxation Office in 1986-87 amounted to $303,323.93. (c) Total expenditure on opinion research by the Australian Taxation Office in 1986-87 amounted to $97,353.49. 2. The Department of Administrative Services has advised that expenditure on advertising by the Australian Taxation Office in 1986-87 consisted of $2,532,161.95 on advertising for information dissemination purposes and $193,326.00 on administrative advertising. The following items were included in information advertising expenditure: tax substantiation; Tax Form `S'; and tax information. 3. The following items accounted for the Australian Taxation Office's expenditure on public relations: media/public speaking training for senior executive officers; drafting of public information booklets for distribution to taxpayers; an attitude survey (including a staff video report) to ascertain taxpayer, tax agent and ATO staff awareness of and opinions towards the tax system and the taxation office; production of a Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) video for ATO staff training purposes and for purchase by third parties; and production of a video report for staff on the Program Management Performance Review into the ATO (May 1987). 4. The following subjects were covered by the opinion research that was undertaken by the Australian Taxation Office in 1986-87 assessment of attitudes towards the ATO and the taxation system among three primary areas of public opinion: general public; professional sectors (tax agents, accountants); and ATO. Royal Australian Mint 1. (a) The Department of Administrative Services has advised that total expenditure on advertising by the Royal Australian Mint in 1986-87 amounted to $88,715.00. In addition to this expenditure, the Royal Australian Mint had expenditure on recruitment advertising amounting to $66,425.00 in 1986-87. This advertising is handled internally rather than by the Department of Administrative Services (DAS), and consequently is additional to the figure given by DAS. (b) Nil. (c) Nil. 2. The Department of Administrative Services has advised that expenditure on advertising by the Royal Australian Mint in 1986-87 consisted of $21,266.00 on advertising for information dissemination purposes and $67,499.00 on administrative advertising. Information advertising by the Royal Australian Mint consisted of a campaign to promote the two hundred dollar koala coin produced by the Mint in 1986. In addition to this, $66,425.00 was spent on recruitment advertising, according to the Royal Australian Mint. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. Australian Bureau of Statistics 1. (a) The Department of Administrative Services has advised that total expenditure on advertising by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1986-87 amounted to $231,299.94. (b) Total expenditure in 1986-87 by the Bureau of Statistics on public relations amounted to $151,000.00. (c) Nil. 2. The Department of Administrative Services has advised that expenditure on advertising by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1986-87 consisted of $145,672.94 on advertising for information dissemination purposes and $85,627.00 on administrative advertising. The main item was advertising associated with the 1986 Census of Population and Housing. 3. The following items accounted for the Australian Bureau of Statistics' expenditure on public relations: improving communication with respondents to ABS statistical collections; and promotion of various statistical collections, particularly the 1986 Census of Population and Housing. 4. Not applicable. Prices Surveillance Authority 1. (a) Total expenditure on advertising by the Prices Surveillance Authority in 1986-87 amounted to $18,240.00. (b) Total expenditure on public relations exercises by the Prices Surveillance Authority in 1986-87 was $16,746.00. (c) Nil. 2. The major items in the advertising expenditure were for advertising, Government Gazette notices (Public Inquiries and Section 23 Notices), and public inquiry advertising. 3. The Prices Surveillance Authority conducted a public relations exercise aimed at extending public communication in 1986-87. A consultant from P.R. Management Pty Ltd was engaged to assist with the completion of the project during that year. 4. Not applicable. Reserve Bank of Australia 1. (a) Total expenditure on advertising by the Reserve Bank of Australia in 1986-87 amounted to $69,607.00. (b) Nil. (c) Nil. 2. The major item in the advertising budget was recruitment advertising. 3-4. Not applicable. Industries Assistance Commission Housing Loans Insurance Corporation These two bodies were not responsible to the Minister in 1986-87 Commonwealth Banking Corporation Information has not been provided in respect of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. The Bank is in open competition with other banks operating in Australia. The information sought is commercially sensitive and might disadvantage the bank if made public. (Question No. 1036) Mr John Scott asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 24 May 1988: (1) What is the Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances. (2) When were companies and organisations first asked to nominate chemical substances for inclusion in the inventory. (3) Are agricultural chemicals, food additives and human and veterinary drugs included in the inventory; if not (a) what is the basis for their exclusion, (b) who made the decision to exclude them and (c) when was this decision made. Mr Holding —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances will list industrial chemical substances manufactured in or imported into Australia for commercial purposes. The Inventory will be an integral part of the Government's proposed national scheme for notification and assessment of industrial chemicals. The Government recently agreed to drafting of legislation to implement the proposed chemicals scheme. The scheme will represent an important advance in protecting people and the environment from the hazards of chemicals. Under the provisions of the proposed chemicals scheme, the Inventory will serve as the means of distinguishing existing chemicals, which will be selectively notified and assessed, from new chemicals which will be subject automatically to notification and assessment. (2) The Inventory is being compiled in phases so as to minimise the overall effort required by industry and by the Government. It will be based upon nominations submitted by manufacturers and importers of chemical substances. The first nominations to the Inventory were made in 1984 and involved selected major chemical manufacturers and importers. From this process a core Inventory was published later that year. In 1986, all chemical manufacturers and importers were asked to nominate substances. This input provides the basis for a draft Inventory to be issued in September 1988. Because of the longer than planned time taken to finalise the details of the chemicals notification scheme, it was decided, after a review in 1986-87 by interested Ministers, to extend the eligibility period for chemicals to be included in the Inventory. This will mean that chemicals manufactured in or imported into Australia for commercial purposes between 1 January 1977 and 30 June 1988 may be nominated. To accommodate this amended provision a third (final) phase of nominations will take place between September and December 1988. The completed Inventory will be published in the latter part of 1988-89. (3) The chemical constituents of agricultural chemicals, food additives and human and veterinary drugs were eligible for nomination to the Inventory in the first (1984) and second (1986) nomination phases. The Ministerial Committee which reviewed aspects of the chemicals scheme decided that the constituents of these chemical products should be excluded from its scope. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has since introduced into the Parliament the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Bill 1988 to establish a statutory national clearance system for agricultural chemicals and veterinary drugs to further promote national uniformity in the assessment and control of them. The chemical constituents of agricultural chemicals and the other chemical products mentioned need not be nominated in the final phase of nominations to the Inventory. Those nominations provided previously will remain as part of the Inventory. (Question No. 1060) Mr Milton asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 26 May 1988: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a call by the British National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) for reductions in the permitted dose of radiation received by workers and the general public as a result of the latest analysis of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb survivor studies which doubles the fatal cancer risk from radiation exposure. (2) Has the Government undertaken its own analysis of those studies; if so, which Department is undertaking the analysis and what are the results. (3) If the Government is not analysing those studies, why not. (4) Was the information regarding the Hiroshima and Nagasaki studies and the position of the NRPB considered during the revision of the Code of Practice on Radiation Protection in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores (1980); if so, why are the annual dose limits for designated employees and the general public set at 50 millisieverts (mSv) and 1 mSv, respectively. (5) Does the Minister plan to further revise those limits to those proposed by the NRPB to 15 mSv and 0.5 mSv, respectively; if not, why not. (6) If the limits are to be revised, when is this expected to take place. (7) Is the Minister able to say why the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has decided to take no immediate action to reduce the internationally accepted limits despite a statement issued in September 1987 by the ICRP agreeing with the analysis of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb survivor studies. (8) What steps is the ICRP taking to investigate reducing the internationally accepted limits. (9) Are there dangers posed to workers in the nuclear industry and the general public by the IRCP's delay in recommending reductions to those limits. Mr Holding —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions: (1) The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories is aware of the recent interim guidance of the UK National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) regarding radiation exposure of workers and the public. The NRPB guidance was that the average dose for radiation workers should not exceed 15 mSv per year, although the limit should remain at 50 mSv per year. (2) The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) is the Commonwealth body in Australia which formulates and makes recommendations on radiation protection standards. These recommendations are then incorporated by State and Territory health authorities in their radiation control legislation. Advice to the NHMRC is prepared by its Radiation Health Committee (RHC) as relevant information becomes available. The Director of the Australian Radiation Laboratory of the Department of Community Services and Health is Chairman of the RHC and is also the Australian representative on the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). The Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories is responsible for oversighting the formulation of Nuclear Codes of Practice under the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act. A Commonwealth/State Consultative Committee draws on expertise available from Commonwealth agencies, the States and the Northern Territory. Advice is also sought from industry and the union movement as appropriate and successive Ministers have sought public comment in the development of codes of practice. (3) At present, the UNSCEAR and the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) are reviewing all the data available from the Japanese studies, as well as from other studies undertaken in the past. Until these reviews are complete, it would seem to be premature for the Radiation Health Committee to offer advice to the NHMRC. (4) The text of the Code of Practice on Radiation Protection in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores (1987) was finalised during 1987, and took account of the most up-to-date information available from the ICRP. The ICRP, in its Como Statement (September 1987), drew attention to the possibility that the present risk factors may be low. The Como Statement did not warrant suspension of arrangements to promulgate the new Code. (5) Neither the NRPB, nor the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), have changed the annual dose limits for workers and the public from 50 mSv and 1 mSv respectively. The NRPB has issued interim guidance only, which recommends that, for the most highly exposed groups of workers, it would be prudent to adopt a time-averaged effective dose equivalent of 15 mSv per year. The NRPB recognizes that it may take a few years to achieve this objective for some groups of workers, but this would be equivalent to only a few additional years of occupational exposure. For members of the public, the recommendation is that the annual dose limit from effluent discharges from a single nuclear site should not exceed 0.5 mSv per year. It is understood that the authorities in the UK have not yet taken up these recommendations. The Radiation Protection (Mining and Milling) Code 1987 adopts limits currently recommended by the ICRP and NHMRC. It also adopts their recommendation requiring that doses be As Low As Reasonably Achievable, economic and social factors being taken into account (the ALARA Principle). The implementation of this principle has resulted, over the years, in doses received by radiation workers being very much lower than the annual limit. (6) The limits specified in the Radiation Protection (Mining and Milling) Code may be reconsidered following changes, if any, recommended by the NHMRC's RHC. I am advised that any proposed changes would be based principally on ICRP recommendations. (7) In its Como Statement the ICRP refers to the fact that the risk factors currently in use appear to be low, as a consequence of the recent studies on Japanese survivors. However the results of these studies are, as yet, far from conclusive and a more detailed study needs to be undertaken. (8) The ICRP is undertaking a review of its present radiation protection recommendations but before finalizing risk factors and proceeding the new dose limits, it is awaiting the outcome of the UNSCEAR and BEIR review of all available information. It expects to complete its revised recommendations by 1990. (9) As the ALARA principle has been used for many years, the doses received by most radiation workers are very much lower than the present annual limit. Very few workers would receive doses which exceed an annual value of 15 mSv. Nevertheless, the RHC is preparing a statement for general dissemination to draw attention to the possibly different risk factors and the need to introduce further precautions to reduce doses wherever possible. (Question No. 1105) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 22 August 1988: (1) What proportion of medical services are charged at or below the Medicare benefits schedule fee in (a) Australia and (b) the ACT. (2) What proportion of services are bulk-billed in (a) Australia and (b) the ACT. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 72.0% (b) 44.99% (2) (a) 53.25% (b) 30.79% The above figures are based on Medicare claims processed during the period 1 April 1988 to 30 June 1988. (Question No. 1164) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 30 August 1988: (1) Which child care programs were covered by the Budget figures of $62m and $222m in the 1987-88 financial year. (2) How many of the 46 000 child care places that operated in 1983 were (a) family day care, (b) centre-based, (c) occasional care and (d) outside school hours. (3) How were those places distributed between the States. (4) How many of the 110 000 Government-funded child care places promised by early 1989 had actually been provided by 30 June 1988. (5) Has the Government undertaken a study to determine the financial taxation revenue and welfare savings generated from Government support for child care; if not, why not. (6) If the Government has undertaken such a study, (a) who was contracted to conduct it, (b) how long is it expected to take, (c) what sum will it cost the Government, (d) what are the parameters of the study, (e) when will the conclusions of it be made available as a report and (f) to whom will the report be made available. (7) Is he able to say what are the major recommendations of the States for each dollar of Government expenditure supporting child care. (8) What are the estimated taxation benefit and welfare savings. (9) How many more, and what type of, Government-funded child care places will be created in each financial year until 1991-92 and how will they be distributed between the States. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The figure of $62m refers to actual expenditure under the Children's Services Program (CSP) in 1982-83. The figure of $222m was the estimate of expenditure for 1987-88 at the time of the May Economic Statement. Actual CSP expenditure last financial year was $215m. (2) The breakdown of the 46,000 child care places approved at March 1983 was: (a) 18,000 (b) 17,500 (c) 1,800 (d) 8,700 (3) This information is not available on a State by State basis. (4) Of the 20,000 places, all but 74 were approved by 30 June 1988-these have now been approved. (5) Yes. My Department commissioned a study of the economic benefits of Government spending on child care. (6) (a) The ANU Centre for Economic Policy Research was commissioned to undertake the study. Professor R Gregory, Head of the Centre, was assisted in preparing the report by Ms Ros Anstee of the Centre and Professor Jonathon Pincus of Adelaide University. (b) The study was commissioned on 28 March 1988 and was completed in late May. (c) The Centre was paid $10,000 for the study. (d) The Centre was asked to evaluate the economic and fiscal benefits of the CSP and to identify additional data sources which could be applied to measure the fiscal and economic benefits of the program. (e) The report entitled ``Government Spending of Work-Related Child Care: Some Economic Issues'', was released on 30 May 1988. It received wide press coverage in major national newspapers. (f) The report is publicly available and can be obtained free of charge on request from my Department. (7) The question is unclear. (8) The report found that long-term job creation is one of the most important economic benefits of child care funding and concluded that the CSP facilitated: the ability of employers to find workers in areas where women are concentrated and employment growth is strong; a consistent approach to the formation and maintenance of skills in the Australian workforce; ensuring that Australia has the skills necessary for long-term economic and employment growth; success in helping sole parent families and others dependent on income support to enter the workforce and thus remove children from poverty. The report also found that the Government benefits significantly from increased taxation returns and welfare payments savings in respect of parents whose workforce participation is dependent on funded child care. The report shows that Commonwealth funding for child care costs considerably less in real terms than it first appears and could indeed save the taxpayer more than it costs. Last financial year $190m was spent on the provision of care for children up to four years of age where a sole parent or both parents were working. The report concludes that the extra taxation revenue, savings in dependent spouse rebate and savings on income support payments derived from families who use Government-funded child care for work-related reasons, could be as high as $296m, that is, $106m more than the $190m spent on work-related care. The actual amount of fiscal return, and therefore the actual net cost of the CSP, depends on the number of net additional jobs created in the workforce as a result of child care provision. It should be noted that, in the last five years, women have filled 570,000 new jobs (well over 50 per cent of those created during this time). Less than 10 per cent of these jobs would have needed to have been created and filled as a result of child care funding for the program to have no net cost to Government. Whatever position one takes on the number of net additional jobs created as a result of child care funding, it is clear that the community is getting very substantial economic and social benefit from funding child care and that child care funding is at the very least much cheaper that the gross amount spent on it. (9) The number and type of Government-funded child care places to be created each financial year until 1991-92 is as follows: 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 Centre Based Day Care 700 1650 1650 Occasional Care ... 400 800 800 Family Day Care ... 1000 1500 1500 Outside School Hours Care ... 7000 6000 7000 TOTALS ... 9,100 9,950 10,950 One thousand of the centre based day care places have been set aside for a co-operative venture with industry to establish work-based child care. The distribution of the remaining places across States is to be the subject of discussions with State Governments. (Question No. 1195) Mr Prosser asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 27 September 1988: (1) Why has his Department recently issued medical practitioners with plastic cards for imprinting claim forms. (2) Has his attention been drawn to the fact that, with the exception of the departmental logo, the details on those cards are exactly the same as those contained on the plastic Medicare claim cards, which have been in circulation since 1984. (3) Why was it necessary for his Department to print and circulate cards rather than make use of Medicare cards. (4) How many cards have been produced and what is the total cost of this exercise. Mr Humphreys —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As part of implementation of the Treatment Accounts System Phase II in May 1988, plastic imprint cards were issued by my Department to allied-health providers such as physiotherapists and podiatrists. Issues were based on known workload or on request. Some medical practitioners had specifically requested cards and these were issued from May 1988. The use of imprint cards enables treatment providers to save time on preparing their accounts, and reduces transcription errors. More accurate keying of accounts results in faster payment of claims. (2) and (3) With the exception of the Departmental logo, the DVA cards do contain the same information as the Medicare cards issued to medical practitioners. The cards are made available to medical practitioners only on request. It is presumed that the requesting practitioners either have their own need for a separate card or they do not use Medicare for bulk-billing. For the reasons outlined above, the system is more efficient for all parties if imprint cards are used. (4) From May to September 1988 there were 5,200 cards issued to allied-health and medical providers, at a total cost of $4,300. By far the greater number of cards was issued to allied-health providers who have no cause to use the Medicare provider card. (Question No. 1228) Mr Smith asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, upon notice, on 29 September 1988: (1) Who is responsible for the allocation of funds under the Renewable Energy Research Scheme? (2) What are the criteria for the granting of funds? (3) Have any funds been granted to date; if so, to whom have funds been granted? (4) Who is responsible for administering the National Industrial Energy Management Scheme? (5) What bodies or Departments have received funds under the scheme and for what purpose have they received funds? (6) What is the intended application of funds in 1987-88? Mr Kerin —The Minister for Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The additional funds which the Government is providing over the next five years for research in the fields of renewable energy, energy conservation and energy efficiency are allocated by the Minister for Resources, acting on the advice of the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council (NERDDC). (2) The criteria against which all applications for energy research funding are assessed are set out in the Appendix. (3) No; the first call for applications for funds from the Renewable Trust Account will be made in November 1988. Funds for approved projects in the fields of renewable energy, energy conservation and energy efficiency continue to be made as part of the annual general rounds of grants from the Energy Research Trust Account. They are not affected by the additional research support being provided by this initiative. (4) The National Industrial Energy Management Scheme (NIEMS) is administered within the Energy Policy and Programs Division of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy. (5) NIEMS is an information, advisory and support program designed to encourage greater energy efficiency in the industrial and commercial sectors. It is not a grants program as such; however, funds may be made available to individual organisations in three ways: energy audit subsidies. An enterprise may be reimbursed up to $300 or 50% of the cost of an energy audit (whichever is less) carried out by an approved energy management consultant. From 1981-82 to 1987-88, 304 such audits had been subsidised. For the most part, claimants are small to medium sized businesses, predominantly commercial enterprises. energy management seminar/workshop support. Organisations such as industry associations, and occasionally State government departments or agencies may claim up to $1 500 reimbursement of the net costs of seminars or workshops conducted to improve the energy management expertise of organisation members or clientele. Additional travel costs for expert speakers may also qualify for reimbursement. NIEMS funds may be applied to joint projects with State Government departments or utilities for the purposes of evaluating or demonstrating the energy conservation potential of particular technologies, or potential energy improvements in an industry sector. An appropriate level of commitment of funds and resources is required from the other parties. There are three such projects current: evaluation of cogeneration technologies (with the State Electricity Commission of Victoria); energy management in northern trawl fisheries (Queensland Department of Primary Industry and Mines), and energy management in the dairy industry (Australian Dairy Corporation). (6) Application of funds in 1987-88 and budgeted application in 1988-89 are: 1987-88 1988-89 ($) ($) National Energy Innovation Awards ... 42 826 80 000 Energy audit support ... 13 895 15 000 Seminar/workshop support ... 38 540 45 000 Industrial technology transfer ... 84 050 100 000 Publications etc. ... 32 610 50 000 Total ... 211 911 290 000 Appendix CHECKLIST OF FACTORS USED BY NERDDC AND TECHNICAL STANDING COMMITTEES IN ASSESSING NERD& PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATIONS (i) Merit Has the project sufficient technical merit? Does the project have positive social return and, if so, is the commercial return sufficient to ensure implementation by the private sector? Does the project leader and/or the organisation have the capability to undertake the project successfully? has the project leader demonstrated a sufficient knowledge of the prior art? Has the performance of the organisation of any branch of it under any previous NERD& Program grant been satisfactory? (ii) Energy objectives Is the project likely to have a significant impact on energy supply, substitution or saving? when will this impact occur? are liquid fuels involved? What is the priority ranking of the project? (iii) Economic considerations What are the economic benefits of the project? is there potential for energy savings? is it likely to result in improvements in productivity? is there potential for Australian manufacture and/or exports? (iv) Implementation of results Is the project likely to lead to an economically viable process or product? when? is there a plan for commercial exploitation of the results? What are the prospects of the results of the project being adopted by industry? when? is Australian industry capable of implementing the results? is Australian industry directly involved in the project? if industry is not directly involved, are there plans for co-operation with industry during and after the project? Is the project primarily: evaluation of overseas work? applicable to existing processes, plants or establishments? adaptation or development of overseas work? lead-role? stand alone? What are the consequent implications for funding and implementation of results? Are there any significant adverse environmental or socioeconomic aspects to the project? if so, is there an associated proposal aimed at overcoming these adverse aspects? (v) Funding level considerations Is the funding level requested consistent with: the nature of the technology? the state of development of the technology? the existing level of activity here and overseas? the perceived need for Government support? the availability of funds? Balance of risk and benefit to applicant and public interest Is the applicant taking risks which, in case of success, will benefit a much wider sector of the industry/economy (multiplier effect)? Without NERD& Program funding would the project: not proceed at all? proceed at a slower rate? proceed on a smaller scale? proceed unchanged? Given that the organisation is expected to provide basic facilities and continuing commitment, is the applicant organisation providing a reasonable commitment to the project in terms of: cost sharing? technical and equipment support? technical implementation if project successful? technology transfer? (Question No. 1240) Mr Scholes asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 12 October 1988: (1) In the transport section of his Department, how many persons are employed in: (a) full-time car driver positions; and (b) supervisory positions, in the ACT. (2) Have these numbers changed since 1983; if so, by how many. (3) Has his attention been drawn to public claims that supervisory staff numbers have increased to a ratio of 1 to every 3 drivers. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In the ACT Branch of the Commonwealth car service at 30 September 1988 there were: (a) 134 full time Drivers; and (b) 28 Transport Supervisors. (2) In 1983 there were 98 Drivers and 20 Transport Supervisors. (3) There has been little change in the ratio of Transport Supervisors to Drivers-the ratio was 1 to 4.9 in 1983 and 1 to 4.6 in 1988. In addition to 28 Transport Supervisors, there is one Administrative Service Officer employed on a full time basis in the management of the Commonwealth car service. The 28 Transport Supervisors are engaged in a variety of activities, including some which do not involve direct supervision of Drivers. For example, five Transport Supervisors Grade 1 are booking clerks. Other higher grades of Transport Supervisors handle booking inquiries, enter data into the airport allocation system, manage the booking filing system, allocate work to hire cars and taxis, and undertake marketing and training. (Question No. 1275) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 18 October 1988: (1) What sum did the Minister's Department outlay in 1987-88 for (a) radio advertising, (b) television advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) public relations and (e) the publication and distribution of journals and magazines. (2) What is the projected expenditure for each of those categories in 1988-89. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) None. (b) None. (c) $113,100. (d) $51,137. (e) $207,876. (2) (a) None. (b) None. (c) $95,000. (d) $48,010. (e) $663,000.