Tuesday, 22 November 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I move: That this House expresses its deep regret at the deaths of Charles Groves Wright Anderson, vc, mc, a former member of this House for the division of Hume from 1949 to 1951 and 1955 to 1961, and William John Fulton, a former member of this House for the division of Leichhardt from 1958 to 1975, places on record its appreciation of their long and meritorious public service, and tenders its sympathy to their families in their bereavement. Both of these men we are remembering today served their country with distinction as members of Australia's armed forces during the Second World War. Charles Anderson was born on 12 February 1897 in Cape Town, South Africa. Mr Anderson had a distinguished military career. In 1916 he was commissioned as a lieutenant in the King's African Rifles and was awarded the Military Cross. He migrated to Australia with his wife in 1934 and in 1940 joined the Australian Imperial Force and was made second in command of the 2/19 Battalion. He was promoted to lieutenant colonel and commander of the battalion in 1941. Mr Anderson was awarded the Victoria Cross in February 1942 in Malaya for a magnificent example of brave leadership, determination and outstanding courage. Mr Anderson was taken prisoner after the fall of Singapore. From 1949 to 1951 and from 1955 to 1961 Charles Anderson held the Federal seat of Hume in New South Wales for the Country Party, and was one of only two VCs to sit in this House. The other was Sir Neville Howse, the member for Calare from 1922 to 1929, who was awarded the Victoria Cross in 1900 during the Boer War. Charles Anderson dedicated his parliamentary career to representing his rural constituents and to improving the rehabilitation of service men and women. On behalf of the Government I extend to members of his family our most sincere sympathy in their bereavement. William Fulton was born on 18 June 1909 in Cairns. He also had a distinguished record of service during the Second World War. He served a tour of duty in the Middle East and was one of the famous Rats of Tobruk. Prior to entering Federal Parliament, Bill Fulton was the Mayor of Cairns from 1952 to 1960, having first been elected an alderman in 1946. He has been described as one of the city's most popular and progressive mayors. He was also a keen sportsman and an accomplished musician. Elected to the seat of Leichhardt for the Australian Labor Party in 1958, Bill Fulton served on a number of parliamentary committees including the House of Representatives Standing Orders Committee, the Joint Statutory Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings and the Public Works Committee of which he was Chairman from 1973 to 1974. He retired in 1975 after 17 years continuous service in this House. Bill Fulton was a dedicated and conscientious member of this House, and on behalf of the Government I extend to members of his family our sincere condolences in their bereavement. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —The Parliamentary Liberal Party warmly endorses the condolence motion which has been moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). As the Prime Minister said, both Charles Anderson and Bill Fulton gave very distinguished service to Australia during World War II. Charles Anderson was a very well known identity and a well loved member of the National Party of Australia. For those of us who have entered Parliament since he served in this place in the 1950s, our acquaintance extended on a number of occasions to his attendance at reunion dinners of former members. Most of my colleagues will remember Charles Anderson's attendance at a dinner held for current and former Liberal and National Party members at the old Parliament House only a few months ago. The Prime Minister has spoken of Charles Anderson's remarkable military service, which led to his being awarded a Victoria Cross. It is worth recalling the circumstances of that engagement, where he was cut off with only a small force. He led his battalion in repeated attacks on the Japanese during withdrawal from Parit Sulong. With ammunition almost exhausted and with many wounded, the battalion destroyed 10 enemy tanks and four gunposts. It is appropriate for us of a later generation of Australian parliamentarians to recall particularly the enormous courage and contribution of people of the generation of Charles Anderson and, indeed, of Bill Fulton in their service to their country. After the fall of Singapore, Charles Anderson went into captivity with many other Australian soldiers and servicemen who were subsequently to become members of this Parliament. The honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), the father of the House, remains the sole survivor in this Parliament of that group of Australians who went into captivity after the fall of Singapore. I had the privilege of knowing Bill Fulton briefly when he was a member of this Parliament from the time I entered in 1974 until his retirement in November 1974. He had a very distinguished career in local government. He was a well regarded alderman of the Cairns Council. He served in this Parliament as the member for Leichhardt for a period of 17 years. As a sportsman, he maintained a very active interest in all forms of sport in the Cairns district. I and my colleagues found him a very cheerful, happy, well disposed member of parliament who was dedicated to his traditional Labor beliefs. He looked after his constituents well. He was respected by members on both sides of the Parliament. On behalf of the Liberal Party, I join the Prime Minister in extending condolences to Bill Fulton's family as well. I support in every way the condolence motion moved by the Prime Minister in relation to both deceased former members of this House. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —On behalf of the members of the Parliamentary National Party I too would like to join in the motion of condolence moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and supported by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Charles Anderson, as both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have said, was an extraordinarily distinguished Australian. There are few who have served their country in the two fields of war and peace with such distinction; there are very few in war who have shown such valour. He was, after all, a recipient not only of the Victoria Cross but also of the Military Cross, having won the Military Cross in Africa in World War I. His Victoria Cross, I understand, was the only one awarded to an Australian during the Malayan campaign. The extraordinary circumstances that affected those who were in the jungle and who subsequently spent so long as prisoners of war are circumstances that our generation would do well to dwell on. As my colleague the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned, today only the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) remains of that generation. So many of them contributed by entering the Parliament on both sides of the House after the war and, through both their military records and their devotion to making Australia a better place, they have earned for Australia a quite unique respect. There is little doubt that Charles Anderson, both in Parliament and in his contribution to the nation in the Army, showed quite an extraordinary perception as to the circumstances of the world as he would prefer it to have been. Charles Anderson was the honourable member for Hume on two occasions, in 1949 and subsequently, after his defeat, in 1951, he was re-elected in 1956 and was defeated again in 1961. In his farming career, Charles Anderson very much represented the concerns of those who were in the sheep-wheat belt of Australia that there should be an opportunity for farmers both to speak in the parliamentary forums and to contribute to the nation's external earnings. Charles Anderson was a strong advocate of the cause of the rural industries in Australia. He had very conservative views and never had any doubts about the correct performance of government and parliament. To Liz, Virginia and Jeremy, his three children, on behalf of the members of the Parliamentary National Party, I extend our sympathy. Bill Fulton served in this place as the honourable member for Leichhardt throughout my early years in the Parliament. As the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have said, he was a likeable man, a stalwart of the Labor cause. He was a very well regarded mayor of Cairns and contributed a great deal on behalf of the Labor Party to a greater comprehension of the problems of the north, long before it reached the present phase of tourist development that has characterised it in recent years. To Bill Fulton's family I would also like to join the members of the Parliamentary National Party in extending to them our deepest sympathy. Mr UREN(Reid) —I join the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) in paying respect to Charles Anderson and to Bill Fulton. Charles Anderson was one of the legendary figures of the Second World War. He was greatly respected by those who served with him and he was loved by the men of the 2/19 Infantry Battalion. I had many friends and comrades who were members of the 19th Battalion. I had two very close friends, in particular, Jack Hall and Tiny Kane. I served with the 2/19 in prison camps on the Burma-Siam railway and later in Japan. The 2/19 was a proud group. They were proud of their battalion, they were proud of their officers and they loved Charlie Anderson. For ordinary soldiers to talk favourably about officers meant that those officers had to be exceptionally good. They had to prove their worth. The officers of the 2/19 Battalion proved themselves in action and during their prison days. This leadership flowed down from Charlie Anderson, who was their commanding officer. As the Prime Minister has said, Charlie Anderson was the second Victoria Cross winner to serve in this House. It is ironic that Sir Neville Howse's son was also a prisoner of war in that prison camp at that time. I think it is worth while to place on record-even though the Leader of the Opposition spelt out a good deal of it-the citation for Charlie Anderson's Victoria Cross. It said: During operations in Malaya from 18th to 22nd January, 1942, Lieutenant-Col. Anderson, in command of a small force, was sent to restore a vital position and to assist a Brigade. His Force destroyed ten enemy tanks. When later cut off, he defeated persistent attacks on his position from air and ground forces and forced his way through the enemy line to a depth of fifteen miles. He was again surrounded and subjected to very heavy, frequent attacks, resulting in severe casualties to his force. He personally led an attack with great gallantry on the enemy, who were holding a bridge, and succeeded in destroying four guns. Lieutenant-Colonel Anderson, throughout all this fighting, protected his wounded and refused to leave them. He obtained news by wireless of the enemy position and attempted to fight his way back through eight miles of enemy occupied country. This proved to be impossible, and the enemy were holding too strong a position for any attempt to be made to relieve him. On 19th January, Lieutenant-Colonel Anderson was ordered to destroy his equipment and make his way as best he could around the enemy position. Throughout the fighting, which lasted for four days, he set a magnificent example of brave leadership, determination and outstanding courage. He not only showed fighting qualities of very high order but throughout exposed himself to danger without any regard for his own personal safety. I served with Charlie Anderson in this Parliament from 1958 to 1961. He was a very conservative politician. He came from that tradition. Honourable members can imagine a young radical bloke like myself, just coming into the political game. I think I used to shock Charlie from time to time. As I say, he was a conservative politician but a very decent human being. He was a kind and gentle man. He always called me Thomas and I always called him Charles. He was well liked and respected in the House and, although our politics were poles apart, I respected him greatly. I express my condolences to his family and to his comrades and extended family, the survivors of the 2/19 Battalion. I knew that Bill Fulton was ill but until I received the blue business sheet I did not know that he had passed away. Bill Fulton was a real character. Thirty years ago today he was elected to this Parliament and, of course, for 17 years he was an honourable member. His predecessor was Harry Bruce. Harry Bruce was also a legendary of the north. The Bruce Highway carries his name. Harry Bruce told us that Bill Fulton would hold the seat of Leichhardt for as long as he liked, and he certainly did. He was loved and liked by all in this Parliament. He was an ex-serviceman who had had it very tough. Anyone who was a Rat of Tobruk knows how tough it was. He was always a great fighter for ex-servicemen's rights. I am indeed sad. I visited him recently, with the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler), when I was in Cairns. He was not very well at that time although he got well again after that point. It is very sad to realise that he has passed away and I pass my condolence to his wife and family. Mr FIFE(Hume) —I join the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) and the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) in expressing to the families of the late Charles Anderson and the late Bill Fulton my deepest sympathy. As has been pointed out, both men served their country, in war and in peace. Both of them have a very distinguished record and both are remembered by at least some of the members on both sides of this House. I did not know Bill Fulton but I know of him. I know of his reputation, which fits exactly what the honourable member for Reid said. One of the great things about parliamentary democracy is that we all come into a parliament like this determined to do our best for our constituents and for the nation and sometimes our views differ as to how those responsibilities are best discharged. But it is important that we respect one another for not only our personal performances but indeed the contribution that each member of this chamber and the other place makes. I did not have the privilege of serving with Charles Anderson in the House of Representatives. He had of course left here long before I came to the House of Representatives in 1975. My relationship with Charles Anderson, however, was more of a personal relationship. I first met him in 1949 when he was campaigning for the seat of Hume, a campaign which of course he won. I did not see very much of him from 1949 until I was elected to the New South Wales Legislative Assembly in 1957. Of course, in 1957 he was campaigning for the Country Party candidate in the seat of Wagga Wagga, but such was the man that when that campaign was over and I had been elected as the member for Wagga Wagga-part of that electorate of Wagga Wagga forming part of the Hume division-he, as a seasoned soldier and then a well-experienced politician, telephoned me and offered to assist me in any way that he could. Our paths continued to cross. I remember one important occasion on 13 August 1960 when he laid the foundation stone for the Junee Ex-Services Club. Junee, of course, is a centre that more often records a vote for the Australian Labor Party than for the Liberal or National parties. But in Junee, as in all other parts of the Hume electorate and indeed all parts of southern New South Wales-I know I speak for my colleague the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) and my colleague the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks)-Charles Anderson was respected by people on both sides of politics. In later years, when I assumed ministerial rank in the State Government, Charles Anderson was a constant source of inspiration to me. I welcomed his advice and respected him. I was grateful to have his advice and wisdom available to me. Since his death-coincidentally, on Remembrance Day 1988-tributes have poured in to his family from people in all walks of life. The tribute paid to him here in Canberra last Thursday was, to say the least, emotionally charged. True, he was an elderly man and a man who had lived a full life; nevertheless, St Paul's was packed on that occasion. The Army paid a magnificent tribute to him; so did the Rev. John Griffith and his lifelong friend, Jim Davidson from Young. People from all walks of life came to pay tribute to a great Australian, a person who always led by example. The Leader of the National Party of Australia and the honourable member for Reid reminded us of the citation referring to his `magnificent example of brave leadership'. I say, Madam Speaker, that he gave the same kind of leadership in peace as he gave in war. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt) —I appreciate the opportunity of joining the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and previous speakers in supporting this condolence motion. I did not have the opportunity to meet or to serve with Charles Anderson, but I do wish to express my heartfelt sympathy to his family for their loss. Neither did I serve with the former member for Leichhardt, William John Fulton-more affectionately known to his friends as Bill Fulton-but I did have a close personal relationship with him. He represented the Federal division of Leichhardt, as has been alluded to by previous speakers, for a long time-in fact, for 17 years. It was during that period of representation that he displayed a strong and dedicated interest in the region that he represented, an interest that he maintained long after his retirement from the public arena. Bill was born and educated in Cairns and dedicated much of his life to that city. He was first elected to the council of the City of Cairns in 1946, and he continued his role in local government until 1960. He held the office of Deputy Mayor from 1949 to 1952 and was Mayor of that city for the last eight years until his retirement from the council. In his maiden speech in the House of Representatives in February 1959 Bill Fulton spoke of the aspirations of far north Queenslanders and the future of that region of our nation. He did that with a verve and commitment to that area and its peoples which he retained until his death. His compassion towards his fellow man, I believe, was founded early in his lifetime when his father was actively involved in trade unionism, being a representative of the Australian Railways Union in the 1920s and 1930s. He placed a real significance on the welfare of the under-privileged and the needy in his area, especially the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people. Bill Fulton received the highest recognition within the Australian Labor Party when, in 1976, at Cairns he was presented with his life membership by the now Prime Minister, Bob Hawke. His Army career and service have been spoken of. I believe that it was in two theatres of war during the Second World War that the character and resolve of the former member for Leichhardt were best illustrated. He served in Africa and was seriously injured in the defence of Tobruk. In 1941 he was returned to Australia as a result of the extent of his injuries. However, notwithstanding his injuries and his resultant disabilities, which afflicted him for the rest of his life, he returned to the theatre of conflict in Borneo in 1945, once again in defence of our nation. Bill maintained an interest with his Army comrades after the war in the welfare and care of his fellow returned serviceman. For many years he played an active role in the Returned Services League and the Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers Association and at the time of his death was the President of the Rats of Tobruk Association. On the death of William John Fulton we have lost a fine Australian. In particular, those whom he represented have lost a fine north Queenslander. I extend my heartfelt sympathy to his wife Thelma, who helped him so tirelessly in his public life, and his children, Bob, Bill and Cheryl. Mr SHARP(Gilmore) —I join the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) in this motion of condolence, and I speak on behalf of the citizens of my home town, Young. Charles Anderson was a resident of that town for a large portion of his life. Whilst I may address my remarks specifically to Charles Anderson, I, too, extend my condolences to the family of Bill Fulton. Charles Anderson was a legend in the town of Young. Even though it is many years since he left that town to move to Canberra, there is hardly a soul in the town of Young who did not know Charles Anderson and did not regard him in the highest of ways. He was known as a man of great courage, tremendous dignity and immense honesty. He inspired fierce loyalty amongst those who knew him, particularly the people who served with him during the Second World War. He served this Parliament extremely well. He served the people of Hume and, of course, the people of my home town of Young also very well. On behalf of the citizens of Young I say thanks to Charles Anderson for his life and his efforts. I think his life and achievements can be an example to every Australian. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) left on 19 November on Government business overseas and will return to Australia on 7 December. In his absence the Minister for Resources, Senator Cook, is the Acting Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, with the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, Mr Barry Jones, representing the Acting Minister in this chamber. Dr HEWSON —I refer the Prime Minister to the Government's reported attempts earlier this year, in support of Rothwells Ltd as the Australian partner, to replace the Parry Corporation in the $50m international broadcasting centre and hotel complex planned for Beijing and to the reported Chinese concerns over the ability of Rothwells to take on the full financial commitments of the venture. I ask the Prime Minister: What representations were made by the Government on behalf of Rothwells to the Chinese? When and by whom? What assessment did the Government make of Rothwells' financial position at the time? Did it consult the Reserve Bank of Australia or the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in making that assessment? Did the Government, as reported, organise guarantees from the Commonwealth Bank in support of Rothwells? On what basis were these guarantees given? What role did the Prime Minister's previous adviser, then our Ambassador to China and now Chairman of the Rural and Industries Bank of Western Australia, play in those negotiations? Mr HAWKE —Obviously, I cannot recall all the details of the elements of the question but, as it is an important issue, I will undertake immediately to have the question investigated and I will supply the details as soon as I possibly can. Mr MARTIN —My question is also addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the House of the effects of removing the income tax exemption currently enjoyed by the goldmining industry? Mr HAWKE —The removal of the tax exemption for goldmining will obviously dismantle a longstanding tax shelter and put that industry on the same basis as other industries by-- Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. My point of order relates to standing order 144. Questions cannot refer to debates in the current session. That legislation was debated in the last sitting period when, on the last day, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie crossed the floor four times and, therefore, should be ruled out of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister is in order. Mr HAWKE —It will become clear why honourable members opposite want to avoid this answer. As I was saying, by any objective measurement, the Government's decision is both fair and economically rational. The rationality of the decision was affirmed at the weekend by a former member of the Opposition, John Hyde. This is what John Hyde had to say about the rationality of the decision: The tax inequalities drive investment from the high-tax industry to the low. Comparative advantage is ignored, and gross domestic product shrinks. Then, either people accept lower living standards or gain temporary respite by borrowing from abroad. Those who oppose removing the tax exemption are condoning the arrangements whereby tens of millions of dollars are transferred from Australia to the United States Treasury each year as American goldmining companies pay at home the tax from which they are exempted in Australia. That is the idea of fairness of the Liberal Party. Mr Hyde delivered his verdict on the motives of the Liberal Party when he said: It seems, however, that they opposed the gold tax to gain advantage in the coming West Australian election, and to spite a leader they will not support but cannot replace. John Hyde said of the Liberals opposite: Such pettiness and spite merely demonstrate their unfitness to govern. Spot on, John Hyde. Mr SPENDER —My question is also addressed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will be aware of reports that the Estonian Parliament has amended the Estonian Constitution to give to the Estonian Republic the right to veto Moscow decisions and passed laws and declarations which assert the Estonian Republic's legal supremacy over national law and its control over its resources and economy. In view of the bipartisan rejection of the annexation by the Soviet Union of Estonia and the other Baltic states, will his Government give its support to these actions by the Estonian people? Mr HAWKE —I welcome the honourable gentleman's question. I think there will be bipartisan agreement that we welcome the changes that are taking place in the Soviet Union whereby, under the processes of glasnost and perestroika, there is, certainly by comparison with the darkness of previous days, an opening up of processes within the Soviet Union so that those with different views, from the establishment, if I can put it that way, are now having a much greater opportunity to put those views. The pace at which those changes will be able to be accommodated in the Soviet Union is a matter for argument. Obviously, the difficulties confronting President Gorbachev are in two major parts. Firstly, there is the opposition that he is receiving from those ideologically opposed to the paths he is trying to follow and from a large sector of the bureaucracy which derives a considerable degree of comfort from the continuation of the present arrangements. The second area which I think the honourable member will agree is posing difficulties for the process of change is the rate at which the nationalities question is now, in a number of areas of the Soviet Union, putting pressures on the leadership of the Soviet Union. Therefore, while I totally endorse the aspirations of the people of the Baltic states to obtain for themselves the freedom of expression, action and decision-making to which they aspire, I assert to the honourable member that it is in no one's interest, including the people of the Baltic states, that pressures be applied in such a way that the capacity of Mr Gorbachev and those supporting him to proceed along the paths that they are following is reduced. I hope that the honourable gentleman will understand precisely what I am saying so that there can be no capacity or opportunity for misrepresentation. I repeat that I thoroughly endorse the aspirations of the people of the Baltic states to achieve the greater degrees of freedom to which they are aspiring. That is said without qualification. I simply say to the honourable gentleman-and I hope he will understand the sense in which I put it-that I believe the paths which are being pursued now by Mr Gorbachev and those who are supporting him in attempting to open up the system, and the aspirations not only of those in the Baltic states but also of other nationalities in the Soviet Union who are pursuing the same aspirations, will not be assisted if governments like my own and countries like Australia seek opportunistically to condemn reactions by the Soviet Union at this stage against those aspirations. I repeat that this Government is on record, both publicly and in terms of what I have said directly to Secretary-General Gorbachev, as supporting the aspirations of the people to which the honourable gentleman refers. There is no question about that; there is no qualification. I have said it publicly. As distinct from others, I have had the opportunity of putting that position directly to the Secretary-General. I assure the honourable member that we will continue to put this position in the most effective way that we possibly can. Mr JOHNS —Can the Treasurer inform the House of the impact of cuts to Commonwealth spending on the current and prospective position of fiscal policy? Mr KEATING —Today Senator Walsh and I released the report on the Forward Estimates of Budget outlays for 1989-90 to 1991-92. I indicate that this Government was the first government in Australia's federal history to release forward outlays estimates, and this document contains even more information, and disaggregated information, than that previously released. The document shows that for an unprecedented fourth year, outlays will be in the decline; that is, growing in the negative in real terms. Mr Spender —The whole country is growing in the negative. Mr KEATING —The honourable member probably does not understand the difference between nominal and real outlays. I suppose that up and down the highways and by-ways of the Sydney bar, nominal and real outlays probably do not register. The fact is that in some places they happen to register. The figures show that by 1991-92 Commonwealth Government outlays on a no policy change basis will be 23.7 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), or back to 1972 levels. I repeat that point: on a no policy change basis, the continuing decline in Commonwealth outlays will bring the outlays of the Commonwealth Government back to the 1972 levels. In other words, they will be the lowest for 20 years. In the report, at page 32, there is a table which shows the cuts by this Government to outlays in dollar terms over the years since 1983-84. They show that since then the Government has cut $11.7 billion from public outlays. That is in dollars of the day. If we brought them up to today's dollars, it would be even greater than $11.7 billion, which means that we have in fact reduced the size of the Commonwealth public sector from 30 per cent of GDP to around 25 per cent this year, heading to 23.7 in 1990-91. What is interesting about this report is that it gives a test for the Opposition, at page 34 of the document. Table 11 shows action necessary to reduce outlays by one per cent in 1989-90. Opposition members do not like the answer so they are guffawing and chatting on the other side. If public debt interest, defence, age pensions and all personal benefits and financial assistance to the States were excluded from any reduction-Opposition spokespersons have said that such cuts would be excluded-there would need to be a 3.3 per cent decline in government spending to reduce outlays by one percentage point. In other words, if we were to exclude all those functional areas, as the Opposition says they should be excluded, we would have to cut 3.3 per cent, or just on $3 billion, out of outlays to reduce outlays by one per cent. We continue to have the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the shadow finance spokesman running around saying that the Government has not cut government outlays, yet this document from the Department of Finance shows that we have outlays just on 1972 levels, down by 5 per cent to 6 per cent of GDP. It lists the reductions at $11.7 billion. Yet as explicit as this document is about the Government's outlays policy, not a word, not a scintilla of fact, not a scintilla of evidence, has come from the Opposition about where it would cut its outlays. As late as last Sunday the Leader of the Opposition was again saying that for his nebulous tax cuts he would reduce Commonwealth spending. If he is going to move away from these functional areas such as pensions, defence and public debt interest and leave them uncut, from where will he cut the $3 billion of outlays which will even reduce outlays by one percentage point? If we are going to have a decent and honest political debate in this country, with the Government putting on the table its credentials, its details from the Department of Finance and its credibility, it is time the Opposition came up with its spending cuts if it is to claim any credibility. Opposition members-Ooh! Mr KEATING —Opposition members say `Ooh!', as they did after Box Hill last time. They said `Ooh!', but they repented in leisure as they were driven back to opposition to ponder their circumstances. Opposition members will be pondering their circumstances after the next Box Hill release of their so-called tax and spending policies if they are as slovenly and deceitful with outlays as they were in the last election. Here are the Government's credentials; let us get back to a decent debate, let us not have the shadow Treasurer and the shadow finance Minister wandering around the countryside saying that the Government has to cut government spending when it has already got government spending back to 1972 levels-- Mr Reith —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Treasurer has had more than six minutes to answer this question. It is an abuse of Question Time and he should be asked to stop. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Flinders has been interjecting throughout the Treasurer's answer. I ask him now to cease interjecting. Mr KEATING —I will conclude on this point: this Government has presided over a reduction in government spending unparalleled in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. No other government in the Western world has presided over a negative outlays growth for three years in a row, with the fourth coming up. Those are the facts. At least let us hear some objectivity from the Opposition in accepting that fact, instead of running around saying, `The Government has not attempted to cut spending; we will cut spending' and not being decent enough to be specific about where those spending cuts will be. Mr Howard —Ha ha! Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition apparently thinks that this is a matter of some amusement. I can only say that when he gets to his Box Hill next time and produces the same kind of shonky document, in terms of figuring, that we saw last time, we will do as we did last time-hammer him into the ground like a tent stake. Mr LLOYD —I direct my question to the Prime Minister, who will be aware of the recent Page One program on soil conservation and the comment made by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Kerin, that Senator Richardson was more interested in votes than soil conservation. My question is about the comment in the same program concerning Mr Geoff Miller, the Secretary of the Federal Department of Primary Industries and Energy, indicating that he would not participate in the soil conservation discussion because he was restricted in his action by `the intellectual capabilities of the Minister responsible'. In the absence of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, I ask the Prime Minister: To whom was Mr Miller referring-the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, the Minister for Resources, Senator Cook, the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Senator Richardson, or all three? Mr HAWKE —I suggest that the honourable member ask Mr Miller. Mr CHARLES —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. As the Minister will be aware, last Thursday the Australian Olympic Federation selected Melbourne as Australia's representative to bid for the 1996 Olympic Games. How does the Government view Melbourne's bid for the Olympic Games and what assistance will be forthcoming from the Federal Government in order to bring the 1996 Olympic Games to Australia? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable member for drawing my attention to the magnificent decision of the Australian Olympic Federation. I do not know whether Senator Richardson would necessarily agree with my enthusiasm, in as much as he maintained a very proper impartiality during the period when various cities were being advocated. As soon as the announcement was made he indicated the full support of the Commonwealth for the Melbourne bid and when I discussed the matter with him earlier this week he indicated that he was waiting for contact from Victoria in respect of that bid. Mr MILES —I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: In September or October of 1987 did the Minister meet with the Chairman-General Manager of the Charleville Aboriginal Housing Company, Mr R. L. Robinson, and, contrary to advice from his Department and the Aboriginal Development Corporation, did he agree with Mr Robinson to defer proceeding with a special audit of the conduct of company affairs? As a result of the Minister's direction was commencement of the audit delayed for over five months-until March 1988? Did this delay afford the company time in which to borrow $148,000 from Mercantile Credits Ltd, a sum which the company must have known it had no chance of repaying out of its own resources and against which it offered its Commonwealth funded housing stock as security without seeking or obtaining consent to do so? Mr HAND —A large number of points were raised in the question; I will try to address all of them. A lot of this material has been covered in the media. There was a meeting here in Canberra towards the end of last year with Mr Robinson and other members of the co-op and officers of my Department. In fact, I suggested to him that we conduct an audit at that time. Following that agreement there was a shift in his position and in his organisation's position. There were also some legal matters taken up which he wanted to pursue in terms of criticisms about his organisation by individuals. The matter was also referred to the Queensland office of the Ombudsman. A decision was then made to defer action whilst those matters were dealt with. Because the question was being examined, on advice from the discussions with officers, I decided not to pursue the matter at that time. It should be pointed out that funding to this organisation ceased in 1986, with the exception of a small amount of, I think, around $8,000 for a car account towards the end of last year. Subsequent to those discussions, there was an arrangement entered into with the company mentioned and that was brought to our attention. I immediately met with the Aboriginal Development Corporation and with the Department and steps were initiated to engage in an audit of the organisation. Since that time a special audit has been conducted. That audit is now in the hands of the Queensland Corporate Affairs Office. The matter has had preliminary examination by the fraud squad in Queensland. We are still awaiting the outcome of the Corporate Affairs Office considerations to see whether there have been any breaches of company law, which will be reported back. Under an agreement between the parties, a receiver manager from Mercantile Credits Ltd was also placed there to administer the organisation. I think every step has been followed that needs to be followed to ensure that things are done properly. If the honourable member for Braddon, given his interest in this issue, needs further detail from me or my officers I will be only too happy to meet with him and get the information he seeks. Mr BLANCHARD —I address my question to the Treasurer. Mr Howard —How is your seat? Mr BLANCHARD —To honourable members opposite I would say this: I have fought hard in the past to win this seat and I will fight hard to retain it. Will the Treasurer inform the House of the consequences for the process of structural adjustment in this country of abolishing the capital gains tax? Mr KEATING —When the Government dramatically changed the taxation system back in 1985 it rebalanced the weights in the tax treatment of capital in Australia. Instead of simply taxing debt once and equity twice, with an imputation system in capital gains we were taxing debt once and equity once. In rebalancing that economic structure, we are now seeing the incentive of higher profitability and a better tax regime encouraging the biggest boom in investment which Australia has seen since the mineral boom and one which is occurring in all sectors of the economy. Now the tax system no longer simply supports passive speculative investment but actually supports a dynamic creation of earnings, income and employment. The Opposition, when in government, for the people who supported it, always had a capital gains section in the tax system. If one took one's income as capital, one took it free of tax. If one took one's income as income, like the ordinary wage and salary earner, one was taxed out of one's pay-packet. The Leader of the Opposition, of all people, compounds the incompetence he displayed in the 1970s by arguing now that the real estate price rises are solely the cause of the exemption for the residential home under the capital gains tax. Apparently, it has never entered his mind that the capital gains tax was introduced in 1985 and yet for three years we saw no response in real estate prices, or that in the Sydney real estate market there was a seven-year drought between price increases. The Leader of the Opposition, with the same level of low opportunism displayed by other members of the Opposition, tries to find an even mildly plausible argument for why he should seek to destroy the capital gains tax, to put back into the tax system a ramp for people who support his Party. Such a change would completely unbalance the tax system we now have, which supports dynamic activity, which favours earnings over passive, speculative gains and capital formation and employment, and which leads to a truly dynamic society. I suppose that it has never entered the minds of the Leader of the Opposition or his people on the front bench-people out there supporting the person who buys the local fruit shop or the small office block opposite, sits there doing nothing for four or five years, finds that its value has moved up or doubled, then cashes it in and walks away with a tax free gain-what that is going to do for dynamic activity. What is that activity, that wealth creation, going to do to employ anyone or to lift anyone's income? The Opposition thinks that that is what one does-because those people are the people in commerce. It is commerce to go and buy the local fruit shop, to do nothing with it for five years, and then to cash it in. It is commerce for the suburban solicitor to eye off the two shops opposite, buy them, sit there for four years and then cash them in. But to say to Australian business, `We will reward you with a dividend imputation system by not taxing your dividends twice; but if you take your capital gains you cannot take your income free, you must pay your tax like everybody else' is a shocking concept to the Opposition. The Opposition says, `We have to put back the disequilibrium. We cannot have the kind of equity where income taken as capital is actually taxed as income. This is a shocking change. Let us go back to the disequilibrium we had under our Government where all the people were speculating but where there was no real growth, no employment growth, no real earnings and no real dynamic activity. Let us do it all on the glib pretence that it might drive up property prices. The way to fix it is to get rid of it.' That is what Mr Hyde was talking about on the weekend, as referred to by the Prime Minister. That is the kind of low opportunism being displayed by the alternative government of Australia, instead of creative policy development. It is the kind of thing which rammed this economy into the first negative growth it had in 30 years. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the honourable member for Flinders that he must not try to intimidate the Chair. Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: Quite obviously, the Treasurer, on two occasions, has totally abused the process of Question Time in this place. What we are seeking to do is to encourage you to exercise the discretion that is yours to ask the Treasurer to draw his answer to an end. It is not intimidating you at all. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair does not intend to be intimidated by any member of this House wherever he sits and whatever his position. I call the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker, I was here 20 years ago with Jack McEwen and Sinclair abusing everybody for 30 and 40 minutes in a row. So let us dispense with that kind of-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will get on with his answer. Mr KEATING —This Opposition will not bring forward any policy development whatsoever. In regard to the fundamental changes which have taken place in Australia, the Leader of the Opposition is still wandering around trying to find out how to work another ramp back in the tax system. He is abusing the Commissioner of Taxation. He is intimidating the Australian Taxation Office and its administration. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I am the third person to take this point of order. The Treasurer is abusing Question Time. Madam Speaker, you personally objected to this as a member of the back bench in this House. You got the support of the then Speaker, to the credit of this place. If this is to continue there is no solution for our side-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has raised his point of order. The Treasurer is drawing his answer to a close. Mr Keating —On the point of order, Madam Speaker: comments about Opposition policy are entirely in order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I take it that the Treasurer is raising a point of order. Mr Keating —I am raising a matter in relation to the point of order which the honourable member raised. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I cannot hear two people at once. Will honourable members please resume their seats. Mr Keating —Madam Speaker, the current Opposition is arguing that the Government should not refer to Opposition policy. It has been orderly in this place to do so for all this century. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr KEATING —I conclude on this point: If the Leader of the Opposition thinks he is impressing anybody in Australian business-serious people understand how the economy has changed-by seeking to remove the capital gains tax from the tax landscape he is simply going back to the bad old days of speculative investment that does not produce-- Mr Howard —Why don't you read our policy? Mr KEATING —I have, but it is nothing but the Leader of the Opposition's craven opportunism. That is all that is in it. His opportunism will be chased down every week right up to polling day. Dr WOODS —I shall refrain from asking questions about commerce and Elizabeth Bay and instead direct my question to the Minister for Community Services and Health. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will just ask the question now he has the call. Dr WOODS —I refer to six surveys conducted in April 1983, April 1984, September 1984, January 1986, May 1987 and May 1988 commissioned by the Health Insurance Commission to monitor public reaction to Medicare. Can the Minister tell the House the cost of the surveys? Can the Minister inform the House whether the choice of company to conduct each of the surveys was open to tender and, if so, the manner and date on which the tenders were advertised? Can the Minister confirm from whom tenders were received? Can he advise the House why ANOP Research Services Pty Ltd, run by the Labor Party pollster Rod Cameron, was chosen to conduct each survey over and above other companies? Dr BLEWETT —I can tell the honourable member for Lowe that each of the reports that he has referred to showed an increasing support for Medicare on each occasion. As to the details for which he has asked, the Health Insurance Commission is a statutory authority. It makes its own decisions in relation to these matters. I am perfectly prepared to seek from that authority an answer to the detailed question the honourable member has asked. Mr FREE —I ask the Minister for Employment, Education and Training whether he can inform the House of the extent of the Commonwealth Government's commitment to a university in the western suburbs of Sydney. Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question and for his continuing strong interest, and that of his colleagues in the west of Sydney, in the development of a university in the west of Sydney. It is right that this Government has a very strong commitment to this project. One has only to go back to the agreement that was struck between the Prime Minister and the then Premier of New South Wales in March 1987 to realise just how strong our commitment was to establish a world class institution in the west of Sydney. Following the Government's indication that the binary system would end, we established a joint working party in June of this year to re-examine that proposal in the light of new circumstances. As a result of our acceptance of that working party's report, by 1992 an institution of some 8,000 students will be established in the west of Sydney. I have been disturbed to see some allegations by the Minister for Education in New South Wales that I have been cheating on this project. I am no stranger to criticism, and of course I am perfectly happy to deal with criticism as it comes. But I do take deep offence at these remarks by this amateur Minister from New South Wales, who I suspect is not long for his present job. The Prime Minister might have seen the photograph on the front of the Sydney Morning Herald this morning. Having a very keen eye for cricketers, he might have realised that Dr Metherell's cricket technique is about as stylish as his conduct of the education portfolio in New South Wales. The New South Wales Minister for Education dithered on this issue following receipt of this report. Indeed, it took him longer to consider the report than it took for the report to be written. Of course, he had a particular proposal which involved the University of Sydney taking over the whole of the west of Sydney, a proposal which did not gain any support anywhere. But he is now accusing me of breaching undertakings in relation to the capital provision for this important project. I want to make a couple of very important points. First of all, the working party said that we should adopt a capital program in this triennium worth some $55m. I have told Dr Metherell personally over the phone that we would accept that recommendation and that we would commit ourselves to projects to the value of $55m over this triennium. His complaint is that, whilst we might commit ourselves, we will not actually spend every last dollar in this triennium. That never happens. We cannot magically produce $55m worth of buildings overnight, and I might say it would be crazy for us to proceed on decisions without there being a council of this new institution to advise us on its priorities for the future. Of course, we are waiting for the Minister to establish that council. The next point is that there will now be four campuses making up this new institution, and we are saying that for 1989 there will be work commenced or in progress to the value of some $40m, including $13m to be spent on the new Werrington North campus. During 1991 and 1992 we will make decisions involving the expenditure of a further $15m to bring the total up to $55m. But of course, we cannot proceed with those plans until we have the advice of the new council. I have been at pains to avoid controversy on this issue. We want to see established in the west a world class institution. The west of Sydney has been neglected for many years and it is deserving of the best that both governments can provide. It is with some delight that we realise that at least some New South Wales Liberals are now beginning to understand what needs to be done in the west. New South Wales Liberals, whether in this Parliament or in the State Parliament, only know the west of Sydney as that area which slows them down on the way to Thredbo. Mr MACPHEE —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade whether the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade or any agency requested by it is examining the financial activities in Australia of the former President of the Republic of Korea, Mr Chun Doo-hwan, and in particular whether such investigation is examining Mr Chun's relations with Mr Alan Bond, the Bond Corporation and Bond University. Mr DUFFY —On 31 October 1988 the Korean Government formally sought the Australian Government's assistance in identifying any assets in Australia of the former President and his family. We informed the Korean Government that we would do what we could to obtain the information it sought. We noted, however, that, due to legal constraints, our response would be limited to actions such as searching public records. The Attorney-General's Department, which is responsible for the search, is currently arranging a search of records in the name of the former President and his wife. We have told the Government of the Republic of Korea that we would include the names of other individuals or companies in the search, if so requested. Mr LINDSAY —Madam Speaker, we had the visit of the Leader of the Opposition to Herbert last week. I just want to assure you that he is regarded as an object of hilarity. I ask the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel to inform the House whether the new camouflage uniforms issued to Australian Army personnel are highly inflammable. Mrs KELLY —I thank the honourable member for Herbert for his question and for his continuing interest in Defence Force personnel. I have seen reports that the disruptive patterns combat uniform being issued to the Army is lethal because it is not fireproof. The uniform is not fireproof and it is not meant to be. It is designed to be a combat uniform, not a firefighting suit. It is made of lighter weight fabric than the current jungle greens in order to reduce heat stress on soldiers in our most likely area of operations, that is, in the north. Soldiers employed in high fire risk areas, such as tanks, wear protective dress. Soldiers warned for firefighting duties wear coveralls which are less easily damaged by wind-blown sparks. The disruptive pattern uniform has been worn by the Operational Deployment Force for nearly six months and on at least one occasion soldiers of the ODF wearing the new uniforms had to fight a range fire during training. Some uniforms sustained minor damage but no injuries occurred. These uniforms actually have a higher ignition temperature than the jungle greens. Overall, the fire hazards of the new uniforms are not greater than those of the current greens. I am happy to be able to reassure the honourable member for Herbert and this House that the new Army uniforms are therefore just as safe as and, especially in a climate such as that of Townsville, a great deal more comfortable than the uniforms they replace. Mr NEHL —I ask the Prime Minister to inform the House whether he is aware of the great significance to this Parliament of today, 22 November 1988, and the fact that, for one member of this Parliament in particular, it is indeed a very happy and joyful day. I ask the honourable gentleman to inform the House of the significance of this day to the honourable, esteemed and venerable member for Reid. Mr Prime Minister, tell us about Tom. Mr HAWKE —I sincerely thank the honourable member for his question, the import of which is to signify that today the honourable member for Reid notches up his 30 years of continuous service in this place. If nothing more, that is a remarkable feat of endurance. As I am sure all honourable members on both sides of this place will agree, Tom Uren's 30 years of membership of this House have been marked by far more than just simple endurance, as important as that has been. Tom Uren's record in this place-if I can have the discretion of referring to the honourable member in this more familiar term in answering the question-as a backbencher, as a Minister and now in his venerable position as father of the House has been one of great distinction and great achievement. I know that honourable members will allow me the indulgence, in completing this answer, briefly to record the chronology. Tom Uren entered the Parliament at the 1958 general election. He was elected to the Executive of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party in 1969 as spokesperson on housing, urban affairs and the environment and, of course, he was Minister for Urban and Regional Development in the Whitlam Government. As all honourable members will recall, Tom Uren served as Deputy Leader of the Labor Party in this place in 1976 and 1977. Upon the election of my Government in 1983, Tom Uren became the Minister for Territories and Local Government. On his retirement from the Ministry in 1987, he was the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. Not one honourable member would disagree with me when I say that Tom Uren is a man who cares very deeply about people and issues. In the local government sector, in which those two things come closest together, it is no exaggeration or abuse of language to say that Tom Uren's achievements have been truly outstanding. I say to honourable members-this will be particularly touching for the honourable member who asked the question-that on occasions when I went into the north of Queensland when Tom Uren was the Minister for Local Government it was very touching for me to see the tough, hardened members of the National Party of Australia in the local government areas who regarded him as their comrade and mate. That was an indication that, as far as Tom Uren was concerned, the issues of local government had nothing to do with party politics. He was concerned about getting a job done for people in the local government areas. The respect that Tom Uren enjoyed in the area of local government completely transcended partisan political barriers. None of us has any doubt about the fact that Tom Uren is a man given to forthright opinions. It is not the best kept state secret that, on all occasions, Tom Uren has not been what would be regarded as an absolute shoulder to shoulder supporter of mine on all issues that we have had to deal with in the Labor Party. But regardless of whether honourable members have had Tom Uren shoulder to shoulder with them as a supporter, they would never have had any doubt about the strength of his opinions, the integrity with which he held them and the forcefulness with which he put them. From my Party's point of view, we are greatly in Tom Uren's debt because he has been through the bad times; he has been through 23 years of opposition. Honourable members opposite had better talk to him; he can tell them what it will be like. He has also been with us in the good times. I know that the honourable member for Cowper will excuse me if I answer this part of his question by saying that, from our point of view, at all times he has been a good and faithful colleague. As has been said earlier today, Tom Uren is now the only remaining member of the Parliament to have been a prisoner of war, having spent 1942 to 1945 as a prisoner of the Japanese in Timor and Changi, on the Burma Railway and in Japan. All honourable members will recall that, in recent times, we have yet again seen the intensity of Tom Uren's concern and his commitment to his former comrades who endured so much deprivation and punishment during the Second World War. I appreciate very much that this question has been asked of me by a member of the Opposition. It is a clear demonstration of the respect and the affection with which Tom Uren is held by all honourable members. Again I thank the honourable member for Cowper for his question. Finally, I know that I speak for all honourable members in this place when I acknowledge the great service of Tom Uren-the distinguished father of this House-to his country and this Parliament. Mr HOWARD —Madam Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the House to add to the Prime Minister's comments. Madam SPEAKER —Indulgence is granted. Mr HOWARD —I totally associate the Liberal and National parties with the remarks that have been made by the Prime Minister. I have one memorable recollection of the honourable member for Reid when he was the Minister for Urban and Regional Development in the Whitlam Government. He visited the municipality of Hunters Hill, which is in my electorate and which, he will know, normally votes very sensibly. Tom was addressing a meeting of one of the numerous bush preservation societies which flourish in the electorate of Bennelong. He coined the memorable phrase, when he was talking about the importance of the environment, that everything depended on everything else. It was a phrase that stayed in my mind for a very long period. We have always respected him as a colleague and as an opponent. We do not always agree with him, but he shows humanity, and an earthiness and gutsiness in saying what he believes that wins him the respect of everybody in the Parliament. I join the Prime Minister in complimenting him on his contribution to his Party but, more particularly, on his contribution to his country. Mr Hawke —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for joining me in my answer to that question and ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in Hansard and the Votes and Proceedings. The schedule read as follows- Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 52 of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970 and section 63H of the Audit Act 1901. 1987 Report on the Operation of the Student Assistance Act-section 35 of the Student Assistance Act 1973. AUSSAT-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report. Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce-Annual Report 1987-88-section 25 of the Public Service Act 1922. Australian Postal Commission-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 102 of the Postal Services Act 1975. Australian Tourist Commission-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 47 of the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1987 and section 63M of the Audit Act 1901. Forward Estimates of Budget Outlays-1989-90 to 1991-92-Report. Fourth Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting on Antarctic Mineral Resources-Final Report and Final Act-together with the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities and the text of a media release by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the Forward Estimates of Budget Outlays Report for 1989-90 to 1991-92. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the final report and the final act of the Fourth Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting on Antarctic Mineral Resources, together with the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities and the text of the media release by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition may proceed. Mr HOWARD —I claim to have been misrepresented by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in that during Question Time he incorrectly alleged that, in putting forward the capital gains tax policy of the Opposition at the weekend, I argued for a return to the position that obtained in relation to capital gains prior to the Government's tax reforms of September 1985. That is not the case. If the Treasurer has read the policy release by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), and me in April this year he would have know that the policy which we are advocating and which I advocated-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think you are starting to argue the case. Mr HOWARD —No, I am explaining the position. He made explicit reference to an interview that I gave at the weekend. In that interview I pointed out, in talking about the deleterious impact of the present capital gains tax on housing prices, that under the Opposition's policy we would tax speculative capital gains on a sliding scale basis over a period of five years. The example that the Treasurer used, in a rather sneering reference to small business, about a fruit shop being owned for four or fives years, would be affected by the change proposed by the Opposition. We are not advocating a return to the September 1985 position. We are advocating a replacement of the existing tax by a speculative gains tax in which there would be no liability after five years. It would be a tax regime that would not continue to jack up housing prices, particularly in Sydney and throughout the whole of Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has explained where he was misrepresented. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr N.A. Brown —Yes, I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr N.A. Brown —I will not take the time of the House to go through all the details, but on Sunday a television interview was given by Mr Justice Einfeld, who is Chairman of the Human Rights Commission. I will not repeat in detail what he said because it would take too long. The burden of his remarks on several occasions was that I had inherited a policy from my predecessor, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), which had, in fact, contained a provision to the effect that we would not propose to abolish the Human Rights Commission. He went on to say that in circumstances which he obviously thought were unwise, I had abandoned this policy and reinserted the provision that we would abolish that body. Without going into all the details, everything the judge said with respect to me is completely false. When I inherited the draft policy it contained a proposal for the abolition of the Human Rights Commission. I did not change that provision in that respect. The policy I released was in substance that which had been drawn by my predecessor and which had, in fact, been our policy for some considerable time. The whole thing reminded me of Bacon's statement, that a much talking judge is like an ill-tuned cymbal. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Menzies should not cast reflections upon the judiciary and should not argue the matter. Mr REITH(Flinders) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr REITH —Yes, I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr REITH —In a television interview on Sunday, on the program Face to Face, Mr Justice Einfeld made three statements about the preparation of the Opposition's law and justice policy. The first statement was that I had prepared a policy which was different from that which the Opposition had at the 1987 election. The second was that I had provided that policy on a draft basis to him. The third was that I had released the policy. In each and every case the statement made by Mr Justice Einfeld is completely wrong and is a misrepresentation of the facts. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-I wish to inform the House that the Australian and United States governments have agreed to a number of important changes to the arrangements under which we cooperate in running our joint defence facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar. The changes we are making reflect the commitment of both governments to maintaining and strengthening our longstanding partnership in these joint facilities. They ensure that the facilities continue to operate in ways that best serve the interests of ourselves and our partners. These changes also reflect the commitment of this Government to informing the public as fully as possible about the facilities. On 6 June 1984 in this place I made the first detailed public statement about the roles of the facilities. In making that statement I was convinced that better public understanding of the roles of the joint facilities could only increase public support for them. My remarks today, which will in some respects go beyond that earlier statement, are made with the same conviction. Since the joint facilities were established in the 1960s, the alliance between Australia and the United States has evolved and matured, the technologies involved at Pine Gap and Nurrungar have developed, and Australians have learned more of the skills involved in running the facilities. The new arrangements at Pine Gap and Nurrungar accommodate these important changes. At Pine Gap, the number of Australians engaged in the central operational activity is being steadily increased. Some of these personnel, who are drawn from scientific and intelligence areas of the Department of Defence, are taking over functions previously carried out by United States employees. Whereas only a handful of Australian Government personnel was directly involved in the central work of the facility in the 1970s and early 1980s-contributing less than 10 per cent of the staff there-the proportion is scheduled to rise to about 30 per cent over the next two or three years. But Australians are not only doing more of the operational work at the facilities. Under the new arrangements we have agreed, Australians will carry out more of the senior management functions at both Pine Gap and Nurrungar. At Pine Gap, a senior Australian defence official will be appointed to a newly created position as deputy chief of the facility. He will advise and support the United States chief of the facility in managing the facility and its activities, and he will share responsibility with him for that work. He will also continue to be the officer in charge of the prohibited area, with ultimate responsibility for the physical security of the facility. Other senior management positions will also be filled by Australians. Parallel changes have been agreed to the staffing at Nurrungar. Australians constitute some 40 per cent of the staff in the key operational areas, and will now take a role in management with the appointment of the senior Australian officer there as deputy commander. Like his counterpart at Pine Gap, he will share responsibility with the commander for the management of the station and its physical security. The integration of Australian personnel in both the operation and the management of the joint facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar is such that the Australian Government can be assured of having full knowledge of all aspects of the operations at the facilities, and reinforces our confidence that our interests and sovereignty are respected at all times. At the same time, Australia will be able to take more direct advantage of the facilities' capabilities for our own purpose than has been practicable in the past. Hitherto, by agreement between ourselves and our partners, we have spoken in public of the capabilities of the two facilities only in conjunction. Under the new arrangements, and in pursuit of better understanding and stronger support for the facilities, we have now agreed to specify the separate roles of Pine Gap and Nurrungar. Nurrungar is a ground station used for controlling satellites in the United States defence support program (DSP). The DSP satellites provide ballistic missile early warning and other information related to missile launches, surveillance and the detonation of nuclear weapons. Few if any elements of the strategic systems of either superpower make such a decisive and unambiguous contribution to keeping the peace as the defence support program. As an essential link in the DSP, Nurrungar plays a quite fundamental role in preventing nuclear war. The DSP, through Nurrungar would give the earliest warning of an international ballistic missile attack on the United States or its allies. Because the DSP gives longer warning of an attack than other systems, it reduces the chances that United States forces could be destroyed in a surprise attack, and that makes it extremely unlikely that anyone would ever try such an attack. Together with other elements of the United States early warning system, the DSP provides highly reliable warning of attack. It thus plays a vital role in helping to prevent nuclear war by accident. Australians can be glad that we help to operate this vital facility, and that every day, around the clock, Australian personnel are playing this part in helping to prevent nuclear war. I turn now to Pine Gap. Pine Gap is a satellite ground station whose function is to collect intelligence data which supports the national security of both Australia and the United States. Intelligence collected at Pine Gap contributes importantly to the verification of arms control and disarmament agreements. The value of that data has become more and more evident over the last year or two, as disarmament has moved from being an aspiration to become an emerging reality. Today, for the first time since the invention of the atom bomb, nuclear weapons systems are, under the intermediate-range nuclear force (INF) treaty being destroyed by their owners. The next step is already under way. In the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) the superpowers are seriously negotiating to make major cuts in their strategic arsenals. Verification is vital to this arms control process. Verification was the key issue in reaching that INF agreement last year, and verification will be the key to any START agreement in the future. If the START process were to fail, despite the efforts of both sides, it would be largely because of the difficulties with verification. In April this year, nuclear risk reduction centres were created in Washington and Moscow. This new confidence building channel is being used to notify the two sides of missile launches required by arms control accords and will also serve to reduce the possibility of nuclear conflict. Without Australia's involvement in arms control verification, the risk of nuclear war would have been directly and significantly increased. I think it is important for those who have urged us over the years to close Pine Gap and Nurrungar to reflect on the undoubted fact that, had we done as they urged, the INF treaty could not have been signed and the START process would not have got under way. With the information now on the public record about the roles played by these facilities in preventing nuclear war, I think it is clear that nobody seriously committed to peace could argue for their closure. There are of course limitations on what it would be sensible for me to reveal publicly about details of the operations that are conducted at either of these joint defence facilities, or details of the organisation and manning arrangements which apply there. It has been the practice of successive Australian governments not to comment on intelligence matters, and this Government will continue that policy. Details of our capabilities in the sensitive and important area of intelligence collection, or in relation to systems providing attack warning, are not in our national interests to divulge and this Government will not do so. The Government takes the view that the irreplaceable contribution made by these facilities gives us a special responsibility to ensure that they can continue to function in an atmosphere of stability and commitment. At present both facilities operate under agreements which are terminable at one year's notice by either side. We do not regard this as satisfactory, both because of the continuing importance of their effective operation to global peace, and because of the specific benefits to Australia of long term access to their capabilities. To this end the United States and Australia have, as part of the new arrangements for the operation of the facilities, agreed to extend the arrangements under which the two facilities operate for a further 10 years in each case. We have further agreed that three years' notice shall be required to terminate the agreement. Last week the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Senator Evans, and the United States Ambassador, Mr Bill Lane, signed exchanges of notes to formalise this agreement. For the information of honourable members I now tabled those exchanges of notes. Members will note that this exchange also defines clearly the functions of the two facilities. These agreements confirm my Government's conviction that the joint defence facilities will continue to serve Australia's national interest; that they will continue to reflect the depth and substance of our bilateral strategic relationship with the United States under ANZUS; and that they will continue to play a vital role in preventing nuclear war. The Government intends that honourable members will have an opportunity to debate this statement. I present the following paper: Joint Defence Facilities-Ministerial Statement, 22 November 1988. Motion (by Mr Peter Morris) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.37) —The Opposition welcomes this statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and it particularly welcomes it for two reasons. The first is the ringing endorsement that the Prime Minister has given on behalf of the Government to the continuing importance of the joint facilities between Australia and the United States. The second reason is that the Australian and United States governments have agreed that the agreement covering the two facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar will now continue for a term of 10 years, to be ended on three years' notice on either side. That part of the agreement provides for a longer commitment by both countries. In view of the financial and other commitments being made by the United States that is understandable, but I can say without any reservation that support for the joint facilities by the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia, formerly in government, now in opposition and in future in government, remains completely undiminished. Therefore, I take the opportunity that this statement affords of putting on record the fact that the Liberal and National parties have always adopted an attitude of unwavering support for the joint facilities between Australia and the United States. We are not 1980s converts to the importance of the joint facilities. We have always believed that the joint facilities bring more to Australia and contribute more to Australia than they do to anybody else. We have never been able to understand the arguments frequently advanced inside the Australian Labor Party and elsewhere in the Australian community against the joint facilities. I welcome-I say this unreservedly-the depth of the Prime Minister's own commitment to the joint facilities. I accept that his commitment now to the joint facilities is very genuine, as indeed he would argue his opposition was to the joint facilities in 1976, when he signed a joint statement, along with many other people who were identified then with the left wing of politics, in which he warned against foreign military bases on our soil as being detrimental to Australian safety and called for an independent and non-aligned Australia. They were the views of the present Prime Minister in 1976. For Australia's sake, I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister no longer holds those very misguided views and has now embraced the saner view that has always been advocated by the Liberal and National parties since the negotiation of these joint facilities back in the 1960s. The joint facilities have had our invariable and unwavering support because of the contribution they have made to the world wide Western strategic defence network. It is true, as the Prime Minister has said, that in particular Pine Gap now plays a very important role in relation to verification. It is true that those who argue passionately for the causes of nuclear disarmament and peace will find it more difficult now than ever before to deride the importance of the joint facilities. Having moved from being the principal preoccupation of many on the far left of politics as representative of the kind of world they wanted to destroy, the joint facilities are now in the eyes of some of those becoming a very welcome component of the peace armoury around the world. I very strongly endorse the additional committment made by both the Australian and the United States governments. I say on behalf of the alternative and, indeed, the next government of Australia that support for the joint facilities will be, when we are next in government, as undiminished as it was when we were last in government. I agree with the Prime Minister that they play a very important role so far as verification is concerned. The new arrangement for greater involvement of Australians appears sensible. It is an arrangement we support. I welcome the fact that this agreement has apparently been concluded as a result of sensible and cordial negotiations between Australia and the United States. This agreement is one of those things that sits at the very pinnacle of our national defence and our national security. As far as possible, one should try to treat these matters on a bipartisan basis. In that context I would like to thank the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) for the briefing he provided yesterday to me and a number of my colleagues. It was a courtesy we all appreciated. Subject to the qualifications that are explicit in my remarks, the Opposition very warmly welcomes the statement made by the Prime Minister. Debate (on motion by Mr Beazley) adjourned. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health) —I table the policy discussion paper Aids: A Time to Care, A Time to Act: Towards a Strategy for all Australians. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Dr BLEWETT —Just over three years ago I first addressed the House on acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). I said: AIDS is potentially one of the most serious and expensive public health problems to face Australia since Federation . . . both as individuals and as a community, AIDS poses a potential threat to us all. I reported to the House that in Australia, as at 17 May 1985, there had been 79 cases of AIDS, of which 32 had died, and it had been estimated that some tens of thousands of Australians had been exposed to the virus. Tragically, the events of the past three years have borne out the reality of that warning. Today, on 22 November 1988, this country has suffered 1,100 cases of AIDS and 538 of those people are dead. It is believed that between 15,000 and 25,000 people are infected with the virus. For almost every day that has passed since that first statement, AIDS has struck another Australian life. In this short time, the disease has already taken a great toll on the Australian community in terms of lives lost, threatened and ruined, and untold human suffering for people infected by the virus, their relatives, friends and carers. As I told the Third National Conference on AIDS in Hobart last August, not since World War I has Australia been confronted with similar potential for damage to an entire generation; and still the number of cases of AIDS mounts inexorably. My prediction that AIDS would change our lives forever, challenging our deepest cultural, social and moral values, has come true, but so too has my hope that we would find the national maturity and strength to confront the virus with sensitivity, commonsense and determination. The early initiative taken by the Federal Government has been followed by Australia's scientific and medical communities, State governments, community groups, particularly in the homosexual community, and the media. Our cooperative commitment has established urgent education, prevention, screening, counselling and treatment services and successfully secured Australia's blood product supply services. The bipartisan approach we have adopted in our fight against the virus-an approach exemplified by the work of the Parliamentary liaison group on AIDS-has allowed us to rationally take quite radical decisions to protect public health and to minimise reactions born out of fear, ignorance and prejudice. Thus, we have been able to openly face up to and come to grips with the need for public discussion and advocacy of condoms for safer sex; the acknowledgment of bisexual as well as homosexual preferences in Australian society; and the distribution of free clean needles and syringes to drug addicts. Australia has earned international acclaim for strategies to combat the virus which are viewed as exceptionally coherent, innovative and effective. We shall probably never know the quantitative extent of our success to date, although there is no doubt that some lives have been saved and some suffering avoided. But what we do know, as an inescapable certainty, is that we cannot rest on our laurels. For the foreseeable future, AIDS is here to stay. This lethal virus will be a fact of life for our children's children. Much can be done to moderate its force, but it cannot be made to disappear. The harsh reality for Australia is that the AIDS epidemic in this country is still in its infancy; the long haul is only just beginning. We now stand at the threshold of a new period in our response to the epidemic, a period in which we must make difficult choices about how we deal with AIDS in the decades ahead; choices which will dictate the success or failure of our attempts to stem the tide. The issues involved are complex-technically, legally and socially-and touch upon almost every area of our daily lives: health, housing, education, job security, insurance, welfare services, and our personal freedoms. The policy discussion paper which I am tabling today, AIDS: A Time To Care, A Time To Act: Towards A Strategy For All Australians, presents the issues we must now address and discusses options for their resolution. It is the first step in the development of a national strategy to guide Australia in the management of AIDS during the next stages of the epidemic. The commitment of Australian governments to strive for agreement on a uniform strategy is best demonstrated by the fact that this discussion paper is, in an historic example of bipartisan consensus, being tabled in every Parliament of the land. At the outset, I must pay tribute to officers of my Department and others who have contributed to the preparation of the discussion document, particularly Elizabeth Reid, who has worked tirelessly to produce a document unprecedented in its comprehensiveness but which still remains relevant to the whole community. It is testimony to the skills and efforts of Ms Reid and the editorial team that the discussion paper has been endorsed as a suitable basis for public discussion by both the Australian National Council on Aids (ANCA) and the Inter-Governmental Committee on AIDS. I must also stress that the discussion paper does not represent Federal Government policy or the policy of any State or Territory government. Rather, it presents the facts, issues, options and arguments upon which the Australian people need to draw before they, through their governments, can chart a rational and reasoned course for the future. The first part of the paper outlines what is known about the AIDS epidemic in Australia: how many people might be infected; how infection has and has not occurred; the way the infection affects people; what evidence we have of people changing their behaviour; and the resources-human and financial-demanded, to date, by the epidemic. This part of the paper provides the factual information needed to understand the nature of the problem and to elicit informed and appropriate responses. The second part of the paper proposes a framework for a national AIDS strategy, and identifies three broad objectives for such a strategy: firstly, to minimise transmission of the virus; secondly, to support, care for and to treat infected people; and, thirdly, to educate and to prevent the infection of people who care for infected individuals. While the first two of these objectives have been accepted components of our national approach from the outset, identification of the third recognises the increasingly important role played by people who care for AIDS sufferers-health care workers, families, friends and volunteers. Because many of the issues on which policies are needed are extremely complex, the paper identifies some key principles to guide discussion and development of strategies. Agreement on these basic principles would be a major step towards consensus on a national approach. It is in this, the second part of the paper, that the most difficult, and frequently emotive, issues are presented for debate: testing, contact tracing, legal impediments to prevention programs, prevention strategies in prisons, occupational transmission and workplace education, to name but a few. The last part of the paper deals with Australia's involvement in the international response to the global pandemic, with the research needed to support a national AIDS strategy, and with monitoring and evaluating the strategy's programs. The discussion paper canvasses numerous sensitive questions in a frank and forthright style designed to achieve increased understanding and awareness of the issues at stake and a willingness seriously to consider all of the available options so that the simplistic and superficially attractive approaches will not become the natural first choices. As such, this document is bound to generate widespread discussion of subjects often inhibited in public debate. Such discussion should be encouraged as of central importance to the structuring of a considered, coherent and cooperative national strategy. It is my hope that the discussion paper will be read and discussed by every section of the Australian community. Every Australian will have the opportunity to participate in the consultative process, as individuals, through community groups, through their elected parliamentary representatives. It is my hope that the issues will be debated in every medium and in every forum, including this and other Australian Parliaments. The responses elicited from this national debate will be incorporated in the next stage of the preparation of a national strategy-the development of a policy statement of AIDS. This second document, to be completed in time for consideration in the 1989-90 Budget context, will set out a clear, broad, national strategy to combat the disease and will delineate areas of responsibility for Federal, State and local governments, as well as other elements of the community. The policy document will contain a definitive statement of the Commonwealth's policies on AIDS and will, within the strategy it outlines, set out the parameters for funding, administering, coordinating and monitoring AIDS programs and activities in Australia. The preparation of this policy statement will take account of advice from advisory bodies, such as the Australian National Council on AIDS and the inter-governmental committee on AIDS. I believe that the discussion paper provides a framework for the formulation of a national strategy, to which all governments can be committed in principle. It would be naive in the extreme to believe that we can achieve consensus on every issue raised and detailed decision to be taken. There will, of course, continue to be diversity of opinion between different States, different communities, different organisations and different individuals, and that diversity will be reflected in the range of programs established to respond to the virus. The preparation of a national strategy does not negate a diversity of responses. Indeed, different approaches and different programs expand both our knowledge of the virus and the options available for dealing with it. But a national strategy does seek a uniform commitment to principles, the acceptance of which and adherence to which are essential to containment of the epidemic-the difference, if you like, between lives and deaths. These principles are, I believe, self-evident when we carefully consider the medical, scientific and social evidence available to guide us in retaining the trust, support and cooperation of the whole Australian community in protecting this nation's public health. These principles recognise that public health and human rights must march hand in hand where aids is concerned; that each is needed to reinforce the effectiveness of the other. Above all, they recognise that, in the continuing absence of any effective vaccine or cure for the virus, our overriding goal must remain that of persuading people to change their behaviour so that they do not become infected. In tabling this policy discussion paper, I would like to finish as I began, by reiterating to honourable members part of the speech which I delivered to this House three years ago-words which, despite the passage of time and events, are as relevant today as they were then. I said: In developing a national AIDS strategy, Australian health Ministers need the active cooperation and support of their parliaments and the community. The Government seeks today the support, cooperation and understanding of honourable members on both sides of this House as we develop a strategy to combat this insidious disease and its tragic consequences. We should have no doubts that now is a time to care, a time to act. I present the following paper: AIDS: A Time to Care, A Time to Act: Towards a Strategy for all Australians-Minister statement, 22 November 1988. Motion (by Mr Humphreys) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(3.35) —The Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) finished as he began. Let me provide a political continuum on this matter by beginning as he finished-by saying to him, to the Government and to the Australian public that we welcome the tabling of this discussion paper entitled AIDS: A Time to Care, A Time to Act: Towards a Strategy for All Australians. We associate ourselves with the tabling speech just completed by the Minister. We applaud the considerable work and effort that has gone into the publication of this document. We congratulate those responsible for its preparation. We state very clearly that we intend to play a very constructive and active role in the next step, that is, the development, as a matter of urgency, of a truly national strategy to combat acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and its tragic consequences. This paper, AIDS: A Time to Care, A Time to Act: Towards a Strategy for All Australians, is as the Minister has clearly stated, not a policy paper. As the Minister has said, it does not represent Federal Government policy, nor does it represent the policy of any State or Territory government. It does not represent the policy of the Federal Opposition. Indeed, it does not purport to be policy. I quote from page 5 of the Minister's speech. He said: Rather, it presents the facts, issues, options and arguments upon which the Australian people need to draw before they, through their governments, can chart a rational and reasoned course for the future. That this paper does this very successfully is so important and so necessary, in our view, to provide a proper understanding of all of the matters involved in the AIDS question. Only then, on the basis of facts and understanding, do we stand a real chance of making correct and most effective policy responses. Only then do we stand a real chance of developing a truly national strategy. That is why, only a month after being appointed the Opposition spokesman on health, I produced a paper entitled Understanding AIDS: A Necessary First Step Towards Proper Policy Development. I recognise that this is a much lesser document than the one the Minister has tabled today. It has a much smaller intended readership. But the thrust behind the document and the paper tabled today is essentially the same. If we understand the facts and the issues, if we canvass all the options, and if we think through all the arguments, we have an excellent chance, a first class opportunity, of coming up with, on a national basis, the correct public policy responses. I do not have time in this short contribution, nor do I intend even to take the full allocation of time, to go through all of the facts, issues, options and arguments. But let me restate a couple of the chilling facts that were outlined in the Minister's speech. Today this country has suffered 1,100 cases of AIDS, and 538 of those people are already dead. The most conservative, and indeed responsible, estimates are that between 15,000 and 20,000 fellow Australians are infected with the HIV virus. A couple of things need to be said about the virus. It is infectious and, in respect of some social behaviour between individuals, it can be highly infectious. There is increasing medical evidence that having contracted the virus it is inevitable that an individual will develop AIDS which is a terminal condition. In the present state of knowledge there is no vaccine and AIDS is incurable. In the light of those facts, the important thing to stress is that the transmission of the virus and the spread of AIDS itself is preventable. I say this with a high degree of confidence. I quote from page 4 of my own paper: To develop AIDS a person must first be infected with the HIV. For the virus to be passed on from one person to another, the basic rule of transmission is that semen, blood or vaginal fluids must pass from one infected person directly into the bloodstream of another person. The importance of this fact, Mr Deputy Speaker-in fact the logical extension of these facts-is that if one does not engage in behaviour or modes of behaviour which allow the transmission of the bodily fluids that I have identified, one will not contract the virus. If one does not contract the virus, one will not go on to develop AIDS. The further extension of those facts is that in this country all individual Australian's have it within their power not to contract AIDS. If they have it, they have it within their power not to pass it on. Such logical extension and more raises the very real public policy issues of education, testing, treatment, research, the care of those people who are looking after AIDS victims and the financial costs which will largely have to be borne by the Australian taxpayer. These issues confront for many Australians some very basic values, indeed some prejudices and certainly some of the sensibilities that we all hold so dear. The value of this discussion paper is that it canvasses all sides of the question. It discusses the values, it discusses the prejudices and it discusses the sensibilities. It is not necessary for me to reiterate any further the content of the Minister's speech nor do I intend to go through the paper in detail and, as I know from private discussions with the Minister, there will be further parliamentary opportunity for us to do that. But the task before us now, in the light of the tabling of this paper, is to consider its valuable contents and without any delay go on to do the next urgent job; that is, the preparation of a clear, broad, national strategy. As the Minister has said, it must be completed in time for it to be considered as a part of the 1989-90 Budget deliberations. I now end as I began by reminding the Minister and the public that the Opposition will be making a very constructive and critical contribution as well as evaluating the Government's own response. HIV infection and AIDS is a very serious public health risk which has the potential to affect all of us. We must get it right and we must get it right very quickly. Debate (on motion by Mr Robert Brown) adjourned. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The threat that the Hawke/Keating Government's continuing economic mismanagement poses for living standards in Australia. 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- Dr HEWSON(Wentworth)(4.05) —The matter of public importance before the House today, dealing with the continuing economic mismanagement of the Hawke-Keating Government and the threat that that poses for living standards in Australia, is a matter of major importance to everyone. As is typical of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), he has chosen once again not to appear in the House to debate a matter of public importance on such an issue. In the last couple of weeks Australians have been rocked by a further set of bad economic numbers. First of all there was the balance of payments numbers for October which came out last week-a deficit of $1.685 billion, which was the second highest on record, and a trade deficit of $681m, which was the highest on record. Secondly, there has been yet another substantial jump in interest rates in the last couple of weeks. All Australians know what those statistics mean and what they will mean in the future-another cut in their living standards. They see it as further evidence of this arrogant, out of touch, X-rated, tired Hawke-Keating Government that has simply decided to hit them to leg just one more time. Despite the constant ramblings of the Treasurer and the assurances that he gives every time he has a press conference, every time he is door stopped, everyone is starting to realise the full nature of our current economic difficulties. Our economy is overheated, domestic demand is running far too strongly and, of course, this is adding directly to inflationary pressures. Moreover, it is sucking in imports at a time when our international trade is moving into very difficult circumstances which are moving significantly against us. Just four months after the beginning of this financial year the two key Budget forecasts-the balance of payments with a $9.5 billion deficit and inflation at a rate of 4 1/2 per cent-are wildly off track and they are generally seen by most people to be unattainable. Both the inflation and balance of payments figures indicate underlying structural problems in those two areas as well. And as if that is not bad enough, the Australian economy has moved significantly into a productivity slump or trap as well. Productivity has been on the decline in this country-one of the bottom line measures of the performance of this Treasurer-throughout the last four years. As an editorial in the Melbourne Herald last week stated: Our economic progress in recent years has been largely illusory. Australia is going backwards in an increasingly competitive world. Yet what is the Treasurer's response to most of these things? Of course, as is indicated by the fact that he has probably gone to the opera or somewhere else rather than turn up in the House for this debate, he is arrogant, he is complacent, and he tries to talk away the `bad' numbers. There is always some `special factor' that has led to the particular circumstances of the time. There is always some convoluted argument that is fed to him by one of his Treasury advisers as he comes in the door. There is never any honesty. There is never any coming clean. There is never any clear cut statement of where we are and where we are going. So it is not surprising that against this background people are leaving this Treasurer in droves. They have seen his economic management. They have seen it fail and they are starting to vote with their feet. In this regard I begin by quoting a recent business reaction referred to in the last edition of the Sunday Telegraph. It stated: . . . the word around the business community is that it is not worth going to see Keating any more. The reason? Apparently the World's Greatest Treasurer has taken to lecturing businessmen on the economy and their respective industries in a most aggressive manner. And when they try to suggest he is wrong, he downright abuses them. Little wonder that businessmen are now not too keen to go and visit the Treasurer-at least when they are alone. Of course, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has also started to leave the Treasurer. Honourable members will notice the number of dorothy dixers he is getting in the House on economic matters. They will also notice the number of statements the Prime Minister is making on economic matters, and so he should. He has lost total confidence in his Treasurer. Not only that, of course, but others on their side are running away from him too in the economic debate. I see this week in the Australian Financial Review that Bill Kelty is developing a new wages policy. I imagine that he will drop that out in the public as well. Everybody is leaving this Treasurer behind. The Treasurer is completely out of touch. Confidence in him is evaporating. Our economy and its management has slipped through his fingers. People are recognising that he does not know what he is doing and that, in fact, he is now a total captive of his economic jargon. Where do honourable members think that his economic jargon comes from? It comes from his Department. So he is a total captive of his Department. I suggest he go up to the Parliamentary Library and look at a few episodes of Yes, Minister. I am sure he would probably prefer to look at Yes, Prime Minister but either one will do the job. He is a total captive of his Department. He comes in here and throws down explanations, as he did today with the capital gains tax, which show that he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Let us quickly look at a couple of the explanations he has used in recent days to defend his position on the balance of payments. Honourable members will recall that concept that the Treasurer introduced to us all, the J-curve. He would say, `It takes time. Wait. It is working. You idiots on the other side, you don't understand'. This Treasurer made much of the J-curve throughout 1985, 1986 and 1987. I recall that on one occasion he bucketed my colleague the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in the following terms: What always amuses me about the Leader of the Opposition is that he keeps on parroting this stuff about how the J-curve is not working. He says the J-curve theory is bunkum. I would like to hold him to those words. I suggest it is about time we held the Treasurer to his words. Honourable members may notice that in the past six or nine months he has not mentioned the J-curve, and the reason is, as members can see from this chart I have, that the `J' has dived quite suddenly since about February this year. The curve is becoming a W-curve, not a J-curve. One can imagine what the `W' stands for. Mr Downer —Whacko! Dr HEWSON —It is a definite whacko curve that he has us hooked on at this time. The Treasurer no longer talks about the J-curve because he recognises that it is not working; he recognises that he is not prepared to do what is required to make it work. He is not prepared to deregulate and decentralise our labour market and to tie wages to productivity. He is not prepared to genuinely reform Australia's tax system so that it restores incentive. He is not prepared to cut protection and restructure industry; and he is not prepared to clean up the wharves; in fact, he is running away from that. The Treasurer should listen to his colleague Senator Button, who knows all about J-curves. Senator Button said: I don't know who invented the bloody J-curve, but I tell you it wasn't an Australian who learnt about the Australian economy. Senator Button is dead right. What about some of the other excuses we have heard in recent days? About five or six months ago we were told that the level of imports is not a worry because imports are all investment goods: apparently imports that are investment goods are `good', and imports that are consumption goods are `bad'. If the Treasurer had a long hard look at the statistics, he would see that Australia has been importing a lot of both kinds of goods. The argument about investment goods is the same as the argument about the J-curve and, for the same reason that the J-curve is not working in this country, the investment goods argument is fallacious. There is a structural weakness in our balance of payments. Australia imports most of its capital equipment. Australia has never developed an industry or an industrial capacity to produce those sorts of capital goods in Australia. And until the Treasurer takes the micro-economic responses that I suggested he should take in commenting on the J-curve, Australia will never have such an industry. It reminds me of the old `infant' industry arguments that were used in the context of the protection debate. The fact is that these Australian industries will never grow up under Paul Keating's policies. The other argument that the Treasurer uses is the `seasonality' of exports argument. In the past couple of months we have been told, `Look forward, fellows. Don't worry about the balance of payments. It will turn around. Exports are seasonal. They are picking up. They are bound to improve as the year goes on.' That is the same sort of argument. I suggest to the Treasurer that if he is considering seasonality, he take the past 12 months to obtain a figure on what is likely to happen. In the past 12 months we have seen the balance of payments deficit running at $12.5 billion, and that 12-month period contained all the favourable seasonal months. That deficit of $12.5 billion is $3 billion higher than the Treasurer's estimate. And in fact, if he has a closer look at the statistics he will see that in nine of the past 12 months the balance of payments figures have been worse than in the same month in the previous year. The fact is that the Treasurer does not have a clue about the economy of this country. He understands virtually nothing about it unless his Treasury people give him one of those excuses. He does not know what to do. Members will notice that the Treasurer comes in here, uses one of those excuses, sticks with it for a week, comes in with another excuse, sticks with that for a week, and, if one asks him a question about any of those excuses, it drops between the cracks. Let me finish with comments on monetary policy, which is the `king hit' on living standards under this Government. The reliance on monetary policy, this vital balancing factor, this vital balancing role of monetary policy, is the king hit. The whole Budget strategy this year was monetary policy. We were told that raising interest rates would do the job. However, there are some certain basic facts about monetary policy which, if the Treasurer knew anything about the economy and the economic debate in this country, he would realise. First, monetary policy is a particularly blunt instrument. If the Treasurer relies on it, he should not be surprised if he continually hits Australians to leg. Secondly, it is a particularly potent instrument in a deregulated financial environment. The Treasurer should know that; 1985 should stand large in his memory as the sort of disaster one can wrought in this country by fiddling around with monetary policy. Thirdly, the Treasurer should recognise that to have maximum effect, changes to monetary policy must be discreet and publicly announced. If that does not occur and if they are dribbled out, one should not be surprised if it all runs away. That is what the Treasurer has been doing. Fourthly-and the Treasurer should understand this, because even my first-year students would understand it-the Government cannot target both interest rates and the exchange rate with the one instrument of monetary policy. The Government must make up its mind. Basically, the Treasurer has spent most of the past several years trying to target both areas; but, on balance, I guess he has targeted the exchange rate more than interest rates. Thus, not surprisingly, interest rates have, as a result, gone all over the shop. Look at the position over the last two years. Two years ago short term interest rates were about 17 per cent, in January 1987. The Treasurer then drove down interest rates throughout 1987 by easing of monetary policies to about 10.5 per cent by early this year. Of course, interest rates are now on the upward track, as has been the case since about April, to now be about 15 per cent; roughly about two-thirds of the level of interest rates in the early part of last year. The Government has made a number of mistakes in that monetary management. First, the Treasurer has been playing politics with interest rates; there is no doubt about that. He drove down interest rates before the July 1987 election; he drove them down again before the New South Wales election this year; and, despite all the flak and the heat in the argument in this House, he certainly held them down prior to the recent Victorian election and the Oxley by-election. Is it not interesting that the day after the Oxley by-election up went official cash rates. And where is the Treasurer? Who knows. He has disappeared. He is off to the opera again. He should remember that the opera is not over until the fat lady sings-and the balance of payments is singing fairly loudly right now. The Treasurer's second mistake was that he eased far too much through 1987 and into early 1988, so he is now running around trying to catch up. But it is the Treasurer, more than anyone else, who has directly overheated the economy. It is he who is blowing out our balance of payments by sucking in imports; and it is he more than anyone else who has contributed to the pick-up in inflationary pressures in this country, and so on. If we put these three factors together and look at what has happened with monetary policy, it is interesting that we see quite a distinct pattern since this guy has been in the job. Back in 1984 he forced interest rates down. He had to respond and tighten interest rates in early 1985. But then he tightened too much and, of course, he drove the economy into a recession. Then again in 1987 he pushed interest rates down, and he is now on the path of tightening them again. What we see is a `roller-coaster' effect; the economy is on a distinct roller-coaster. The Treasurer bangs the economy with interest rates, down goes activity; he then overeases monetary policy, activity picks up, the economy overheats, then the Treasurer comes back in with more monetary policy, tightening precisely as he is now doing, and what happens? Down we go again. The important question right now in regard to the recent tightening of monetary policy is, `Are we now on the slippery slope of this economic roller-coaster of Paul Keating?'. My bet is that we probably are, because this Government has put far too much weight on monetary policy and far too little weight on fiscal policy and wages policy adjustment in the past few years. It is interesting that in the context of the balance of payments figure that was released last week, the Treasurer was asked a number of policy questions. Conceding that it was a bad figure and it would probably mean that the balance of payments objective would not be achieved, the Treasurer was asked a series of policy questions. First, `Will this affect the wages-tax trade-off?'. The answer was `No'. Secondly, `Are the tax cuts still on?'. The answer was `Yes.'. Thirdly, `What about the possibility of a May mini-Budget?. Does this strengthen the case for that?'. `No', was the answer. With these answers in all three areas of policy, the Treasurer has decided to stay with monetary policy and to run monetary policy as the only remaining instrument with which to do the job. So we are back on the roller-coaster; we are back where we were in 1984-85; we are back where we were early this year. The Treasurer sits there now and says, `Look, I will not tighten monetary policy further. No, there is no way I will tighten it. I have tightened it once and once is enough.' In the meantime, of course, the Treasurer's boys in Treasury and the Reserve Bank are doing their sums and saying, `Keep out there, Paul. Keep telling them we will not tighten,' while they are busily tightening interest rates and so on. Then, all of a sudden, they crank him up and send him out saying, `Paul, by the way, you have tightened monetary policy! You had better tell everyone or you will look pretty stupid. This is classic Yes, Minister stuff'. If one looks at last week's Australian Financial Review one sees the reference to this shift in power play between part of Treasury under David Morgan and the Reserve Bank on one hand-the hawks-and the doves such as Bernie Fraser, who were rolled when monetary policy was tightened. Then out came the Treasurer with classic Yes, Minister stuff. The facts are very simple: The Australian economy is in very difficult circumstances. We have a Treasurer who has taken his eye off the main game. He is more worried about the leadership and he has not the slightest interest in anything to do with the economy. He will rely on monetary policy to do the job. I guarantee that that will continue to hurt the living standards of the average Australian. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(4.20) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr Carlton —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Under Standing Orders, is it not a requirement that the Treasurer or at least a Minister respond to a matter of public importance? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order, and the honourable member for Mackellar should be aware that the point of order is a spurious one. Mr Fife —Mr Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence may I seek guidance in relation to this matter? Interest rates are rising in Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member for Hume have a point of order? Mr Fife —No, I do not raise a point of order. I am seeking indulgence to ask you a question. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think we might be better off getting on with the matter rather than seeking indulgence in the middle of the debate. Mr Fife —I am seeking your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. Interest rates are rising, living standards are falling and the Treasurer is not in the House to handle this matter of public importance-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Hume no longer has my indulgence. The honourable member for Hume will resume his seat. Mr Fife —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member for Hume have a point of order? Mr Fife —With great respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, you did not hear me out. I said that, in a spirit of cooperation, the Opposition is prepared to defer this matter of public importance debate to give the Treasurer an opportunity to come into the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no provision to do that, and the honourable member for Hume knows it. Mr SIMMONS —I am very keen to participate in this debate and I am somewhat surprised that the Opposition is using these delaying tactics because if one looks at the terms of the matter of public importance raised today by the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson) and casts one's mind back to some of the comments he made in his contribution, one finds very little on the question of living standards. The honourable member for Wentworth concentrated totally on the issues of monetary policy and the balance of payments. I will make some comment on that during the course of my remarks. It is important to point out at the outset that the matter before the House as a so-called matter of public importance is really a very cynical and cheap attempt at point scoring by the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was the Treasurer in the Fraser Government during the period of the explosion in unemployment levels. That is something about living standards that every member of this House should be keen to discuss. In the last 12 months of the Fraser Government, when the Leader of the Opposition and honourable member for Bennelong was Treasurer, unemployment grew at the rate of 1,000 families per working day. And guess who was his principal economic adviser at that time. It was Mr J. R. Hewson, the current honourable member for Wentworth. It is particularly significant that we have this contribution by the honourable member for Wentworth on this matter of public importance today as he was the principal economic adviser to the failed Treasurer in the Fraser years. He comes into this House and talks about declining living standards when his Treasurer presided over a rapid deterioration in unemployment levels. That to me is what living standards are all about. The Opposition, and in particular spokesmen such as the honourable member for Went- worth, have continually and consistently advocated economic policies that would seriously erode the living standards of all Australians. Yet, during the course of the debate today we have heard from them very little on the question of living standards. Matters of public importance such as this are just an attempt to abandon any semblance of economic credibility and a very crude attempt to curry favour with the electorate. Matters of public importance such as that currently being debated should be contrasted with the off the cuff statements made in the press and in the electronic media about the need for further fiscal restraint, the tightening of monetary policy and reductions in real wages. Lest there be any doubt in the mind of anyone listening to this debate about what those phrases mean, perhaps we should clearly enunciate what members of the Opposition are talking about when they call for further fiscal restraint, a tightening of monetary policy and reductions in real wages. They are saying, `Let us continue to cut further into government programs, including social welfare programs'. They advocate higher interest rates and want to cut the wages of Australian workers. The rhetoric and the reality of the situation need to be highlighted during this debate. It is significant that this debate is taking place now because, as we heard during Question Time today, the Forward Estimates of Budget Outlays Report for 1989-90 to 1991-92 was released today in a joint statement by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Today's forward Estimates represent the fourth year in a row of declining real outlays. Therefore, this Government is putting its money where its mouth is on the question of outlays. The Government is not just talking about a reduction in outlays; it is actually happening. In real terms outlays will decline by 0.7 per cent in 1989-90. It is not just a case of outlays being cut; we are doing this at a time when important questions relating to the social wage and living standards are also being addressed. Notwithstanding the fact that outlays as a proportion of gross domestic product will decline to 25.6 per cent this year, the lowest proportion of GDP since 1974-75, this Government is very serious about the question of living standards and its record demonstrates something about its seriousness in this respect. I could go through a whole range of areas where this Administration since March 1983 has seriously addressed the question of living standards in the context of some of the horrific problems faced as a result of a combination of inherited difficulties from the previous Government and the rapid turnabout in the terms of trade during 1985-86. This Government has protected the interests not only of the Australian Labor Party's constituency but of all Australians and at the same time it has sought to adjust the Australian economy to cope with our trade problems. (Quorum formed) I can understand the anxiety of members of the Opposition and their wanting to take up the time of this House. They do not want to hear about the question of living standards as it has been addressed by this Government. They do not want to hear about the 1.15 million jobs created since April 1983, over 80 per cent of which are in the private sector. Honourable members opposite do not want to hear that job growth in Australia has been more than twice the growth in Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries and four times that of the growth in the period of the Fraser Government. They do not want to hear that the unemployment rate and the teenage unemployment rate are now at their lowest levels in 5 1/2 years. To me that is what a debate on the question of living standards is all about. We have heard time and time again in this House government Ministers addressing important economic issues and saying that the fundamental test of a family's living standards is its ability to be able to retain a position in the work force. I could enumerate other areas but time prevents me because of the obstructive tactics that are being used by the Opposition in the debate this afternoon. There are questions such as social security improvements, particularly the family allowance supplement, and the rapid improvements that will take place from this very innovative scheme which is to be further improved next month as a result of the 1988-89 Federal Budget decisions relating to family allowance supplements. Honourable members opposite do not want to hear, for example, about what we have done with pensions. When we came to government pensions represented 22.7 per cent of average weekly earnings and now they are almost 25 per cent. Surely that is something to do with living standards. Ask any pensioner what he thinks about pension levels under this Government compared to levels under the previous Government. We have looked at the tax system and ways of eliminating poverty traps throughout the tax system. By any standard, Medicare is another important measure of living standards in this country, yet we hear very little from the Opposition as far as health is concerned except that it will abolish Medicare and probably replace it with some sort of front-end loading of about $5 a week. Honourable members opposite do not tell us very much about their housing policy. To me that is also something to do with living standards. Honourable members opposite are afraid to come up with the statistics that show that this Government has assisted over 270,000 people to move into their own homes over the course of the last 5 1/2 years. The question of education and future employment opportunities as a result of a highly skilled work force is important to this Government. We have boosted the number of children staying to year 12 to 53 per cent. When we came to government that figure stood at about 35 per cent. The number of higher education places, significantly increased in the last Budget, has risen by almost 70,000 over the last five years or so compared with the miserable 14,900 places under the previous Government. We hear very little from members of the Opposition about wages policy. Their focus is primarily on this question of monetary policy. They express concern about monetary policy in this House and in certain areas of their constituencies but if we look at what they are saying in other areas of the press we see that they have a different story to tell. For example, within the accord we have agreed to a series of indexed wage rises over the last few years totalling more than 22 per cent. So a worker who was receiving about $400 a week in March 1983 when the Australian Labor Party first came to power is now getting at least $90 extra because of national wage rises. To look at it another way, someone today who has a weekly wage of $500 would be getting only $408.76 if the Leader of the Opposition had his way because the Leader of the Opposition and the Fraser Government have opposed every national wage case. The Opposition has voiced opposition to every proposed increase under the national wage system and the accord since this Government came to power. For honourable members to get up in this House and mouth platitudes and bovine coprolites about our so-called declining living standards is an insult to every Government member. The terms of the matter of public importance were not addressed in any significant way by the first speaker for the Opposition, the honourable member for Wentworth. This matter of public importance deserves to be treated with contempt, thrown out and dismissed for the utter rubbish it is. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(4.35) —It is a disgrace that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has run away from this debate today about something fundamental to every man, woman and child in this country-their standards of living. Where is the Treasurer? Why is it that all the Government will do is put up an undistinguished backbencher to try to answer this debate? Mr Gear —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member for Mayo was reflecting on a member of this House by calling him undistinguished. I ask that he withdraw that comment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —I was listening closely. I do not consider that to be an unparliamentary term. Mr DOWNER —The Treasurer, who is absent, is doubtless back in his fine ministerial office oblivious to falling living standards in this country, carefully learning his lines from officers of the Department of the Treasury so that the next time he has to appear before the television cameras he will know what to say. Remember the days when the Treasurer was once the world's greatest Treasurer? Actually, we tend to forget that it was in the following year that the very same magazine said that the Treasurer was the world's second worst Treasurer. It is worth reflecting that, if the Finance Minister of Egypt had died in that year, our Treasurer would indeed have been the worst Treasurer in the world. Ordinary people in Australia must feel that pretty strongly. The Treasurer, who is presiding over these declining living standards, is not getting the press coverage that he used to get. If we look at what M magazine is saying about the Treasurer we see that it is fairly revealing. Let me quote to the House what M magazine says about the Treasurer: . . . was one of many people who had risen to a position of power while, `even in the most charitable view, at least a little loco'. The report goes on to state: Mr Keating, described as `one of the true Jekyll and Hydes of contemporary politics' was chosen to join the ranks of more than 30 international `wackos', among them- and, wait for it, guess who is among them- Colonel Gaddafi, Hugh Hefner and Marlon Brando. What a magnificent actor the Treasurer is! When everybody knows that living standards are declining he can go before a television camera with a straight face and say, `We have a strong economy'. He says that again and again in the hope that eventually people might believe it. He says, `We have a strong economy', when living standards are plunging. For goodness sake! What would living standards be like if we had a weak economy under this Government? It is a government of pathetic excuses and a government which has presided over six barren years in this country. The United States of America has had record economic growth and growing living standards; Britain has had that; Germany has had that; Japan has had that; and Italy has had that. What has been happening here? Living standards have been plunging and the whole show has been presided over by the slick showmanship of the so-called Treasurer-a man who revealed only today that he does not know anything about the detail. He is a fraud. He does not know the detail. His answer on the capital gains tax gave the game away because the Treasury officials had not told him what to say before he came in here. When he came in here suddenly he revealed that he, who introduced the capital gains tax, does not know how the capital gains tax works. But if honourable members want to argue about living standards-and that is what we want to do today-they should just look at the productivity figures in this country. Productivity in this country has stalled since 1984 and since 1985 productivity in Australia has been declining. For the benefit of people opposite, that means that it takes more people more hours to produce today the same unit of output as was produced in 1985. For the benefit of members of the Australian Labor Party, increased productivity means increased prosperity and increased wealth. It is the key to prosperity. If productivity is declining, as figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics point out quite clearly-it does not get much publicity but it ought to-how can we possibly compete with the rest of the world? If we really contemplate the issue, if productivity is declining we have two choices: either we continue to chop away at peoples' wages so the higher manning levels actually cost at least no more than the wages bill in a comparable operation in another country, and down and down those living standards go or, alternatively, we can just close down industries and factories. That is what will happen if we keep going down the path that we have been going down since 1985. Another of the Treasurer's famous rhetorical, repetitive tricks is a complete nonsense, that is, when he says, `We have presided over structural adjustment'. Structural adjustment is important but if the Government had actually presided over structural adjustment, our productivity would not have been falling every year since 1985. But no; we still have the same old restrictive work practices that the Government's mates in the leadership of the trade union movement want to keep. We still have the same old problems with shipping, the same old problems on the waterfront and, by the way, the Treasurer has vetoed any changes to shipping arrangements in this country. We have the same old problems with our wage fixing system. We have the same old Labor Party propositions for taxation. It wants to impose more and more tax on small business, big business, households-on everyone. As a consequence, by June next year somebody in receipt of average weekly earnings will be $56 a week worse off in real terms than he was when the Labor Party came to power in 1983. Let us look at the effect of this Government's policies. One should not say `policies'; one should say `policy', because its policy for trying to get us out of our balance of payments morass, its policy for trying to improve our productivity, its policy, apparently, for trying to improve living standards which are declining all the time, is to jack up interest rates. That is the only policy that it has. We cannot compete and our balance of payments deteriorates; yet the Government says, `Let's dampen down demand a bit more, let's get some more money out of the economy, let's jack up interest rates'. We all know what happens if one keeps putting up interest rates, as the Treasurer has been doing. The effect of that is to hit, above all, people who own homes. Since March 1983 the average Australian household has lost $48 a week in real terms because of increased costs for housing alone. If one adds to that the $56 due to taxes and falling real wages, one sees a pretty devastating outcome. That is all the evidence that one really needs that living standards have fallen. In New South Wales, since 1985 the average family has lost $61 a week in real terms because of increased housing costs. In Victoria, the figure is $46 a week; and the list goes on. What this is doing, more seriously, is simply destroying something that we on this side of the House exclusively believe in-that is, the concept of stable family life and stable family households. The other day the national manager of personal lending for the Westpac Banking Corporation said that it was estimated that more than two thirds of home loan borrowers were relying on both incomes to repay their loan. In some cases this meant putting off having a family for more than 10 years. That message was repeated by the Commonwealth Bank's chief general manager of retail banking. He said: To handle a mortgage, you need to put off having a family . . . So this is the pathetic consequence of Labor's policies. Young families now have to choose: `Will we have a house or will we have a family?'. That is the consequence of what this grizzly Treasurer, the man who has been described in such unflattering terms by M magazine, the man who has been described as a whacko, has done to the society in which we live. The Government has crushed living standards. It has a long, long record of abominable failure. Its record of failure is worse than that of the Whitlam Government. Like all Labor governments since 1901-every single time that there has been a Labor Government-living standards have fallen. The Government's record about caring is nonsense. The Treasurer's rhetoric about a strong economy is simply a falsehood. The Government is a disgrace to the ordinary people of Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GEAR(Canning)(4.45) —As has been pointed out by the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), if the Opposition wanted to talk about living standards today, we have not heard much about them. I suppose it is typical of the Opposition that the two people they put up to speak about living standards-the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson) and the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer)-would have the least in common with the average Australian of any two people in this House. They would not know how the average Australian lives; and was it not obvious? In the 25-minute contribution from them we had 20 minutes of whingeing about the Treasurer (Mr Keating). That is what it was all about. Dr Hewson talked about his pet subjects as though he was lecturing to a year one class on economics. He did not mention living standards once before he sat down. Mr Downer —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: the honourable member raised a point of order that I had somehow been reflecting on a member. The honourable member is, I think you would agree, reflecting in his comments on the honourable member for Wentworth, and I think those remarks should be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The only reflection he made was not to call the honourable member by the name of his electorate, I did not consider that he was reflecting on his character in any way. But I ask the honourable member for Canning to be careful in what he says about honourable members. Mr GEAR —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. What I was pointing out was that, in my opinion, they have very little understanding of how the average person lives, and it was reflected in their contributions. Twenty out of 25 minutes was spent whingeing about the Treasurer, referring to articles in foreign magazines. If that is how they want to get across their message about living standards in Australia, good luck to them, because when they go to the election next time they will get the thrashing they deserve. One must really focus on how well off an Australian family would be if the incompetents opposite were sitting on this side of the House. I will not refer to anything that is put out by the Australian Labor Party, or any party in particular. I want to refer to a document entitled `Living standards and Opposition Wages Policy' from the Legislative Research Service in Parliament House. It is an impartial body which, upon requests from members of Parliament, will prepare papers like this. It is very illustrative to look at this paper to see how the battlers would have done under the two Opposition members who have just made their contributions to the debate. This is the result of all the things the Opposition has said: The above calculations, which build on material prepared by the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, show that the implementation of the Opposition's stated attitude policies- All the press releases are shown. Mr Reith —Table them. Mr GEAR —I will table them; the honourable member can look at them. The document continues: to national wage cases between March 1983 and June 1988 would have led to a fall in living standards- the Opposition proposed this matter of public importance- of up to: $132 per week for a single income family with a dependent spouse and two dependent children where the income earner was a male full-time employee on average weekly earnings. That is the policy of those heroes opposite. They try to tell us what we have done; that is what they would have done. They would have taken $132 out of the pockets of a person on average weekly earnings. With regard to a two-income household with two dependent children where the income earners are a male on average weekly earnings and a female on average weekly earnings, the Opposition would have left it $212 short. Honourable members opposite have the effrontery to put a matter of public importance before the Parliament, and then while the honourable member for Calare was debating it, they called for a quorum to be formed. The simple fact is that no matter what measure, social or economic, one applies regarding the difference between the Opposition's attitude to policy and ours we come out a mile ahead. I noticed at the weekend that a manifesto is to be launched on 4 December. Is that not typical timing-once this House has adjourned? And will it not be a beaut? It will be long on rhetoric and short on detail; one can bet on that. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), was referred to, after the Budget was handed down, in an article by a Mr Burrell. The article states: In an interview with The Australian Financial Review, the Shadow Treasurer, Mr Peacock, was pleased to suggest personal tax cuts-around $56 a week for average earners- we heard that from the honourable member for Mayo- to make up for the absence of tax scale indexation since 1983. He would not say how large the necessary spending cuts would be or where they would be made. Is that not typical of members of the Liberal Party? If one tries to pin them down on detail, one cannot get it. All one hears is the big whinge, day after day, about falling living standards. The simple fact is that, as the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) has proved, it has not happened. If one looks at the figure for real household disposable income per capita from 1984-85 to 1987-88, one will see that it has gone up by 4.3 per cent. By next year it is projected to go up by 5.7 per cent. Opposition members are short on detail and short on any sustainable argument about living standards. They are short on detail about what they would do. They are big `gonnas'. I am sure that the House would agree that taxation rates play a significant part in the standard of living. For the whole time the Opposition was in government, the top tax rate stood at 60c. It is now down to 49c. The 48c rate that Opposition members were content with throughout the seven years that the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was Treasurer is now down to 40c. More importantly for people on low incomes, the 30c bottom tax rate that Opposition members were happy to live with is down to 24c, and next year it will fall again. This Government has performed. That is evident in the disposable income of families. All we have ever heard from Opposition members is what they are `gonna' do. They are world beaters in opposition. When they are on this side of the House all they do is sit on their hands and watch the world go by. Let us look at the people who are most disadvantaged in this community. The people who are hurt by the standard of living are those on the unemployment benefit. As the honourable member for Calare has pointed out the number on the unemployment benefit rose by 1,000 every working day in the last year of the Opposition's stewardship. It is something for the honourable member for Mayo to talk about productivity. I suppose productivity was on the upward slope in 1982 when businesses were going to the wall! It was the biggest shake-out of business in Australia, and the Opposition precipitated it. It put many thousands of people on the unemployment benefit. Let us look at the effects of the Opposition's care and compassion for people on the unemployment benefit. Under the coalition Government a single unemployment beneficiary with two children was below the Henderson poverty line by $37.10. We have turned that around by $40. At least they are now above the Henderson poverty line. Under the Liberal Party, a couple with three children were $26.30 below the Henderson poverty line. Under this Government they are $10.95 above the Henderson poverty line. When talking about living standards we should focus on the people who are at the bottom of the pile, the people who do not have jobs, and not the 1.1 million who we put into work. Mr Reith —You haven't put them in. Mr GEAR —This Government has put them into work. Mr Downer —Rubbish. Mr GEAR —That is something the Opposition could never do. It is something it will never have to worry about because it will be sitting on the other side of the House for a long time to come. Mr Reith —That's just not true. Mr GEAR —There are some people in Australia whose living standards have dropped. Mr Reith —Yes-thousands. Mr GEAR —But not by much. Mr Downer —Not by much! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! Mr GEAR —What about the people who were using the fringe benefits tax, the people who were booking up their meals-- Mr Downer —That point will be used in your electorate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Mayo. Mr GEAR —He is harmless, Mr Deputy Speaker. He is more to be pitied than despised; let him go. The people who are rorting the system are worse off. So they should be, because they were always on the back of honest taxpayers, the pay as you earn taxpayers, who helped, through the Liberal's taxes, to pay for the meals of the more affluent who went to restaurants and booked up their meals. Who opposed the fringe benefits tax? The Liberal Party opposed the fringe benefits tax. The honourable member for Mayo is shaking his head like a golliwog. We know he voted against it. In suburbia the PAYE taxpayer was paying his full amount of tax while the bludgers that the honourable member supported were rorting the fringe benefits for all they were worth. Is it any wonder that at the weekend John Hyde, a member of the Liberal Government, in the Weekend Australian-it made fascinating reading because he got the Opposition in one-said that on the gold tax the Opposition was prepared to sacrifice principle for short term political gain in the Western Australian elections. Of course, he was right. There is only one party and only one government that will stand up for people and increase their living standards-and that is the Labor Party. As John Hyde pointed out, the Liberal Party has no principles. It has no direction. We all know, by observation, that it has no leader. And it has no hope. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The debate is concluded. Assent to the following Bills reported: Sales Tax Assessment (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1988 Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1988 Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 1988 Motion (by Mr Robert Brown) agreed to: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Speaker (1) interrupting the business before the House at 12.20 p.m. and (2) calling on questions without notice at 2.30 p.m., on Wednesday, 23 November 1988. Motion (by Mr Robert Brown for Mr Beazley) proposed: 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 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: Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill 1988; International Arbitration Amendment Bill 1988; States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1988; States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988; States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill 1988; Higher Education Funding Bill 1988; Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1988; Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1988; Overseas Students Charge Collection Amendment Bill 1988; Australian Sports Commission Bill 1988; Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1988; National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Amendment Bill 1988; Federal Airports Corporation Amendment Bill 1988; Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; Copyright Amendment Bill 1988; Circuit Layouts Bill 1988; Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1988; Sales Tax Assessment Bill (No. 12) 1988; Sales Tax Bill (No. 12) 1988; Sales Tax Bill (No. 1a) 1988; Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988; Ozone Protection Bill 1988; Ozone Protection Bill (Licence Fees-Imports) 1988; Ozone Protection Bill (Licence Fees-Manufacture) 1988; Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 1988; and Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill 1988. Mr FIFE(Hume-Manager of Opposition Business)(4.57) —The Opposition opposes this motion. For the benefit of honourable members, and for the benefit of the public who might be listening to this debate, let me say that it is a guillotine. Unfortunately, this Government is using the guillotine more and more in order to get its legislation through with indecent haste. What is before the House now in the form of this guillotine motion is a proposal to limit debate on 28 Bills in order to force those Bills through this House between now and 12.30 a.m. on Friday this week. It is disgraceful. The Government should do something about reorganising its program now and when the House resumes in February. I have pointed out on other occasions that the House is going into recess at the end of next week and it is not the Government's intention that the House resume again until 28 February next year. It is one of the longest Christmas recesses that I can recall. It is probably the longest. The motion that is now before the House is quite unnecessary. It is important for the record to note that amongst the legislation that we have to deal with in a very short space of time is the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill, the International Arbitration Amendment Bill, the Australian Sports Commission Bill, the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill, the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill, the Copyright Amendment Bill, the Circuit Layouts Bill and the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Amendment Bill. There are also three Bills dealing with the protection of the ozone layer. There are two Bills connected with customs and excise. There are four sales tax Bills. There is the Federal Airports Corporation Amendment Bill, the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2)-which, I might add, is a very important Bill dealing with certain matters affecting nursing homes and hostels, and only one hour is allowed for debate on that Bill; it is obviously a device to hide from the public the serious situation that is developing in this area of government responsibility. There is also the Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill and the Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill. I have left until last a package of legislation dealing with education. There are two Bills concerning assistance to schools. There is also the States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill, and two Bills concerning higher education funding and another two Bills relating to overseas student charges. It would be well known to honourable members on both sides that we have a Green Paper and a White Paper on education. This legislation to which I have just referred is linked to these green and white papers, it affects the whole of the Australian education system and it deals with matters such as the forced amalgamation of tertiary institutions around Australia. There are seven education Bills to be dealt with in two hours and 50 minutes. It is obvious to me and all members of the Opposition that the Government is going to treat this House, and indeed the Parliament, as a sausage machine. In other words, it is trying to make the parliamentary system as irrelevant as it possibly can. It deals with the business in the Cabinet room, brings it into the House of Representatives and the Senate, gets it through as quickly as possible with the minimum amount of debate and hides the real issues from honourable members as well as from the public. I indicate to the Government that when the Parliament returns in February the Opposition will use every device that is available to it to frustrate the business of the Government, not because it wants to soak up time unnecessarily but because this is the only tool available to the Opposition to protest against the railroading of legislation in the way that is proposed today. I repeat that there are 28 Bills to be dealt with by the House of Representatives between now and just a little after midnight on Thursday. That is disgraceful. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton-Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support)(5.01) —in reply-I do not want to delay the House too much on the question of the limitation of debate on urgent Bills but there are a couple of important matters I should raise. I think people will understand that the chief reason the Government is adopting this procedure now is to facilitate the purposes of the House and to ensure that legislation which is important to the welfare of Australia and to the direction of this nation will be put through the Parliament this year and will not be delayed until 1989 as would otherwise be the case if the Opposition's will prevailed in this matter. The honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) referred to the fact that there are important items of legislation to be dealt with. I do not know whether it is the Opposition's intention but it appears to be its intention to frustrate the Government's putting into place the following extremely important legislation: States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill, States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2), States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill, Higher Education Funding Bill, Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Amendment Bill, Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill and Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill. I do not know whether the veterans of Australia realise that the Opposition is now attempting to prevent the Government introducing this legislation, bringing it before the Parliament, and having it passed and implemented. It is important that we have the opportunity to do that. All of those Bills have been the subject of wide and continuing public debate and there is wide and continuing public support for them as there should be. I will finish on this point: the honourable member for Hume made perfectly clear the nature of the tactics that have been adopted by the Opposition. I quote his words, without misquoting him, `We will seek to frustrate the business of the Government in the new year'. The Government knows and the Australian people know that that has been the tactic and the strategy adopted by the Opposition all this year. Had it not attempted to frustrate and disrupt the Parliament the legislative program would have gone through weeks ago. By now Opposition members could have been back in their electorates looking after their constituents instead of being in the Parliament raising spurious matters of the kind that they are now raising. It is necessary, for the purposes of the Government and for the Australian people, that we get these Bills through, and we will get them through this year. Question put: That the motion (Mr Robert Brown's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Kerr, D. J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lavarch, M. H.Campbell, G. Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. 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. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, JohnGorman, R. N. J. Scott, LesGrace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R.Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W.Johns, G. T. 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 Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Taylor, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L. Darling, E. E. Cameron, DonaldKerin, G. C. Peacock, A. S.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(5.12) —I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills: Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill 1988; International Arbitration Amendment Bill 1988; States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1988; States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988; States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill 1988; Higher Education Funding Bill 1988; Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1988; Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1988; Overseas Students Charge Collection Amendment Bill 1988; Australian Sports Commission Bill 1988; Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1988; National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Amendment Bill 1988; Federal Airports Corporation Amendment Bill 1988; Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; Copyright Amendment Bill 1988; Circuit Layouts Bill 1988; Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1988; Sales Tax Assessment Bill (No. 12) 1988; Sales Tax Bill (No. 12) 1988; Sales Tax Bill (No. 1a) 1988; Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988; Ozone Protection Bill 1988; Ozone Protection Bill (Licence Fees-Imports) 1988; Ozone Protection Bill (Licence Fees-Manufacture) 1988; Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 1988; and Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill 1988. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —The question is that the Bills be considered urgent Bills. Question resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That the time allotted in connection with the Bills be as follows: (1) Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill-For the remaining stages, until 6.20 p.m. this day. (2) International Arbitration Amendment Bill-For the remaining stages, until 8.30 p.m. this day. (3) States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill-For the remaining stages, until 10.30 p.m. this day. (4) States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2)-For the remaining stages, until 10.35 p.m. this day. (5) States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill-For the remaining stages, until 10.40 p.m. this day. (6) Higher Education Funding Bill-For the second reading, until 10.45 p.m. this day. For the committee stage, until 10.50 p.m. this day. For the remaining stages, until 10.55 p.m. this day. (7) Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill-For the remaining stages, until 11 p.m. this day. (8) Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill-For the second reading, until 11.05 p.m. this day. For the committee stage, until 11.10 p.m. this day. For the remaining stages, until 11.15 p.m. this day. (9) Overseas Students Charge Collection Amendment Bill-For the remaining stages, until 11.20 p.m. this day. (10) Australian Sports Commission Bill-For the second reading, until 10.30 a.m., Wednesday, 23 November. For the committee stage, until 10.35 a.m. Wednesday, 23 November. For the remaining stages, until 10.40 a.m. Wednesday, 23 November. (11) Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill-For the second reading, until 4.35 p.m., Wednesday, 23 November. For the committee stage, until 4.40 p.m., Wednesday, 23 November. For the remaining stages, until 4.45 p.m. Wednesday, 23 November. (12) Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill-For the remaining stages, until 4.50 p.m. Wednesday, 23 November. (13) Copyright Amendment Bill-For the second reading, until 5.30 p.m., Wednesday, 23 November. For the committee stage, until 5.35 p.m., Wednesday, 23 November. For the remaining stages, until 5.40 p.m. Wednesday, 23 November. (14) Circuit Layouts Bill-For the remaining stages, until 5.45 p.m. Wednesday, 23 November. (15) National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Amendment Bill-For the remaining stages, until 8.45 p.m. Wednesday, 23 November. (16) Ozone Protection Bill-For the second reading, until 10.25 p.m., Wednesday, 23 November. For the committee stage, until 10.30 p.m., Wednesday, 23 November. For the remaining stages, until 10.35 p.m. Wednesday, 23 November. (17) Ozone Protection (Licence Fees-Imports) Bill-For the remaining stages, until 10.40 p.m. Wednesday, 23 November. (18) Ozone Protection (Licence Fees-Manufacture) Bill-For the remaining stages, until 10.45 p.m. Wednesday, 23 November. (19) Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill-For the remaining stages, until 4.55 p.m. Thursday, 24 November. (20) Sales Tax Assessment Bill (No. 12)-For the remaining stages, until 5 p.m. Thursday, 24 November. (21) Sales Tax Bill (No. 12)-For the remaining stages, until 5.05 p.m. Thursday, 24 November. (22) Sales Tax Bill (No. 1a)-For the remaining stages, until 5.10 p.m. Thursday, 24 November. (23) Federal Airports Corporation Amendment Bill-For the remaining stages, until 8.15 p.m. Thursday, 24 November. (24) Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill-For the remaining stages, until 8.55 p.m. Thursday, 24 November. (25) Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3)-For the remaining stages, until 9 p.m. Thursday, 24 November. (26) Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2)-For the remaining stages, until 10 p.m. Thursday, 24 November. (27) Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill-For the remaining stages, until 11 p.m. Thursday, 24 November. (28) Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill-For the remaining stages, until 12.30 a.m. Friday, 25 November. Debate resumed from 7 November, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(5.14) —The Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill is a rather extraordinary effort by the Government to introduce privatisation. It is well known around the place that there has been some rethinking going on within the Cabinet about privatisation. The Government has recognised in recent times that, with the economy turning the way it is, tax cuts are probably not quite as good a possibility as they were before. They may not be on at all. The Government is short of money. There is nothing like a money-driven government for recognising that principle can go out the window. It does not matter what the party platform says; the Government simply says, `We'll call another party conference if necessary to ram this through'. Those who watched the Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis) on television on Sunday morning would have seen quite clearly that he is shifting ground in terms of privatisation. The word is around that the Cabinet has been reconsidering its position. It may be that the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table and who read the second reading speech-I chuckled at the time-is a prophet before his time in forecasting that privatisation is on the way. In fact, the Minister said this in his speech, and it was quite remarkable: Confronted with the capital problem the Government examined a number of options: firstly, to continue as at present; That is a disaster, because he had said previously in his speech: As a consequence, the Corporation has experienced a period of very strong asset growth of over 250 per cent in the four years. . . . However, its capital base has emerged as a factor that could jeopardise AIDC's future contribution to industry development, especially in terms of its equity investment program, which is essential if it is to make its full contribution to industry policy objectives. So the option to continue as at present is down the chute. The Minister went on: . . . secondly, to provide a substantial capital instalment from the Budget; Quite clearly that is not on, as the Minister has indicated. It is not on because we can smell it around that tax cuts are in some difficulty. The Government wants money; a substantial capital instalment from the Budget is out. The Government's third option is to raise equity capital from the private sector. The thought of having to sell things back to their rightful owners should bring terror to the mind of the Minister. What real role does the Government have in running a merchant bank? There is no role for social considerations in a merchant bank; not one. It is a commercial operation, as the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney) would well know. These situations are entirely commercial and, as a consequence, this operation has had four successful years. Its future, in the Minister's own words, could be jeopardised if some future contribution to its capital base is not made. The Minister went on: At present, AIDC has paid up capital of $100m and $93.6m in accumulated reserves. However, budgetary circumstances have ensured that additional capital contributions have been the exception rather than the rule. Certainly, that is the future. It goes on: A provision introduced in 1983 requiring the Corporation to pay a dividend of 50 per cent of net profit . . . That has meant that reserves have grown slowly. So the Government pinched 50 per cent of the profit the Corporation made, left the other 50 per cent in the account, and said, `Well look, you've got to finance yourself'. I again refer to the Minister's own words: It would also have had a disastrous impact on the morale of the Corporation and its ability to retain key staff. AIDC's loan portfolio would have soon ceased to grow and the investment strategy would increasingly have been determined by the need for short term profitability. In other words, the AIDC's only hope of expansion in the future would have been by retained earnings. I will come to that later. The Minister went on: New investment in the more innovative and useful areas, particularly equity investments, would have had to be abandoned. That is how short on capital the AIDC is. The Minister continued: Given the public interest roles expected of AIDC, which remains the raison d'etre for its continued presence in the public sector. . . That is very challengeable. I want to know what the definition of the public interest role is. As I have just said, there is no reason whatsoever for a government to run a merchant bank. The Minister continued: . . . it would be preferable if the whole of the required capital could be found from the Budget . . . However, the budgetary realities facing the Government inevitably mean that the Government would not have been able to provide the capital required. There is the admission coming from the Government. It is no wonder that the Government is looking around for ways and means to weasel on the party platform and to get on with the privatisation program. The AIDC is small beer compared with the demands from Qantas Airways Ltd, Australian Airlines, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Telecom Australia, Australia Post and, the list goes on. Billions of dollars are required to be spent on capital resources. The vast majority of these enterprises, which the Opposition has named, are better run in the commercial sector. They can be financed totally in the commercial sector. They will show a better return on investment in the private sector than in the public sector. If the Minister doubts that, he should look at the record. Over the last 10 years public enterprises have returned something like 2 per cent on capital investment. Over the last four years the private sector has averaged a 13 per cent return-varying between 12 and 15 per cent, depending upon the economy. That is a clear indication of what goes on. The Minister has admitted it in his paper. I turn to another startling situation. The Government, having accepted that we must raise some capital, then goes around looking for ways to do it and it comes up with some remarkable options. The third option involved raising capital from the private sector which could be implemented, according to the Minister's speech, in a number of ways. Capital could have been raised in the Corporation itself either by issuing voting or non-voting shares. All of a sudden we are going to dish out non-voting shares in a government subsidiary. I invite the Minister to consider the rules of the Australian Stock Exchange. Under what heading would a non-voting share be listed? It is not on, and the Minister ought to know it. Remarkably poor work has gone into this option. Let us move on to the next point in the Minister's speech. It states that a listed unit trust holding non-voting shares in the Corporation could also have been established. What a trimmer! I invite all honourable members to participate in a unit trust holding non-voting shares in a government subsidiary. Mr Rocher —They will be rushed! Mr MOORE —It will be rushed! The honourable member for Curtin certainly would be a very reluctant sub-underwriter. Recently we have seen government instrumentalities do so well! The government involvement in an investment venture in Western Australia was a remarkable performance. In the Minister's own State we had a dash of real entrepreneurial skill. The State Government darted into the fray and left a considerable mark. A very distinguished performance went on in Victoria. While the Minister is reflecting on the Victorian contribution, I remind him that that famous Government decided that it would have one of the unit trusts I have just referred to and it would invite the public to contribute to it. It thought of it as a way in which it could make everyone contribute. It whistled up an underwriter, whom I happen to know particularly well. He would have had to be pretty quick on his feet because there was something like a 90 per cent shortfall. Where did it end up? It ended up back in the State Government Insurance Office portfolio. Well done, fellows! A first rate performance! The Victorian Government turned a government asset into a unit trust and the only one who could take it up was the State Government Insurance Office. Mr Rocher —Is that what you call a round robin? Mr MOORE —There must be something about round robins with these government enterprises, because that is what went on in Western Australia. They have that round robin going so fast over there that they do no know whether they are coming through the door or going out of it. The most incredible situations obtain in all these areas. In this speech, the Government's first effort in this area, it is proposing non-voting shares, which it does not seem to understand the stock exchange will not list. Then we move on to the unit trust proposition. I have mentioned the dramatic results of the unit trust we had in Victoria. Reading between the lines of the Minister's speeches is, as usual, very entertaining. A price of $50m is going to be put on a 20 per cent interest in a subsidiary company. Let us look at the returns for the year. I presume this means capitalisation of $250m, at 20 per cent of $50m. Even the Minister could work that out. If one looks at the last balance sheets of the AIDC, one will see that the profit account-no taxation paid-is $21m. In my calculation that is about a 9 per cent return. I refer the Minister to the interview of the Minister for Transport and Communications on the Sunday program. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a well known banker, would know that the Minister said in that interview, very blithely, that the most important of his investment criteria was the dividend payment. So $21m on capital of $250m-and no taxation paid in the last year-shows a 9 per cent return. If we look back through the previous year's accounts we find a tax credit added of $7m. When I looked at point 4 in the accounts to see what the tax credit was made up of I found that it was made up of past losses. So the last two years' profits have been heavily supplemented by past losses. So the dividend ratio-that is, the total payout; no retentions-is a 9 per cent return. In the current legislation, that is, before we amend it, 50 per cent of the net profit goes to the Government and 50 per cent goes to reserves. On that basis we are down to 4 1/2c. This is going to be some ripper of a float! They are going to be queueing up. I sometimes wonder what goes on. I have explained the 20 per cent capitalisation and how it works out. I have quoted the Minister for Transport and Communications, who on the channel 7 program said that the dividend factor is the most important. I turn again to the Minister's second reading speech. It states that the AIDC remains a statutory corporation 100 per cent owned by the Commonwealth and that the corporation will retain its development charter and continue to be subject to general policy guidance from the Government. All investors take note. All of a sudden the Government is asking investors to invest in a corporation which will be subject to Government policy outlines. We all know what politicians would do. Put not your faith in their investment advice. Look what happened in the west, look what happened in Victoria and look what happened in Queensland. The Minister's speech states that the subsidiary's objectives will also be directed towards and will cover the AIDC's statutory charter. So sunk private enterprise. It has just hit rock bottom. It is no longer a private enterprise show. The Government is maintaining one of its instrumentalities, which is running out some tax losses, which has insufficient income to attract investors and which will be subject to the same objectives. Directors of the AIDC will compose the majority of the subsidiary's board. To quote the Minister's speech, under the reorganisation `the bulk of the business of the corporation will be transferred to the new wholly-owned subsidiary'. What is this trying to say? What is left behind? The Minister's speech goes on to state: Assets and liabilities associated with the national interest activities of AIDC will remain with the Corporation. Goodness knows what they are. I do not have a clue. At the same time, however, there is a requirement for the subsidiary to look down the track. It must retain the general policy guidelines. Moving on, I find that the Minister will, against criteria set out in the Bill, nominate the subsidiary to which the Corporation will transfer its business; specify the assets, instruments and liabilities not being transferred, all other assets, instruments and liabilities being transferred to the subsidiary; fix the day the reorganisation takes place; and determine the net value of the transferred business-another warning bell. We have already seen under this Government some substantial difficulties involving the transfer of assets to other corporations. I refer to the airports transfer. The Department of Aviation seemed to think it was worth $1.4 billion. The Federal Airports Corporation thought it was probably worth $400m. The result of all that consideration was that nothing happened. We deferred the matter and let it slide. I hope that, when it comes to deeming the net value of the transferred business, the Minister at the time will be required to engage some expert valuers. There is a direct conflict of interest in this matter. From a wholly owned corporation whose accounts are not set up on a commercial basis, the Government is transferring to a subsidiary most of the assets except those of the national interest. It is going to value them and sell on to the other hand. The warning bell says it is time for an independent adviser to be put in place. We should not make it Rothwells Ltd or some others which are a bit too hot in relation to these matters. Determining the total nominal value of shares issued to the corporation no doubt determines how much should be issued to the public. The Government is talking about 20 per cent or no more than 30 per cent. Most importantly, it says, are the rights of the staff who are involved. I think that matter is very important and I have stressed consistently in speaking of privatisation the enormous importance of ensuring that the employees of the company or the target corporation are given every opportunity to participate in the float. Concessions should be made and put in place so that they can be involved in it. There is nothing like incentive to make people go. Mr Barry Jones —It hasn't happened with the Opposition. Mr MOORE —I do not know about that. I will give the honourable member a copy of my paper on what we have done in Queensland. We have had plenty of incentive up there. We have turned it around. Let me show the honourable member how we do it. He might need it in Victoria soon. They certainly do in the West. Another matter-I am sure we are testing your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker-is the question of future dividend payments. We read in the second reading speech this fascinating comment: The Bill also amends the mechanism by which future dividend payments to the Commonwealth will be determined, bringing AIDC into line with other Government business enterprises. Ta ta te tum! That will do the trick. We will set some standards and then hope. There has been more hope than action in relation to setting those. The second reading speech continues: Instead of paying 50 per cent of net profit after tax each year- and it has not paid it for the last two years; it got a tax credit- AIDC will recommend a dividend to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce who may approve the recommendation or direct the corporation to pay a higher or lower dividend. The good old public investor is asked to put up his money. We have already tested his problems with the national interest and government policy being directed towards this investment. Now the AIDC will say to these poor unfortunate investors, `Look, we think we are going to pay 5 per cent dividend, because that is about how it looks, but we really cannot project that. We will recommend it to the Minister and he might say the Government wants more in the Budget this year or less. We cannot really determine these things even though we are so independent'. It is tied in policy, tied in dividend and tied in the amount it can give out. Really and truly, does the Government want to privatise things or does it not? Does it really want to do it or is this one of those things on which it is limping down the track, hoping the lefties do not catch it sneaking around the door and selling 30 per cent of it? Is it trying somehow or other to delve into the capital pocket and hoping they do not really see what is going on? Is it all hush hush? Is it sneaking it around the corner? Mr Rocher —The lefties won the argument. Mr MOORE —The lefties won the argument. They took a bobtail nag approach to the situation-get 20 or 30 per cent out and we will hang all those restraints on it! I wish the AIDC well. It has made a contribution to commerce in Australia. It has been a vastly improved corporation over the last five years. In the 1970s it had a pretty mixed record and I wish it well in its flotation. But in any float of a new corporation that takes place, and it does not matter whether it is public or private, the success of that float in terms of the corporation's image, its ability to get good employees, its ability to be a profitable concern, and its general standard within the marketplace-the importance of getting it off, as we say in the market-is critical. If a company attempts to put out something which hits the market under the issue price, that company will suffer the strain for many years to come. The importance of these floats is that they must be successful. When our privatisation scheme is under way, I assure the Minister that our floats will be successful because the marketing of them and the placement of them is all important. One cannot run a successful underwriting of much bigger public companies. A $50m float these days is not terribly big, but it will be testing in a down market. If the dividend projections are not there, if the government policy initiative overrides the company, as it is paid in this case, it will certainly test investors. That is without a doubt. Therefore, I hope that some review will be made to get the Government out. That is the very essence of the matter. There is no place for the Government in a merchant bank, in my judgment. Mr Barry Jones —Not even for a specialised purpose? Mr MOORE —Not even for a specialised purpose. People can be retrained for a specialised purpose and paid a fee. This corporation in the past has laboured under the problems of government intervention. When politicians interfere in business, nine times out of 10 it is to do with political interest rather than commercial interest and because of that it ultimately fails. I take you back, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the problems of underwriting and flotation. There is no good, when we move to privatise major public concerns, in attempting to go down the traditional road because the traditional road just will not be good enough. There is a social objective in spreading the capital around Australia to get more people involved in it, to get people's savings into it. There is the commercial objective of making it a better return. There is also a community objective of ensuring that people are involved in what goes on and that requires in the placement of shares and in the underwriting of shares a far greater effort than generally takes place today. It is no longer good enough, for the underwriter of these major business concerns of the Government, to sit there in a glass and concrete office with a Telecom phone, ring up the major institutions and say, `Look, we will sub-underwrite the following to you'. That is the easy way. That is the way most professional underwritings are done. It is quite normal, as you know Sir, that one never puts one's pen to an underwriting agreement until one has the subbies lined up. That situation will not apply in the future. I give notice now that the coalition's privatisation underwriting will be a very substantial marketing operation which will involve efforts around the major provincial cities of Australia, away from the major well-trodden paths of Pitt Street and Collins Street. It will endeavour to involve as many of the citizens of Australia as possible. One will need to go to the Bendigos and Townsvilles of this world, draw in one's investing public and demonstrate to them one's product, which must be accessible. Most of all, the operation must succeed because if the first issue succeeds it will ensure success for the rest of the program. I have probably spoken for too long on this subject but I regard it as enormously important that people understand that we are entering a totally different area in terms of handling public flotations in the future; they have to be thought of in a totally different manner to the way in which they are handled in Australia today. As a consequence, I hope this effort will not be hindered in the future by any shortfall that may occur in the presentation of the prospectus of this area. There are inhibiting factors to investors-government policy, dividend and the subsidiary company. Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I refer to one other item. It relates to the government guarantee. This Bill still implies that loans to the subsidiary company will have access to the government guarantee. It is stated that all borrowings will be carried out by the AIDC, not the subsidiary. As a consequence, that puts the Corporation in a preferred position in relation to other operators in the merchant banking field. That is a disadvantage to the market-place, and I believe that should be addressed. I make one final plea: that business and government recognise the role that each has in life. In the Western world, the positions of government and business are not intertwined; government is about regulating the market and ensuring that the players are kept in a reasonable operating field. If business and government are intertwined, who will be the referee and who will be the player? The Government is essentially the referee. If the Government is also a player, the prospects for conflict of interest are enormous, and where politicians are directly involved, dangerous precedents may result. That has already occurred and it will occur increasingly in the future if this fact is not borne in mind. I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Government should sell the Australian Industry Development Corporation in its entirety to the private sector as soon as possible in view of: (1) the fact that the Corporation operates as a commercial enterprise and furthermore that there is no essential public interest reason for maintaining Federal Government ownership; and (2) the extremely poor record of government involvement in investment ventures as illustrated by the current financial crises enveloping the Victorian Economic Development Corporation and Rothwells merchant bank'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Rocher —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(5.42) —It is a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) in this debate, not least because a number of the propositions that he advanced in relation to the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill 1988 as a version of revealed truth are really only preconceptions about the way in which matters have been handled and can be handled in a modern Western society, a society which is as committed as this one not to a wholly capitalist economy but to a mixed economy. When the honourable member says that certain things should be returned to their rightful owner, one must ask where this definition of `right' leads us, from what does it proceed, and what are its implications. I believe there are many more answers than those implicit in the remarks the honourable member made. It is therefore a pleasure for me to speak in support of this Bill. As the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) said in his second reading speech on this Bill, the Government came to office committed to transforming the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) into an effective instrument of industry policy after the previous Government, following philosophies espoused by the honourable member who is about to leave the chamber, had allowed the Corporation to languish and fall into desuetude. Instead of allowing the AIDC to become a charterless lender of last resort, the Government has ensured that the Corporation is able to play a central role in the much needed rejuvenation of Australian industry in order to diversify our export base and so begin to free our standard of living from its dependence on fluctuations in world demand for primary production. The first step in this process was, of course, to move responsibility for the AIDC to the industry portfolio, and the second was the Government's decision, in late 1983, to amend the AIDC Act to expand the role of the Corporation. These amendments gave the AIDC new scope enabling it not only to provide finance for restructuring and revitalising industry but also to diversify into funding high technology and other growth industries in order to improve Australia's international competitiveness. As a result, the AIDC now has a fine reputation in the investment community for its innovative financial techniques while at the same time it makes a sound contribution to industry development programs such as the heavy engineering plan and raw materials processing under the textile, clothing and footwear package, and also to socially oriented programs, such as the anti-malaria joint venture. I so doing, the Corporation has been able to fulfil its charter with enviable efficiency and with an eye to expanding the range of assistance it offers to Australian industry. Uppermost in the minds of the AIDC's directors has been the aim of maximising the Corporation's impact in achieving its objectives by pursuing a policy of strong and sustained growth, and that means paying careful attention to capital adequacy in each area of its operations. Through this process, the AIDC has become a bigger, stronger and better equipped outfit for the task facing us. Consequently, the Corporation has been able to sustain very strong asset growth of some 250 per cent in the past four years, lifting assets from under $1 billion in 1983 to $2.5 billion by June 1987. However, it has become apparent that the AIDC's ability to sustain this level of expansion while still remaining an effective instrument of industry policy is approaching its limits. Currently, the AIDC has paid up capital of $100m as well as some $93.6m in accumulated reserves. But if the AIDC is to continue to follow the prudent commercial practice of apportioning its capital to various components of its business according to their individual risk profile, its capital base must be increased. Indeed, that is essential if the Corporation is to maintain its impressive present credit rating with world-recognised credit-rating agencies such as Moody's and Standard and Poor's. This Bill represents the ideal means of doing this. Given the need to maintain the Government's very successful record in reducing its own outlays and capital borrowing, it is obviously not appropriate to provide a direct capital injection to the AIDC from the public purse. In light of that situation, the Government examined a number of options for the AIDC including allowing the Corporation to find its own way without any further injection of capital. However, this option was regarded as unacceptable because it would have undermined the substantial progress achieved by the AIDC in the last five years, returning it to the situation it has fallen into before the Hawke Government came to office. As well as that, such a move would have had a serious effect on the morale of the Corporation and hence on its performance. The AIDC's loan portfolio would have become static and its investment strategy would increasingly have been dictated by the need to maintain cash flow with short term investments, which are less likely to be of lasting benefit to Australia. Another consequence would have been that new investment in more innovative and useful areas, such as equity investments, would have had to be abandoned. In essence, the AIDC would have been forced to reduce itself to a role not dissimilar to that of those private sector merchant banks, of which we have seen a spectacular collapse in recent weeks, and which of necessity devote large amounts of money and effort to entrepreneurial, in the worst sense, paper-shuffling deals rather than investment in productive industry. Given the public interest role expected of the AIDC as a government-owned organisation, this obviously would not have been an acceptable option. Similarly, it would have been unacceptable to adopt the suggestion, which we have just heard from the honourable member for Ryan and other Opposition members, that the AIDC should have been sold off in its entirety to private sector investors. Unlike the Opposition, this Government is committed to turning around Australia's current account problems on a permanent basis; it is not committed to a philosophy of simply sitting around waiting for something to turn up, such as another fortuitous rise in commodity prices. The implication is that we must expand Australian industry and make it more competitive internationally so that we can diversify our export base, making it more secure in the future. It is good to see that some Australian businesses realise the truth of that and are acting on it. The Minister at the table will well recall a visit he made to Sola Optical, a company in my electorate. That group is prepared to make long term investments and to undertake research and development, to take risks, to follow through a strategy of that kind. Hardy's Wines, another innovative and forward looking business located in my electorate, is in the same boat, as indeed are many Australian winemakers with state-of-the-art technology and a first rate, world class product. It is to support and encourage this sort of trend that we need a venture capital association like the AIDC which has national interest at the core of its charter, and the Government does not believe we can afford to do without such a body. In furthering its industry development mission the Corporation is in the unique position that it can provide both loan and equity capital to a broad cross-section of business enterprises throughout Australia. This enables the Corporation to engage in the birth and development of new, high technology start-up activities through its equity based venture capital investments; the provision of loan facilities to growing companies whose equity base can support additional borrowings; the provision of additional growth or mezzanine equity to growing companies which can no longer support additional borrowings but have not reached the maturity to seek public equity funds; the provision of both loan and equity funds to mature and expanding publicly listed companies; and providing through its Industry Restructuring Unit either loans or equity, or both, to mature companies now facing the needs of rationalisation and restructuring their operations in order to achieve and maintain a competitive edge in both domestic and international markets. The ability to provide both loan and equity capital across the spectrum of new and old industries in Australia is one of the AIDC's characteristics which differentiate it from other financial business. In many instances, also, the Corporation, because of its unique industry development mission together with its equity taking ability and skilled staff resources-something which cannot be underestimated, as the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) underestimated them-is able to assist and develop opportunities that would not, or could not, be undertaken by other financial institutions in Australia. Anyone doubting this has only to look at my own State, South Australia, where the AIDC was instrumental in assisting Email Ltd to acquire Simpson Holdings to rationalise Australia's whitegoods industry and create a manufacturer of sufficient size to have the economies of scale and product development resources to become internationally competitive. As a result of the AIDC's 9.9 per cent investment, the two groups were able to merge successfully and have now launched a new range of products which they are exporting around the world. The investment by the AIDC transformed two moribund companies into one successful conglomerate that is already operating at a profit. That intervention was something other Australian financiers were afraid to take on. Similarly, AIDC, through its 25 per cent shareholding in the Australian Submarine Corporation, played a crucial role in that consortium winning the contract to build six submarines for the Royal Australian Navy. Based on a greenfield site at Port Adelaide, that project is taking advantage of South Australia's excellent industrial relations record to show the world that Australians can mix it with the best when it comes to heavy engineering expertise. Worth more than $3 billion, the project will provide employment for hundreds of people in Port Adelaide and thousands more around Australia for more than a decade, as well as providing financial stability for many businesses associated with it. It requires project management, sophisticated management information systems, and quality control procedures that are novel to Australia and will have a beneficial effect across a wide range of Australian industry. Maximising the Australian contribution to the submarine project will require many industries to adopt new technologies and to use new production methods which will lead to immense spin-off opportunities. This probably would not have been achieved without the participation of the AIDC. That is why it would be senseless to adopt the more extreme proposal of the Opposition that the AIDC be privatised. Privatisation would do little more than create another private merchant bank or expand an existing one, leaving no organisation of the specialist nature of the AIDC. I have run out of time, so I simply say that the AIDC fulfils a unique and necessary role. This legislation will continue that benefit and I commend the Bill to the House. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(5.55) —The Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill is a demonstration, if another demonstration was needed, of the almost total failure of this Government to achieve its much talked about micro-economic reforms. Plagued by major difficulties in what are normally considered macro-economic areas, such as the balance of payments and inflation, the Government is now unwilling to risk political challenges to the vested interests of trade unions in the industries which are heavily protected and under the Government's wing. The Government has completely failed to honour its earlier promises of labour market reform and privatisation. The lame duck Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has so little influence over his own party that not a single proposal for privatisation has been adopted by the Australian Labor Party. Like his prime ministership, the great privatisation debate in the Labor Party died before it ever got off the ground. Dr Harry Edwards —It was stillborn. Mr ROCHER —It was stillborn. It is increasingly apparent that achieving micro-economic reform against the vested interests to which the Labor Party is beholden is as difficult for the Keating-Hawke Labor Party as changing the unilateral nuclear disarmament policy is to its moribund counterpart in the United Kingdom. The AIDC is a classic example of the type of business which a government has no role running. The Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC), not sure whether it is a merchant bank, an investment house or a soft loan domestic development agency, should have been transferred to the private sector years ago. This Bill is nothing more than a cop-out to make up for the failure of the Cabinet to get the necessary back bench support for privatisation which it knows are essential for the affected so-called government enterprises to remain viable. Such a failure to gain support should be a scandal of major proportions. However, the media fails to note it and fails to report it. This Bill seeks to make up for the failure to privatise the AIDC by instead giving the AIDC access to raising private capital through the establishment and floating of a subsidiary company. In so doing, it emphasises the dangers of having government owned companies competing in the private sector. The problem of ensuring that these companies, such as the proposed AIDC subsidiary, are both accountable to the Australian people through the Parliament and competitive represents an unsolvable dilemma for this Government. The problems of accountability have been dramatically illustrated by recent events under the Labor Government in my home State of Western Australia. The Western Australian Government pursued policies of improving the competitive position of State Government authorities through corporatising their operations and then getting involved in entrepreneurial activities in the private sector. Those very policies, which are now being pursued by the Federal Labor Party as a second best alternative to privatisation, led to the disasters of the Rothwells Ltd collapse, the Teachers Credit Society Ltd bail-out, the petrochemical plant deal and numerous other so-called enterprises which will cost Western Australian taxpayers very dearly indeed. I point out that those events happened not just because of sinister motives of some who were involved in attempts to protect their own political necks but as a natural consequence of direct government involvement in the operating of what should be private businesses. The AIDC is particularly relevant here because it operates in the very area where government involvement has been least successful, namely, in finance and merchant banking. The Western Australian Development Corporation (WADC) and its Victorian counterpart, the Victorian Economic Development Corporation (VEDC), were designed to operate in many ways similar to the AIDC. It is relevant, then, to look at a number of examples from Western Australia of the potential dangers of the approach to corporatising government business operations as this Bill apparently intends. Although established by an Act of Parliament, the Western Australian Development Corporation is subject to minimal scrutiny by the Parliament and it hides behind commercial confidentiality or, when convenient, Crown privilege to avoid the accountability of traditional government authorities. The WADC produces an annual report which, as honourable members here would know, is often late and is not subject to the investigations of the State Auditor-General. Complicating the examination of the WADC is its ownership of a number of companies which either invest or operate other functions on its behalf-subsidiary companies as is proposed in this legislation. It is in this respect that alarm bells should be ringing in the context of this Bill and the AIDC generally. At the very best, the record of the WADC is uninspiring. So is and so will be the record of the AIDC after this Bill becomes law. The profits of the WADC are mainly derived from the privileges conferred on it by a State government and what can only be described as creative accounting. Despite all these advantages the so-called profits of both the WADC and the AIDC are relatively small and are rarely derived from new or innovative programs and projects which could not have otherwise emerged without the involvement of a government authority. Indeed, my State colleagues have recently documented a number of instances where investment by the WADC and its affiliates in speculative projects have resulted in significant potential losses for the Corporation. Despite the fantasies of honourable members opposite, it is not the lack of a commercial structure which has led to the failure of the WADC, nor is it the lack of a commercial structure which is hindering the AIDC. The record of the now defunct Victorian Economic Development Corporation, if anything, is worse. A similar record fits the other State government business authorities in my State of Western Australia. The Exim Corporation, with its ham-fisted attempt to export flowers, is a classic example. Government authorities, with the best management and an ideal commercial structure, which few actually have, still fail to compete with the private sector on a commercial basis. But they can become unaccountable and they are not subject to the ultimate discipline of insolvency. Perhaps it is this inability to understand what an insolvent company looks like which has led a number of State government business enterprises to pump millions of dollars of taxpayers' money into Rothwells Ltd in the days immediately preceding the appointment of provisional liquidators for that company. The older government enterprises, such as the State Government Insurance Commission, the Rural and Industries Bank of Western Australia and the State Superannuation Board in Western Australia, are particularly illuminating examples for the purposes of this Bill. After their reform a number of new heads were appointed to these bodies under the assertion that the new flexibility and competitive salaries would introduce dynamic leadership and improved results. I am sure that that sounds familiar to the House because the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) used exactly the same argument. The idea enshrined in this piece of legislation attempts to blur the distinction between private businesses and the activities of government. It assumes that, with minor changes, government business enterprises can be just as successful as real businesses in the real world, in the private sector. It suggests that, with these minor changes, we will enter a new age of good service and prosperity based on the profits of the giant public corporations. That was the utopian dream of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) in Western Australia. That dream has now been shattered. For many years I have urged governments to adopt policies of privatisation so at to remove the burden of enterprises which it is not necessary for a government to run and to improve the efficiency and responsiveness to consumers of those products. Again and again the response of honourable members opposite-I am sure that the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) will repeat what he said previously-is that the ownership of businesses is not as important as how they are run. However, a government owned business can never be run like a private business and nor should it be. The use of public funds must be fully accountable. The veil of commercial confidentiality, as it is applied in Western Australia and with the VEDC, cannot apply to government operations with taxpayers' money. The suggestion that government instrumentalities should become personal fiefdoms, only responsible to the Parliament for producing profit figures and achieving loose objectives, is completely unacceptable. It entirely changes the way in which government operates in a liberal-democratic country. The idea of entrepreneurial government is quite repugnant. Government should not do whatever it is capable of, but only those things which cannot be done by private individuals. If the Government is to be an independent umpire of people pursuing their own interests it cannot also act as a player on the field intimately involved in business activities. Whatever rationale there might have been for government-run businesses in the past, these businesses should be transferred to the private sector as soon as possible. The Government should not be a shareholder in Australian businesses. Were this to occur, the democratic socialisation of the means of production, which has recently been removed from the ALP platform, but I am sure not from the mind of the honourable member for Calwell, could be achieved with a stock market raid costing far less than the annual expenditure of the Commonwealth. Privatisation is essential to the maintenance of the integrity of government as is the accountability to the Parliament of all operations involving government funding. The only value of this legislation is that it prepares for privatisation of the AIDC in the near future on the return of the coalition to the government benches. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(6.07) —It was good to hear the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), who spoke previously, saying that there is a philosophical difference on this issue-one which we are prepared to fight out at any time. Of course, nothing could be proved to be more wrong in the modern world than the nonsensical ideas of the New Right which we just heard from the honourable member for Curtin. These nonsensical ideas have been responsible for some of the economic catastrophies of our time-I am referring, of course, to the massive social dislocation, unemployment and general disruption created in the United Kingdom by the Thatcher Government and the policies of privatisation which have virtually destroyed that country in relation to the public good. If the honourable member wants to talk about philosophical differences we are ready to fight on that question at any time. The empirical facts prove beyond any doubt that the way to go forward in modern society is not through conflict between the private and public sector but through cooperation. A joint effort between the public and the private sector is what the world is moving towards-not just the Western world but even the communist countries. They have now recognised the importance of a shared situation between the private and the public sectors. We still have these die hard New Right people revitalising ideas of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and trying to tell us that this is the philosophy of the future. What rubbish! Anyone who believes in that nonsense is only setting down a philosophy and going down a path towards the destruction of this country. While the Liberal Party of Australia is dominated by elements of that kind it will never come back into government. The Australian people will reject extremist philosophies of that kind-philosophies which try to take us back into the past rather than looking at the future in terms of development. The honourable member for Curtin objected to the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) precisely because it is a body that achieves the transition between the public and the private sectors. The fact of the matter is that the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill is here to help strengthen the AIDC which, historically, has performed a very important role in the development of Australian industry since we came into government. That important role was to help stimulate a number of industries and it has been proved by the dramatic growth and success of the Australian Industry Development Corporation. The honourable member maintained that that public enterprise has no role, is useless and so forth. All he has to do is look at the dramatic success of the Australian Industry Development Corporation and the role which it has played to see how wrong he is. The Australian Industry Development Corporation has provided a very important foundation for industrial development in this country. Of course, the Corporation has had to play a role which private enterprise is not prepared to play. The point that the honourable member has forgotten is that Australian private enterprise has often not been prepared to take risks, to invest in new ventures, to adopt high technology products and to look at new areas of production and development. We have had to have a publicly funded corporation to do some of these things because the private sector in Australia has been very conservative and very slow. The private sector in this country, rather than take risks, as has been suggested by the honourable member, has only been concerned to invest in non-productive enterprises in general. This was evidenced by the stock market crash. Indeed, the honourable member had the impertinence to refer to Rothwells bank. One of the problems with Rothwells was that it was investing in paper projects and paper money rather than in productive enterprises. If Rothwells had invested in productive enterprises, which is what the Australian Industry Development Corporation has done, we would not have had the position that arose with Rothwells bank. The honourable member maintained that there are problems with the Western Australian Development Corporation. Its problem did not arise while it was investing in genuine productive projects; its problems arose when it started investing in highly speculative projects which had nothing to do with actual assets and production. A whole atmosphere had been created within the private sector for this to occur. People were investing in such enterprises, not because those enterprises were actually based on assets and production, but because they were based on the idea that one could make quick profits by moving money around in various ways, by speculating on the stock market and by company takeovers, which were rampant for a period because of the failure to invest in new productive enterprises. While the private sector in this country is slow in relation to those matters, the Australian Industry Development Corporation and other such bodies have a key role to play, and that role will remain. There is certainly no empirical evidence for the point of view of the honourable member who spoke before me, and the other Opposition members who have spoken, that public enterprises, properly run, cannot achieve profits, increase production and employment, or any other things. In fact, all the evidence is that where these things are done in a proper fashion-for example, in certain northern European countries-those results can be achieved. We should witness, for example, what has happened in Sweden, which has a number of publicly owned enterprises that are competing against private enterprises, exporting their products, making profits and creating employment-all of the things which the honourable member opposite maintained could not be done by private enterprises. We know what the real agenda is of those people who object to public enterprise, especially a public enterprise that is competing with the private sector. The real agenda is to get rid of the public enterprise so that a monopoly can occur within the private sector. That has happened before. I refer to certain areas of production and distribution in two or three major companies which have supposedly been in competition with one another but which in fact have not been in competition. There has been a monopoly situation in that they have fixed prices. Those people have been very much opposed to the idea of the public interest being served by a public sector enterprise. That is why there has been such opposition from honourable members opposite to the idea of developing new public corporations which can compete. An element of genuine competition in the marketplace can be introduced if a public sector corporation can compete with private sector ones. When this is done properly it is beneficial to society as a whole. Anyone who believes that it is not beneficial for society to break down such monopoly situations, obviously is not talking about a modern society in which the private sector is genuinely competitive. We reject all of those philosophical arguments. We insist on the strengthened role of the public sector in future in this country. That is going to happen because the public sector will continue to perform that role, contrary to the determination of the Opposition. When we go to the people at the next election this will be a major issue. The argument of the Opposition to sell off, for example, the Commonwealth Bank, the Australian Industry Development Corporation, Qantas Airways Ltd, Australian Airlines and a whole series of very important corporations that play a key role in our economy, will be the basis for very great differences between us. The Australian people in two previous elections have rejected wholesale privatisation because of the disastrous situation that it has created overseas, and they will reject it again at the next election. We hope that the Opposition keeps that agenda for the next election, because that is an issue upon which we are prepared to fight and win. There is no doubt that the philosophical differences are there, and they will remain, because a society which tries to have such a dramatic separation between the public and private sectors, especially in the area of production and distribution and in the financial sector, cannot succeed in working as a cohesive whole. A cohesive whole in society must be one where both sectors work cooperatively rather than in contradiction and conflict. The Australian Industry Development Corporation has a very important role to play. We support these measures to strengthen it, and we want to see it play an even bigger role in the Australian economy in the future, especially while there is a reluctance on the part of many companies here to invest in risky projects which are necessary for the development of Australia's manufacturing and exporting industries. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(6.19) —I understand that time for debate on the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill has just about expired. Therefore, there is not much I can meaningfully say in the short time available to me. I just want to draw attention, however, to the differences between the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), who has just spoken, and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) about the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) and the origins of this Bill. I would like to read into the records, what the Treasurer said about the AIDC. I do not do so to support him; I have been a long term supporter of the AIDC. I do not believe that its future will be diminished under the policy of the Opposition in privatising that organisation. We are discussing its expansion in terms of an increase in its capitalisation. Having made those supportive remarks about its future, I refer to the conflict within the Australian Labor Party about this Bill. The Treasurer, at the annual conference of the ALP, said: Why should the funds of superannuation members, who are mostly just workers, be put across to some genius so-called in the AIDC to invest it for him? . . . . By the way, it's a government merchant bank which has conned two thirds of the party . . . There's a whole lot of bureaucrats out there having a great time down in O'Connell Street. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —Order! It being 6.20 p.m., the time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(6.21) —The Opposition supports the International Arbitration Amendment Bill 1988. We compliment the Government on proposing the Bill. It is unfortunate that, the matter being as important as it is, the Government is not allowing a full debate on the subject. Once again we have to have it recorded that the Government is quite wrongly truncating debate and preventing a full and proper debate on this important measure as on other measures. The Government should be roundly condemned for taking the course it has and for allowing such a short period of debate on this important measure and on other important measures. Despite that, we support the Bill. In 1985 the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, which is known as UNCITRAL, adopted a model of law on international commercial arbitration known as the model law. The purpose of this model law is to provide a quick, efficient and understandable method of arbitration on disputes arising under international commercial transactions. Those international commercial transactions may arise from trade relationships, from licensing agreements, from investment, joint ventures or from any international commercial arrangement which might exist. The proposal in the Bill is that by means of this model law, arbitration of disputes arising under those international agreements may be put into practice and the disputes may be arbitrated instead of having parties being obliged to resort to often lengthy and always expensive legal proceedings in the courts. Arbitration as a means of settling disputes is widely seen as a much faster and cheaper means of resolving disputes than using the courts, and a means of avoiding complex legal questions. It does not quite always work out that way, but that is the objective-to find a quick, efficient and inexpensive way of resolving disputes that arise. Australia is seeking to become a centre of international commercial arbitration. The Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration in Melbourne and the Australian Commercial Disputes Centre in Sydney are at the forefront of these endeavours. I will be saying a little more about the Melbourne centre in a moment. I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you will not regard that as any reflection on the good work being done by the Sydney equivalent; it is simply that I am more familiar with the Melbourne body. It is fair to say that both the Melbourne and Sydney bodies are forging ahead in establishing Australia as a recognised centre for the arbitration of international commercial disputes. That is very commendable. The problem is that at the moment the model law of UNCITRAL is not part of Australian law. This Bill will give to the model law the force of law in Australia. The model law itself is set out in a schedule to the Bill. Not surprisingly, the model law itself deals with such matters as the agreement as a result of which the dispute is submitted to arbitration. It deals with the composition of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal which is to hear and resolve the dispute. It deals with the jurisdiction of the body. It deals with the way in which the arbitration itself is to be conducted. It deals with the award made by the arbitrators, the making of that award and the recognition of that award. Most importantly, it deals with the enforcement of that award. Finally, it deals with those limited cases where recourse may be had to the courts against the award which is finally handed down by the arbitrators. If the Bill is passed-we trust that it will be-the model law will operate in Australia in roughly the following manner. That is to say that if the place of arbitration is agreed upon to be in Australia, the model law will be the Australian law that governs the arbitration unless the parties have agreed that it is not to be so. In other words, the model law applies on an opt out basis. It applies unless the parties agree that it is not to apply. That arrangement, we believe, is practical and it will appeal to international enterprises. I have mentioned already that Australia has started on the road towards establishing the country as a centre for international commercial arbitration, and we support that move. We would like to see it enhanced. We would like to see it strengthened. We would like to see Australia become more and more a centre for the resolution of international commercial disputes by arbitration. There are many reasons why that should be so, not the least of which is that it can bring foreign currency and foreign earnings into Australia because the parties come here. They have to be accommodated. They pay for the arbitration facilities and, hopefully, they pay for their lawyers before they leave. For those reasons, amongst others, it can be a very substantial contribution to our earnings. It is not, therefore, surprising that Mr H. C. Ambrose, the Secretary-General of the Melbourne body, the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration, wrote to me saying amongst other things: Australia is recognised world wide as having the most progressive and enlightened legislation in the area of commercial arbitration. The adoption of the Model Law will ensure that the position is maintained and that the substantial invisible export income being generated from arbitral proceedings is maintained and increased. In other words, Australia is already well established in dealing with domestic arbitration. This Bill will give a very healthy impetus to establishing Australia as a base for the arbitration of international commercial disputes, particularly disputes arising in this region of the world. I recognise the work already done by the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration in Melbourne. It is governed by a board of directors of which the President is Mr A. A. deFina. The other members of the board are Mr R. T. Fitch, Mr F. J. Shelton, Mr D. Byrne, QC., Professor M. D. H. Smith, Mr John B. Dorter, and Mr D. L. Bailey. That board of directors has established the Australian Centre and has taken it well on the way towards its acceptance internationally as well as within Australia as a recognised substantial and responsible body to handle the arbitration of international commercial disputes. The body was established in 1985 on the initiative of the Institute of Arbitrators of Australia. The Centre has facilities of a very high standard for the conduct of international commercial arbitration within Australia. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr N.A. Brown —Before the dinner break I was contributing to the debate on the International Arbitration Amendment Bill and I was making the point that the body in Melbourne known as the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration had already established itself as being at the forefront of providing facilities for international commercial arbitration. There is probably no need to go into more detail about that body, suffice it to say that it was established in 1985, is now well established and is contributing a lot towards providing facilities and services for the arbitration of international commercial disputes in Melbourne. Likewise, the Australian Commercial Disputes Centre in Sydney is establishing itself as another major centre for the arbitration of international commercial disputes, particularly those arising in our region. That is what we all want to achieve and that is one of the purposes of the Bill, namely, to provide a mechanism and a facility through the model law proposed by UNCITRAL for the arbitration of international commercial disputes within Australia. There is no need for me to go on at length because I have said that the Opposition supports this Bill and commends the Government for proposing the legislation. There is one qualification that I must make to that. It is not a qualification which lends itself to an amendment, but I wish to highlight what I think might well be a potential problem with one aspect of this Bill. The matter relates to clause 29 of the Bill, which provides: This Part is not intended to exclude, or limit, the concurrent operation of any law of a State or Territory that, except for unavoidable variations, is in the same terms as the provisions of this Parliament. I wish to alert the Government to the fact that international entrepreneurs, when weighing up the arguments for and against having their arbitrations in Australia, may well be deterred by that provision by virtue of the fact that they may not know what the arbitration laws of the States or Territories provide for at the time they are making the decision. Alternatively, they may be concerned that a particular State or Territory may change its arbitration law. Above all, it is precision and certainty that are important and significant in this area. It is very important that international entrepreneurs have an understanding of the fact that the law in Australia will be that in the UNCITRAL model and that they will be able to have their dispute arbitrated by reference to that model law. When this law is implemented and is seen to be in operation I trust that the Government will cause an examination to be made to see whether it is the case-I hope it will not be the case-that international entrepreneurs and parties to international commercial disputes are being deterred from submitting arbitration to Australia by virtue of doubt and uncertainty arising from that provision. That is virtually all that I wish to say about this Bill except to compliment the Government again on promoting it. I look forward with great interest, as I think we all do, to the flourishing of the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration in Melbourne, likewise the flourishing of the Australian Commercial Disputes Centre in Sydney and, one hopes, similar international arbitration bodies elsewhere in Australia. Already the centre in Victoria has established a panel of international arbitrators coming from Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Europe and some Asian countries, and no doubt there will be more. Already arbitrators from Australia are taking part in arbitrations overseas and one would like to see a greater percentage of those arbitrations being conducted within Australia. Now that the Bill is about to become law and the two centres in Australia are finding their feet and becoming more confident and secure, we hope that we will see more such arbitrations within Australia. The Melbourne centre and, I am sure the Sydney centre, also, already provide a wide range of services and facilities and, with the appropriate promotion of these facilities overseas, I trust that we will see what we all hope to see from the implementation of this Bill-more commercial arbitrations of an international nature conducted in Australia. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(8.06) —Although arbitration is one of the more obscure elements of the formal and informal means available to resolve commercial disputes, it is being resorted to on more occasions than ever before. As a founding fellow of the Institute of Arbitrators, Australia, I have more than a usual interest in the contribution commercial arbitrators make to resolving domestic commercial differences and disputes. Before I was elected to this Parliament I was engaged as an arbitrator in building disputes of a commercial kind on many occasions. Such arbitrations were and are conducted in accordance with relevant State and Commonwealth laws and the findings of the arbitrators had and have the full force of law. Resort to arbitration is a sensible and often cost-effective way for the parties in dispute to go, it being an alternative to the possibly more expensive and almost certainly more time consuming processes of law in formal court hearings. While that is true for the arbitration of domestic disputes, these advantages have special application to international disputes of a commercial kind. If ever any evidence is needed of prior concern for the processes available to sort out international commercial differences, it should be sufficient to note that it took the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law something like a decade to come up with its model law. In fact, the model law to which the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) has referred was eventually adopted in 1985. Subsequent to that the present Government established a working group in 1986 to examine the model. The end result of that process is the legislation which is before the House tonight. That model forms the basis of this International Arbitration Amendment Bill. The Bill is not opposed, and for my part is welcomed. There are practical dimensions to my support for the Bill, which seeks to establish a legal framework for the conduct of international arbitration in Australia. Benefits flowing from the legislation will take several forms. For reasons that I may have time to expand on later, the first benefit will arise out of the ability of the parties, under the proposed Act, to choose the model law to apply to the conduct of their arbitration or, if preferred, with prescribed additions or amendments. However, if additions or amendments become a preferred option the parties must first agree on them. In the absence of agreement the model laws will apply, thus there is certainty borne of knowledge as to how an arbitration is to be conducted. I have made the point in this chamber on many occasions that there is nothing more debilitating to those who practise in the field of commerce than being confronted with uncertainty. In fact, part of our economic malaise is due to uncertainty engendered by successive acts of this Government, both in terms of the economic measures it has prescribed and its reaction to economic and international trade developments. So in this case at least I am able to give the Government credit for adopting a measure which will enshrine some certainty in the arbitration processes. Until now a lot of preliminary and costly pre-arbitration sparring was possible which offset, at least to some extent, the objectives of the parties when contracting or electing to go to arbitration in the first place. If not potential litigants then at least arbitrators themselves-as well as legal practitioners and advocates, my friend the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) will be pleased to know-will develop special skills and knowledge based on the minimum requirements for the conduct of cases as laid down in the model law. As I understand it, the model law is sufficient in itself to provide the basis for the successful and relatively uncomplicated conduct of arbitration and to bring it to a conclusion. Ad hoc international arbitration should eventually become past practice, at least in this country. There will not be a need for costly and time consuming research into State and national laws as a prerequisite to the conduct of an international arbitration in Australia. That, coupled with the knowledge that findings will not lead to the intervention of the courts or judiciary, except to support or correct on narrowly defined criteria, will leave the parties in little doubt as to the finality of arbitrator's awards. That will be as it should be. After all, those subject to these provisions will have had the opportunity to know beforehand that the law stipulates regulation of the arbitration agreement itself, along with the composition of tribunals, the proceedings to be observed, recognition and enforcement of awards, and available recourses against findings. The introduction of certainty into arbitrated proceedings will open up opportunities for present and future Australians who practise in this highly specialised field. I might point out that, it being a highly specialised field, there are specialists amongst the specialists. There are arbitrators who concentrate, for example, on disputes involving engineering contracts, manufactured goods of a certain kind, services, insurance and the like. It is a double-edged sword, if you like. There are attractions for parties in dispute to have arbitrations conducted in Australia. At the same time, there will be benefits for local arbitrators and advocates in the form of remuneration. Local benefits will be modest in the first instance, although the potential will exist for substantial growth after the Bill becomes law. Already there is a market which contributes to our income as a nation from so-called invisible exports. The honourable member for Menzies referred to the work of arbitrators and the processes already available in Victoria. I am reliably informed that in Victoria arbitrators' fees alone-that is, without the advocates, without the infrastructure of providing court proceedings, transcripts and the like-have amounted to about $5m over the past three years. While I do not have estimates for Sydney, for the purpose of this discussion anyway I think one could safely double that figure. At least $10m would be earned in Sydney and Melbourne by arbitrators in the conduct of cases involving international commercial disputes. As well, Australian arbitrators and practitioners have been in demand in other countries in our region under ad hoc arrangements for international arbitrations as they have existed hitherto. International trade being what it is and growing as it is, the participants need the assurance that one set of rules will provide. I believe this Bill should go all the way along that track. The demand for arbitrators and practitioners should add to the already evident prospects for growth in a small but attractive foreign exchange earner. Another indication of the size of the market can be garnered from the estimated costs of international arbitrations in the United Kingdom alone, which total some #300m a year. No doubt the size and potential of what I might describe as the arbitration market influenced Canada to legislate in a similar but not identical way to the proposal before the House. Perhaps unwisely, Canada decided to frame its legislation in a way which means it has not adopted the model law unamended. Although it has the model law as its basis, the Canadian approach to arbitration law is fundamentally different to the measure being debated here tonight and likely to be adopted for Australia. Whereas the Canadians amended the model law, this Bill adopts it in toto and allows a range of optional amendments. The Canadians have gone the other way, of course. They amended the Bill and presumably, although I am not sure, have allowed amendments to take it back to what it was. The Australian approach is the more sensible of the two. It should enhance the opportunities for already experienced Australian arbitrators to officiate in international commercial arbitrations both at home and abroad. It goes some way towards establishing Australia as a favoured venue for future arbitrations of international disputes. That is very important. It is not going too far to speculate that, following the passage of this Bill, Australia will become a major centre for international commercial arbitrations. That desirable development will be all the more likely because in Australia we will have the most modern arbitration law and practices in the world. Couple that with the undoubted reputation of practising arbitrators in this country and our democratic system of government and we have the necessary ingredients for growth in a little known but important area of economic activity. It is not going too far to repeat that political stability, which is real and perceived in the minds of potential litigants, will be a factor in attracting and encouraging them to have their cases heard in this country. The private and confidential nature of arbitrated disputes can be preserved. They can be preserved better in Australia than in many other countries. Once again, this Bill will enable that circumstance to come about. That is very important to many litigants and one of the reasons for resorting to arbitration rather than relying on the courts. Not many litigants, particularly those with international reputations to preserve, care to air their disputes in public. That is one of the great attractions of the arbitration procedure. It certainly applies in domestic arbitrations, as I know from my own personal experience, and it follows that it will apply to the international equivalents. Another reason for parties preferring arbitration is, of course, that arbitrators start with a certain amount of knowledge of the technical elements of products and services which, if the matter were argued before a judge, would have to be painstakingly extracted in evidence. I do not know whether that needs to be developed but, by way of further explanation, I point out that a case involving certain technical properties or even, perhaps, complicated copyright or patent rights could be argued far more successfully and succinctly in front of an arbitrator who had specialised in that general area of commerce as opposed to a judge. That stands to reason, as the arbitrator would start with a certain level of knowledge about the technical properties involved in the case, or the intricacies of the deal, if it came down to that. That would not be the case if the same argument were to be litigated in a court. Judges have many skills, but they do not usually include an intricate knowledge of technology, technical products or the technicalities of international items of trade in goods and services. As I say, it stands to reason that if an arbitrator is selected to conduct a case, the longevity of the litigation should be reduced and the cost to the parties therefore will be minimised. There is the other, added advantage of which I spoke just a while ago that the confidentiality of the arguments put by the litigants will be maintained because it is not necessary for the findings of an arbitrator to be published. I am not sure how the Bill stands on this matter but in some cases it is not proper for the findings to be published. If they are published there is usually no reason why the reasons for the findings should also be published. It is for that reason also that primarily the interference or intervention of the court is restricted, I presume. Whilst some people may be uneasy about that, I am not. The combination of experienced arbitrators and the high education standards demanded by the Institute of Arbitrators, Australia, leave me confident that the objectives of those who contract or volunteer to have disputes privately arbitrated will be satisfied in most reasonable respects. All these factors, both collectively and in isolation, encourage me to support the Bill. The icing on the cake, as it were, is the prospect of Australia becoming a leading exporter of expertise in international commercial arbitration. That will not only enhance our reputation in commercial matters but also attract potential litigants and encourage litigants to seek counsel in this country. So it is not necessarily just a matter of an opportunity arising to earn export income when a litigation actually takes place. It could very well mean that advice will be sought beforehand and, as happens with many court cases, before they get to court a settlement can be reached. Arbitrators and legal practitioners-advocates of all sorts in this country-will play a part in that. I suspect, as with the figures I cited earlier from Victoria and New South Wales, that the income earned from those potential arbitrations which never get to the post will not be recorded in figures available to the Institute of Arbitrators, Australia. So there is that sort of income. There is the advice that lawyers and other advocates will give. All in all, the Bill will play a great part in attracting arbitrations and arbitrators to this country. Export income and foreign exchange will be earned, both by dint of cases to be heard in Australia and by Australian arbitrators overseas. It is a market which we can take advantage of. As I said before, it is not something of great moment when one looks at our terms of trade or even at our balance of trade deficit-and certainly not if one looks at our balance of payments deficit. That aside, it will make a contribution to the income that this country may earn and therefore it is to be welcomed on those grounds alone. More importantly, the Bill will enable the development of additional skills which will enhance our reputation in the international commercial world and will advance the knowledge and experience both of existing arbitrators and of those who enter the field in subsequent years, hopefully as a result of increased business of the kind the Bill will facilitate. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(8.27) —I am pleased that the Opposition and the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), have spoken strongly in support of this important legislation, the International Arbitration Amendment Bill. As we have heard, the Bill will establish the framework for the conduct in Australia of international commercial arbitrations. It will introduce one of the most progressive regimes in the world and certainly in this particular part of the world. We are confident that, with this framework in place, Australia will become a major forum for such arbitrations. During the debate, remarks have been made in this regard about the two centres for the settlement of disputes which have already been established, that is, the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration and the Australian Commercial Disputes Centre. I believe that the part these institutions have to play in the promotion of Australia as an arbitration centre cannot be overstated. The codification of arbitration procedures will be most welcome and will contribute to the economic well-being of our region. The adoption of the code in this Bill will make Australia an international centre for arbitrations. It will enhance Australia's international reputation and standing and will contribute to Australia's growing trade in the Asia-Pacific region and the Pacific Rim because of the importance of arbitration in international trade. The Bill will enable international commercial arbitration centres already established in Sydney and Melbourne to go from strength to strength. I thank those who have contributed to the brief debate on this Bill. We are appreciative of the Opposition's support. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr West) read a third time. Debate resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1988 concurrently with the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988, the States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill 1988, the Higher Education Funding Bill 1988, the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1988, the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1988 and the Overseas Students Charge Collection Amendment Bill 1988. There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(8.30) —We are debating a package of seven education Bills: two Bills concerning schools, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1988 and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988; one Bill concerning technical and further education (TAFE), the States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill 1988; two Bills concerning higher education, the Higher Education Funding Bill 1988 and the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1988 and two Bills concerning overseas students, the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1988 and the Overseas Students Charge Collection Amendment Bill 1988. The first observation I would like to make is that, in dealing with these Bills, which foreshadow the expenditure of about $18 billion of public funds, the Minister responsible, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), is not even in the chamber, another example of how this arrogant, out of touch Government-- Mr West —I am here. Mr BEALE —Are you the Minister for Education? Have you been promoted? You need to read from pages to get your message across. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Education is not even in the House. Mr N.A. Brown —Probably running the campaign. Mr BEALE —Yes, he is probably running the Keating for PM campaign. That is what he is doing. He is around seeing the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) again. It is just appalling, and it shows how arrogant and how out of touch this Government is, that the Minister responsible for the expenditure of $18 billion worth of taxpayers' money is not even in the House. Mr Rocher —And they've got the guillotine on as well. Mr BEALE —They have the guillotine on and I want to come to that matter in a minute. I thank the honourable member for his reminder. Mr Deputy Speaker, do you know what they are calling the Minister for Employment, Education and Training these days? They call him the $100m a minute man because the Minister has allowed three hours of debate on these seven education Bills that involve the expenditure, as I said, of nearly $18 billion worth of public funds. He has allowed three hours for $18 billion. That works out to be $100m a minute. They call the Minister, who still is not in the House, the $100m a minute man. The Government is now intent on gagging debate as it rushes important and costly measures through Parliament. The Government's new education policies are caught up in a web of misconceptions which need to be fully discussed in both Houses. Mr West —Who wrote this? Mr BEALE —It was not the same bloke who writes things for the Minister. These misconceptions form an unstable framework for the Dawkins schools and TAFE policies and the higher education unified national scheme. The Government and the Minister think that centralisation is better than diversity; the State should be bypassed as much as possible; big is better; the career public servants and finance clerks in the Minister's Department know better than professors and world famous research scholars; regulation and control are more important than academic freedom and spontaneity; and the Government and its advisers are experts at picking winners. Most of these views are out of date. Some of them are plain silly and they contradict the attitudes frequently expressed by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Mr Deputy Speaker, because of the educational wasteland that this Government and this Minister have created we move the following amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for its mishandling of schools, TAFE and higher education policies and for creating the appalling confusion that now exists in education'. I also want to foreshadow, as the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) reminded me, some amendments that we propose to move in the Senate. The reason we will not be moving those amendments in the House of Representatives is that the Government has applied the gag to this legislation and at the end of the Bills dealing with schools and TAFE it has so squeezed up the time that it is impossible, without denying some of my colleagues the chance to speak on these Bills, to move these amendments here. Mrs Sullivan —It is a reflection of their attitude to education. Mr BEALE —Absolutely. It is a reflection of their arrogant and out of touch attitude and what they think about free speech. That is exactly right. The amendments that I foreshadow, that will be moved in the other place because there is no time here, firstly criticise the Government for its tightening of the rules governing non-systemic, non-government schools, as announced in the May statement. They will be funded at category 1 to 6 only, establishment grants will be discontinued from 1989; and requests for review of recurrent funding category will be considered only on the ground that there has been a significant change in the need for financial assistance resulting from factors outside the school's control. The second amendment relates to Government treatment of non-government business colleges. Clauses 12 and 13 of the States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill refer to this. They are headed, `Grants for approved courses provided by non-government business colleges' and `Additional grants for approved courses provided by non-government business colleges'. The Government has cut down the amount of money that it gives to these non-government, non-profit business colleges. We will be having more to say about that in the other place. The need for these amendments arises because this Government is totally out of touch with what is happening, not only in education in Australia but also in economics. It is behaving in an arrogant fashion. The fact that it is putting $18 billion worth of Bills through the House in this three-hour period and denying many of my colleagues who want to speak on this very important issue the right to speak, is an indication of how arrogant it is. This arrogant out of touch Government has presided for the last five years over a decline in living standards that amounts to around $56 a week for the average Australian family. That is how arrogant and out of touch it is and the Minister responsible continues to display his arrogance by failing to be in the chamber when we are discussing these important measures. I could not start to talk about what is happening in Australia's education at a better place than by producing the front page of yesterday's Daily Telegraph. It contains an article headed: `Fury Over Illiterate Students'. It says: Thousands of students leaving school to take up technical college courses are so illiterate they cannot read their own textbooks, according to an alarming new survey. Why is the Minister not in the House to hear about this? Mrs Sullivan —Because he is not interested in education. Mr BEALE —The honourable member is quite right. He does not want this job any more. When the job of Foreign Minister was up for grabs he threw his hat in the ring on that. I suppose he wanted to get away from facing the Prime Minister. This article goes on to say: The problem is so widespread that special remedial classes in English and mathematics will have to be set up in every college in the State to enable apprentices and other students to continue with their courses. What an indictment of what this Government is doing in education-`Fury Over Illiterate Students' from yesterday's Daily Telegraph. The editorial yesterday in the same paper said: But it is patently obvious that all is not well. It is equally clear that teachers are not doing their jobs properly. The debate should be about whether standards are good enough. Teachers' assessment standards is a matter to which I will return. But in the meantime nothing could be a greater indictment of what this Government is up to in education than that lead story in yesterday's Daily Telegraph. The Government has failed in schools, and what is it doing about it? It will set up what it calls resource agreements. One of the Bills before us tonight requires the States and non-government school authorities to enter into a resource agreement with the Commonwealth before payments can be made. They have to do a deal, a resource agreement deal, with the Commonwealth before they get their money. This is an attempt to increase Commonwealth control over the schools system and enforce Commonwealth priorities on the schools. It is Australia Reconstructed in the schools system. Schools and schools systems will be asked to provide a statement of their objectives and priorities. Objectives and priorities for schools should be the business of the schools and should be based on the school's own understanding of the children and the community it serves. The Commonwealth has a legitimate role in providing advice and views, but who will trust the Minister-who is still not in the House-not to use this funding device to direct the activities of schools towards educational priorities that are decided by Canberra bureaucrats? This resource agreement is the equivalent of the educational profile that the Government is setting up for higher educational institutions. It is funnelling the power right to the Department, right under the Minister's palm, so that the Minister and a few bureaucrats in Canberra can dictate to Australia's educational institutions their priorities and what the schools and higher education systems must do. This Bill also attempts to recognise that schools and schools systems are facing real increases in operating costs arising from the implementation of the 3 per cent productivity superannuation agreement. However, the Government has not detailed or given advice to schools on productivity improvements; it has not explained how this productivity payment is justified. We will have to await further information in this regard, but in the meantime we can be sure that the Government is also failing to provide assistance for such vital matters as improving standards, discipline and the morale of teachers in schools. As school standards decline, as the Minister continues to be absent from the House, we should ask ourselves what the Minister and his Department are up to. A nice piece in the Canberra Times of Thursday 17 November 1988 stated: . . . the Department of Employment, Education and Training has sent two of its senior journos to Sydney for a fortnight to have in-depth interfaces with the gurus from a swish PR firm- I note that the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) is pretty quiet now- over the production of the Department's annual report. Most Government departments seem to find the resources from within to produce their annual reports, sometimes calling in a contract journalist for a month or two, but not so at DEET. Rumour has it that the entire exercise will cost something in the order of $110,000. While standards in our schools system decline, the Minister sends two of his brain police to have a briefing from journos, wasting $110,000 of taxpayers' money! The Minister gave an assurance to the House that the form and content of these resource agreements will be fully negotiated, and he referred in Parliament to a detailed consultation with non-government school authorities on the form and content of the agreements. He also said: There was no question of schools being penalised for failing to achieve their objectives. What would happen if administrative, technical or logistical problems precluded some schools from entering into an agreement by 1 January 1989, as envisaged by the Minister, and the schools were prevented under clause 22 (5) (b) from receiving financial assistance for 1990? Those schools could be severely disadvantaged for reasons that may be beyond their control, such as mail delays, the tardiness of legal advisers or even a computer failure within the Department. This problem arises because of the absolute terms of clause 25 (5) (b) and could be overcome by either a pronouncement from the Minister-and perhaps the Minister at the table will give that assurance; no, he is just yawning-or a simple amendment under which the Minister could authorise the State to make a payment to a school notwithstanding that an agreement had not been entered into where the Minister was satisfied that factors outside the control of the school had prevented it from entering into an agreement. I say again that the gag on debate of these seven Bills precludes us from moving an amendment to that effect. Australia's long term future depends on more choice and increased accountability in our schools, but that is not what the Government is achieving. We must provide an objective measure for our school system throughout Australia relating to teacher training, school curricula, methods of testing and assessment, standards, educational performance and standards of physical fitness, so that the State and non-government school authorities can target action for improvement on the basis of objective information. I referred previously to the shoddy attempt by the Government to cut off assistance to non-government, non-profit business colleges, as outlined in part in the States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill. I say again that we will take action in the other place. It is in TAFE that this Government's callous neglect of our education sector becomes most apparent. Several weeks ago we released the excellent and forward-looking TAFE policy of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. I want to show a copy of that policy to Government members to put a lie to everything they have been saying about this Opposition's having no policies. We have many policies, and the TAFE policy is the first of three policies on education. Our schools policy will be available in a couple of weeks and the higher education policy will be available shortly thereafter. Here it is: Members should have a good look at it. I challenge any members opposite to say they have read the policy. They are not interested; they continue to say that we have no policies. Honourable members opposite are all badly misinformed about our policies. Here is our forward-looking TAFE policy-a bold, visionary approach that would allow TAFE to face the challenges of the next decade with greater certainty and confidence, and in a new spirit of cooperation. That policy has won wide acclaim from industry groups, TAFE administrators and training bodies, because people recognise our unswerving commitment to TAFE-in sharp contrast to what the Government is doing-our determination to improve the quality of our nation's training effort, and our understanding of the real needs of TAFE. What will the Government's response be? The Government's response to TAFE's chronic problems will be to hit business with a new tax to be called a training levy. The details have been before Cabinet; Cabinet has considered all the alternatives. The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) has had its say on what is and what is not acceptable to it, and the Minister has commented, `We had better be pretty careful about this and take an even-handed approach'. The solution of the Liberal Party and the National Party is to give TAFE the freedom to experiment, the incentive to raise additional funds from exciting new sources, and the encouragement to develop more rewarding links with industry, other education providers and the local community. The Government's only answer is to extend even tighter the bureaucratic controls over the States and TAFE institutions. I now refer to the Minister's media release-I am sorry that he is not in the House; he would love this-which followed the release of our TAFE policy. It is headed up `Bloopers'. The biggest blooper of all is that the Government, step by step, has been adopting the Opposition's TAFE policy. Since it is headed up `Bloopers', it might amuse you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and members of the House and members of the public, that the biggest blooper of all occurs in the press release itself. Our policy was released on 2 November 1988 and what is the date on the Minister's biggest blooper policy? It is 2 October 1988. The honourable gentleman cannot even get it right in a press release. If he cannot get it right in a press release, how can he get it right with the very difficult problems that surround the education issues in the Australian community? In the field of higher education we have in front of us a charming piece of political blackmail. The higher education policies are presented to us in such a way that unless we accept the Government's higher education contribution scheme-- Mr McArthur —Graduate tax. Mr BEALE —It is often called the graduate tax. Unless we accept it the Government will refuse to fund, to the tune of around $700m over the triennium 1989 to 1991, the additional places that it has already promised to fund for Australia's higher education system. This Government has tried to be way out in front of the game again. Before it even knew what the Opposition's attitude was to the higher education contribution scheme, it sent out a letter to every student in Australia. The letter is dated 31 October 1988, three weeks ago. At the expense of the taxpayer, this charming piece of propaganda has been put out to persuade students around Australia that the Government's higher education contribution scheme is just what the doctor ordered. It is a crude piece of political blackmail, whereby if the higher education contribution scheme is not passed the Government will withhold the $700m-odd that it has already promised to those higher education institutions for additional places. Mr Fisher —Blackmail. Mr BEALE —It is blackmail. The Government is trying to come to grips with higher education, as we saw in the Green Paper and in the White Paper, but it is doing so according to its preconceptions. It is worth having a look at some of those preconceptions-I will not call them prejudices-because we can then better understand the Government's higher education policies. The Government says that centralisation is better than decentralisation, and that stands in sharp contrast to many of the Treasurer's economic statements; nonetheless in education, centralisation seems to be the order of the day. The Government is saying that amalgamation is better than diversity, that big is better. Where is the evidence that big is better? The Government is also saying that the Department knows better than professional teachers, administrators and research directors in the field; that the sciences are more important than the serious and traditional humanities; and that the multisector system seriously distorts Government allocations of funds. The Government is trying to bypass the States. It is saying that it can pick winners. I wonder how the Government went picking winners with the Victorian Economic Development Corporation (VEDC). I ask my friend the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) how the Government went picking winners with the VEDC. It went so badly that that organisation had to be disbanded. Mrs Sullivan —Didn't do too well in Western Australia, either. Mr BEALE —How did the Government do picking winners in the Minister's back yard, in Western Australia, with WA Incorporated? It did pretty badly. It had to pick up the tab for millions of dollars of Western Australian incorporated losses. Mr Martin —They tried to fix it in Queensland. Mr BEALE —That is what the Western Australian Government did. It signed the cheque to underwrite the losses. Mr West —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise a couple of points of order. I draw attention to Standing Order 85, which says that tedious repetition in this House is not acceptable, and, secondly, I would like to know what a lengthy dissertation on the alleged evils of WA Incorporated has to do with six or seven Bills on Commonwealth education policy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —I was waiting for the honourable member for Deakin to focus his remarks back on education, and I am sure he is going to do that. Mr BEALE —Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was just pointing out that in education the centralisation of power means the Government will try to pick winners. With the VEDC and WA Incorporated the Government was rotten in picking winners, and it will be rotten in picking winners in education. In higher education the Government will implement what it calls educational profiles. That is another way of picking winners. It will get together with the institutions and those institutions will be required to establish educational profiles that the Government will impose on them. The Government will say to those institutions, `We will tell you what to teach'. Not only is the Government trying to pick winners in research and amalgamations and elsewhere but also it is trying to tell these higher education institutions what to teach. What does that say about academic freedom? The Government will require a number of institutions to amalgamate. These requirements have already created chaos and confusion in the higher education system, and the Department and my office have been inundated with telephone calls and letters complaining about what the Government is trying to do. One has only to ask the Minister responsible for the Australian Capital Territory, the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Holding), what the three institutions in Canberra think about the amalgamations system that is due to be imposed on them. The Government is trying to centralise in the Minister's office all control over higher education. It is to be controlled by his political advisers and a few bureaucrats. This is the corporate state in education. We have the industrial court, big business and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It has to be in the act. As I say, this is the corporate state. Mr Deputy Speaker, it will not work any more than it worked with the VEDC or when the Government tries to pick winners in research. It has now syphoned off research money, and has appointed people who do not have the confidence of the research community to direct where the research money will go. This Government is centralising its power over the higher education sector. Educational profiles, amalgamation and research-it is a blueprint for disaster, in the same way that all the Government's other education policies have created the disaster that now exists for millions of parents, students, bureaucrats, academics and teachers throughout our community. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mrs Sullivan —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(9.00) —We have just heard 30 minutes of what surely must be described as a diatribe. The shadow Minister for education, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), started off by personally attacking the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) and he kept it up throughout his speech. But I am sure-and members who sat in the gallery would back me up-that he then went on to read, word by word, his prepared speech. What a pathetic effort. He even lost his pages at one stage. He tried to centre his speech on the fact that the Minister for Employment, Education and Training is not in the House. As people who understand the parliamentary system would appreciate, there are House duties and Ministers have other important duties. But who would really want to listen to the honourable member for Deakin after what he went through? He certainly has a very short memory and he is certainly short on the facts. If he went back and made a comparison of what took place prior to 1983 with what has been going on under the Hawke Labor Government, people would realise who really had been in charge of education and who had a commitment to education. I have some figures that demonstrate that from 1983 to 1988, in enrolments alone, there has been a 72,200 increase in student numbers-that is, a 20.7 per cent increase. When one takes the figures from 1983 to 1991 one sees that the growth will be about 146,000 extra students involved in higher education throughout this nation-that is, a 42.1 per cent increase. If we go back to the figures for 1983 to 1988 and we talk in money terms we see that the extra funds spent by this Hawke Government have been $234m-a 9.6 per cent increase. But if we expand that to between 1983 and 1991, which includes the new triennium we are talking about, we see that an additional $661m will be spent-a 27.1 per cent increase. Let us go back and make comparisons with the previous Government's record. Let us talk about student enrolments, student numbers, the funding to students, the funding to tertiary and further education (TAFE) or higher education. In every instance the comparison shows that the Hawke Government has had a commitment that simply cannot be matched in any way. If we look at the income support given to students we see that, under the previous Government, there was a 5.7 per cent increase between 1979 and 1983 but, between 1983 and 1987, that increase in income support for students was 49.7 per cent. Let us come back to total funding. For schools and tertiary institutions during that time we find, in dollar terms, between 1979 and 1983 there was actually a drop of $24.3m under the previous Liberal-National Party Government compared with a 9.6 per cent increase under this Government which, in dollar terms, is $249m. Members of the Opposition have the audacity to stand up here and talk about education wastelands. It is total nonsense and a total irresponsibility when the facts are presented. This Government gave the Catholic and independent schools a commitment legislatively in this House to lock into an eight-year program. So there was certainty. If honourable members talk to people in the Catholic schools they will tell them that they have accepted this, they have honoured it and they have been so applauding of it because this Government gave them that certainty, that special commitment. If anyone is out of touch it is those honourable members on the opposite side of the House. The honourable member for Deakin stood up here and talked about literacy and numeracy and about how standards have fallen. Any person with any involvement in education-- Mr Beale —Are you abdicating now? You centralised control, now you are abdicating it. Mr WRIGHT —I ask the honourable member to listen for a moment. It is a State matter; it is not a matter for a Federal government. It is not a matter for a Commonwealth government; it is a State matter. If the honourable member for Deakin is suggesting that we should start centralising everything in terms of teacher education and standards, members on this side of the House will say no, because we believe in the regionalised system; in the State system; in allowing the systemic and non-systemic systems to have their say. Amazingly, the honourable member for Deakin is suggesting that teacher education should be the Federal Government's responsibility. I do not think one Minister for Education-Liberal, Labor or National-would agree with him and I doubt whether honourable members on the other side of the House would agree with him. But that is what the shadow Minister said tonight. He talked about standards. Standards come back to the States. I taught in the State system in Queensland for nine years. Mr Beale —That must be why it is so crook up there. Mr WRIGHT —Is the honourable member attacking members of the National Party? Let us put that on the record. I might not agree with Brian Littleproud's politics but at least he is trying to bring about a new era in education in Queensland. But if the honourable member for Deakin is critical of it he should place it on the record and say it to his National Party friends. Mrs Sullivan —Haven't you got anything to say? Mr WRIGHT —I have plenty to say. I am just so amazed by members of the Opposition. If they want to talk about opposition to education they should come back to New South Wales. Back in August 65,000 people went into the streets to campaign against Metherell and Greiner on their education policies-State Liberal-National Party education policies. I suggest that the honourable member for Deakin, the shadow Minister for Education, on the other side of the House has a very short memory. This Labor Government under Prime Minister Hawke appreciated back in 1983 that the retention rate of kids going past grade 10 was as low as 35 per cent. Thirty-five per cent of kids went on to grades 11 and 12. What is it now? Queensland gives the lead. It is 55 per cent across the nation with Queensland giving the lead. Why? Because this Government saw the need to get the kids to stay there, to inculcate into parents the need for higher education. Because those young people are staying longer in high school we appreciate that there is a need to provide those extra tertiary places, not only as an economic base for our nation or in productivity terms but also in terms of achieving those skills. We have seen a brand new approach. I give credit to what Whitlam tried to do in giving special weight to having free education to get lower socioeconomic groups to go to university. Mr Peter Fisher —Why? Mr WRIGHT —It did not work because it involved kids with private school backgrounds, kids with parents who had higher education themselves, who had degrees and so on who came from the managerial and professional areas who still filled up the places in our universities. If honourable members opposite check the figures they will find that that is true. Even though the vast majority of people paid for these young people to have a higher education, 70 per cent of them got no direct or indirect benefit. The railway worker did not get a benefit; the small business person did not get a benefit, but those people were paying for it in their taxes. This Government has been committed to removing anomalies that have existed for years under the previous Liberal-National coalition governments. This Government has brought in a wide range of initiatives. There have been improvements in Austudy; an emphasis on female students working in the science and maths areas; funding of independent schools on a permanent, long term legislative basis; additional funds for TAFE-I point out that this commitment is ongoing-where we will have a 4 per cent increase in real terms in the coming year. What do we see now? Tonight the honourable member for Deakin has been criticising the $18 billion that is being spent on education-which will mean 40,000 extra places at our tertiary institutions. I wonder whether the member for the Gold Coast, the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan), will be opposing that because Queensland will get a very large part of those additional places-40,000 extra places over three years. This Government has provided greater opportunities for low income families with students who deserve to go on to tertiary education but who have not had the chance-a regional emphasis. I give special mention to the area of Central Queensland that I represent. At the moment Capricornia has the equivalent of about 2,600 full time students. Those people listening to the debate will understand that one can have a number of part timers equal to so many full timers. At the moment we have 2,600 full time students but by 1991 that figure will grow to 3,600-an increase of 1,000. We have 65 institutions across the nation but this Government has an emphasis on regional institutions. Even though there are 65 institutions and a 40,000 increase in places we will get 1,000 in Central Queensland. The money is there to back up the numbers as well. An amount of $22m is being spent in providing the per capita funding for that institution in Central Queensland by 1991. At the moment it is $17m. So in my own area the figure will blow out from $17m to $22m in just one institution. There will be massive increases. About $7,300 per student will be paid by this Government which is a massive and very expensive commitment, but it is worthwhile. We are doing it not only for the general community but also for the education of Aboriginal people. An extra 200 places per year over the next three years will bring up the numbers in our tertiary institutions to some 3,000 by 1991. There has been a constant review of the efficiency of our tertiary institutions. National objectives have been established for women in higher education and the regional approach that I have mentioned before. But we cannot achieve these things unless we put in place all the facilities. I would be surprised to see how many National Party members would stand up here and back the honourable member for Deakin in his criticism of what is happening tonight when they appreciate that over the next three years this Government shall fund 26,000 additional accommodation places-units, beds or whatever-in electorates throughout this country to make sure that young people from rural and country Australia get a tertiary education; yet the honourable member for Deakin talked nonsense about the Minister not being here and about an educational wasteland. Let Opposition members say that to people in rural areas, to the 26,000 extra young people from country Australia who will now get a tertiary education because we are providing not only the student places but the accommodation facilities as well. There will be an increase in the amount of Austudy paid. An extra 48,000 young Australians will get Austudy in 1989. Those extra students will be part of the education support system. I suggest that we have an exciting education program that will turn round the situation of the many years during which we saw a deterioration in education at tertiary levels and TAFE levels under the previous Government. It is a fairer program. In Emerald, in the western part of Central Queensland, a cotton farmer's student child was getting Austudy, even though he had an asset worth $1m, he was paying $140 per week for that student's accommodation in Brisbane and she drove a second-hand Volvo. Yet a railway worker on $23,000, because his wife had part time work and a few dollars in the bank earning interest, could not get Austudy for his child. This is the Government that has seen the need for equality and fairness and is now bringing in a proper assets test to ensure an end to the practice of the chiropractors and doctors who set up companies and pay themselves $15,000 or $17,000 a year just so they can get these benefits. I want to hear what the Liberal and National parties say about that because they know of the inequities that existed. They know of the doctors, lawyers, chiropractors, the professionals and the business people who have rorted the system time and again, but they have never said anything. The Hawke Government has been prepared to make the hard decisions. It has increased the amount of Austudy; it has broadened its basis. As I say, 48,000 extra students will gain that benefit next year. I make one criticism; that is, we have to ensure that the recommendation on external studies to try to reduce the number of institutions as providers of external studies or far distant education does not restrict them to the six being recommended. I say this because I believe that in northern Australia Capricornia has proved that it has the potential for greater performance. It is surely one provider that must be selected by the Government to be a far distant or external studies education centre. Many hundreds of students are getting an excellent, high standard education with integrity from Capricornia, and it would disturb me if we ended up having to reduce the number of providers back to six on the basis of figures in a report. I believe that the original recommendation of 10 providers that was floated some time back ought to be adhered to and that Capricornia ought to be one of those centres. I know there is a time limitation, but I had to make some comment about what the honourable member for Deakin said. What he said was diatribe. He talked about the Minister and he really said nothing. He was found out with his education policy recently, when the Minister was able to get up in this House and read, paragraph by paragraph, to show that the new education policy of the Liberal and National parties was in fact the old policy. That is probably what egged him on tonight. He was determined to involve himself in some sort of bitter attack and he has not debated the issue. The issue here is a new era in higher education for every young Australian. It is an era in which 40,000 extra students will be able to get an education in tertiary institutions in the next three years. It is an era in which greater money will be spent properly to provide residences and student places so that our young people have a more exciting future-a better future than many people who sit in this chamber had. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(9.15) —I cannot help saying to the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) who has preceded me that very little of the exciting new era in education that he talked about comes through in the Government's contribution to the education debate in Australia today. The Government's approach to education, its policies and the structures it is putting in place owe far more to prejudice and polemics than they do to the encouragement and expansion of what ought to be an exciting time for Australia. Australia stands at a threshold. It faces great challenges of adjustment-social, economic and educational-and we have a Government that restricts and penalises achievement. It is very difficult to address the speech of the honourable member who spoke before me, not because of its substance but because of its lack of substance. It reminded me of somebody having written down on separate sheets of paper a whole lot of random facts and statements, of having thrown them in the air and then reading them out at random. One thing that I have learnt in debate is that one cannot make sense out of nonsense. The honourable member Capricornia quite legitimately made a speech which is pitched at his own electorate, but the so-called facts and figures that he has put to us have come out in a random stream. We have had no contribution to the actual subject of what ought to be the structure of education in the future of this country, what ought to be our approach to those great challenges. While I disagree with many of the conclusions that the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) has drawn about what he thinks is the best direction for education, he does at least appear to have a thought on the general subject, and believe that a structure is necessary. I disagree with the structure that he has come up with. The Australian Labor Party's approach to education, particularly tertiary education, seems to me one of fear of academia, fear of academic independence, that leads to an urge for control rather than of stimulating expansion, discovery, discussion and giving human beings the opportunity to contribute to their greatest degree. The Labor Party has essentially a repressive approach to education in the tertiary area. It wishes to control academics. The structures that it is trying to put in place for tertiary institutions show as the first priority a desire to control. The Government will be setting the structure, the directions and the limits. Instead of the sky being the limit, the Government will discuss the matter with universities and, inherent in that discussion is that in the end Government can say no. It is one of the perils of government funding, of course, that in the end the Government can say, `If you don't do what we want you to do, we will say no and you will get no funds'. The theme of the debate on the tertiary education Bills is one of an intention to manipulate standards to meet philosophical stereotypes. As part of this debate, the Minister brought into this chamber under the Higher Education Funding Bill a social justice impact statement. I want to spend a little time addressing that and also replying to the honourable member for Capricornia. I think this social justice impact statement, unfortunately, sums up the fallacies that are inherent in the Government's approach. Instead of wanting to meet the challenges-the social challenges as well as the educational challenges-by expansion, the Government wants to restrict and penalise. There is only one way that we will get a truly dynamic tertiary education sector which will meet the challenges of the age of technology, and that is by encouraging excellence and rewarding achievement. I cannot disagree with a number of the sentiments of the Government that have been expressed, but I will disagree with the method of achieving those objectives. Of the objectives set down in that social justice impact statement, I believe that a number could be met more equitably and a number could be done without introducing this graduate tax. The Hawke Government has brought in yet another new tax. It was once the proud boast of Labor that it had introduced free tertiary education in Australia. We now have what it surely a dog's breakfast. Over the last few years we have had the introduction of a so-called administration fee. The rhetoric that lay behind this fee was that there was some charge to be made for the cost of administering enrolments. In fact, that charge bore absolutely no resemblance, nor did it ever pretend to bear any resemblance, to the cost of actually administering the enrolment of a student. Initially it was a figure that was plucked out of the air, and it was then indexed. Having brought in that fee, it still was not enough to meet demand. The Government could not face the reality that all of the tertiary education needed cannot be paid for from the public purse. The Liberal-National parties' policy for the last election was very straightforward. We said, `We will guarantee a certain number of free places and we will do it on scholarships. We will, though, have student driven enrolments. We will not have government saying how many students an institution will have, as the Government continues to say; we will have students saying how many students an institution will have by their applications, limited, of course, by the number of students an institution is prepared to take. That way we can have some market demand. Those universities which give outstandingly good courses will be encouraged to advertise that fact, to promote their good courses. They, of course, would attract the best students'. `In addition', we said, `we will allow fee paying students'-I should say `Australian fee paying students' as we already have fee paying students in our universities; provided students come from overseas they can purchase an education. No Australian student has that option-`to fit into the quotas the Government has set. If they do not fit into the quotas they miss the opportunity'. That was a straightforward, a very simple and a proper policy. The Government has removed the administration fee and has replaced it with a higher education tax, which is in itself a fee on all students. Students cannot escape the fee through being outstanding students, through having excellent achievement-unless they go to the only private university in Australia, the Bond University. It is the only university in Australia which will have students attending at no cost, those who win scholarships and fellowships through achievement. It is ironic that the private university that the Government cannot take into its calculations is the only university that will make available free education on merit to Australian students. As I said, the objectives stated in the social impact statement could be achieved more equitably without the tax or may even be undesirable objectives. The creation of 40,000 new higher education places meets with no argument from the Opposition. The honourable member for Capricornia talked about additional funding and additional places. Of course, he did not point out that with the growth in tertiary education there has been a record growth in unmet demand because of the straitjacket that the Hawke Government has put onto the subject of funding tertiary education. Of course we welcome the creation of additional places, but we do not welcome it through this mechanism. It could be achieved more equitably. An objective in the social justice impact statement reads: . . . an expansion of the Higher Education Equity Program to assist institutions to pilot and establish proven equity initiatives and to encourage a climate of innovation and experimentation . . . This can be achieved in other ways. The Australian Labor Party has in its actions been very much at variance with its rhetoric. When the Minister talks about increasing the access of people from groups who are underrepresented in higher education, it must be remembered that this Government has most actively discouraged those from that sort of background attempting to enter it. I instance the administration fee as applied to part time students, traditionally students who cannot afford full time education and who have had to take longer to do their courses. Maybe they have had to work, or maybe they have had to rear a family, which has stopped them being full time students. The administration fee was particularly discriminating against those people, of whom one can be sure a high percentage are disadvantaged students in terms of the economy. The Government claims that it is of the view that education should not continue to be the preserve of the relatively privileged in the community. I ask the Government speaker: How on earth is that objective achieved by this measure? If one is well off, one can pay a discounted fee, or one's parents can pay it, up front when one attends. One does not have to wait to pay it through tax. It is the poorer student who will pay the higher charge, regardless of merit. They are the ones who will not be able to pay the up-front cost. They are the ones who will have to pay it through the taxation system. Those who start with the greatest disadvantage economically after they have graduated will be the ones who earn the lowest reward and pay the higher taxes because they have had the education. So the Government's objectives of equity are not met through this measure at all. I do not disagree with objectives in relation to Aborigines, women, and child care, but it is nonsense to say that this is the way it must be done. There are other ways. In the end, the Government, having embarked on its administration fee in the first place, got itself so far off the track casting around so desperately for some means of funding those extra places that were needed, and is unable to look at the very simple and fair alternative that the Liberal and National parties were proposing. It came up with something incredibly inequitable, complex and difficult. It is a new tax, a tax which those who will be least in the position to face with equanimity will have to pay. One of the things that troubles me deeply about the tertiary education debate in this country is that overwhelmingly those who are driving the debate publicly are still talking in terms of out-of-date stereotypes. It seems to me that this whole proposal is meant to fit the stereotype of the teenager emerging at the end of primary and secondary education and going on into the tertiary level and again emerging with probably no responsibilities at all except to the individual, herself or himself. It takes no account of the person who enters the tertiary education scheme with family obligations. It takes no account of the greater disadvantage that person has relative to the stereotype in terms of meeting that extra tax obligation. The very person to whom one would wish to give the greatest reward, through the opportunity for the greatest reward, through his or her own individual initiative and achievement, is the person who cannot get that reward under the Labor Party's scheme. As we are restricted in time because of the Government's guillotine, I shall spend just a couple of minutes in concluding my speech on a couple of the points raised by the honourable member for Capricornia that must be addressed, because I do not really want to hear them again in this debate-not because they distress me but because they are so ludicrous they cannot bear repeating. When the honourable member for Capricornia congratulates the Government on what it has done for schools funding, I have to remember that he was not here before December 1984. I have to remember that he was a State member of parliament in those heady days of the first 18 months of the Hawke Government when we had tens of thousands of parents protesting against this Government's school funding policies as proposed. Mr Beale —He is a failed Labor leader, isn't he? Mrs SULLIVAN —The honourable member for Deakin suggests that he is a failed Labor leader, and who am I to disagree. In the classic terms, it is called the lateral arabesque. He has done a sideways jump into Federal politics. The honourable member for Capricornia was not here when that was happening, but he could not be altogether oblivious to it. The reason independent schools have a reasonable funding regime today is not because of the bigheartedness of the Labor Party; it is because Labor members had it shoved down their necks by parents and those involved in the school education system back in 1983-84. It recognised ultimately the political imperatives. The Government is recognising some of the political imperatives in tertiary education when finally, after all the protestations of the previous Minister for Education, there was not anything like this amount of unmet demand. The former Senator Ryan said that but, never mind, we will set that aside for the present Minister. The Government is moving desperately to find some means of increasing the number of places but still, caught on its own prejudice and its own polemics, it cannot face the most reasonable and equitable method to achieve that. I make one final point; the honourable member for Capricornia had much to say about students from rural areas. It was also the Hawke Government in 1983-84 that made life very difficult indeed for those from more remote areas who had to attend university. Funding was restricted for those students attending colleges, which made it extremely difficult. The honourable member referred to me as the member for the Gold Coast. Of course my electorate of Moncrieff does include part of the Gold Coast and I find it galling indeed that any member of the Government might lecture me about the opportunities this Government gives to my constituents. The Government drags its feet on the subject of the Gold Coast College of Advanced Education. It will not consider a policy which is fair to Bond University. We do at least have the opportunity to have a university on the Gold Coast now, which the Government would never give us, which would serve a population of a quarter of a million people. The Gold Coast is bigger than any regional area and is due to become one of the great cities of Australia. Along the way the Government has penalised those students who have had to travel to obtain tertiary education. This is but one of a package of Bills on the subject that we are debating tonight. Restrictions of time and the fact that we have seven Bills being debated cognately mean that we cannot discuss all aspects of all of them. I have much pleasure in supporting the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Deakin, which condemns the Hawke Government's mishandling of its schools, technical and further education and higher education policies and for creating the appalling confusion that now exists in Australian education. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(9.32) —The education Bills being debated in this House tonight go to the very heart of the whole question of education funding in this country. Quite clearly it has to be recognised by all members of this place that through a variety of policy options and decisions taken during the last six years of the Labor Government there have been substantial improvements in the education systems of this country. It also has to be said that the Government will continue to support the major expansion of higher education opportunities over the next three years under the proposals being debated specifically in the higher education Bills before us tonight. There are facts that cannot be overlooked. It is a fact that an increase in the number of places is being proposed under the legislation. It is a fact that 1988 levels will increase by 6,500 in 1989, to 12,300 in 1990 and 17,100 in 1991. More than 40,000 new places will be created in the higher education system in this country as a result of our policies, the decisions taken, and this legislation being passed today. These decisions are built on past achievements of the Government. Compared with 1983 there will be more than 110,000 extra higher education places by 1991 or more than 90,000 extra Commonwealth-funded places. That is rather important because much has been said about the role of the Commonwealth and the role of State governments in the provision of places at higher education institutions. All that is quite relevant. It is also important to recognise that in this Government's commitment to higher education, priority will continue to be directed to areas of greatest student and industry demand. I think that says something about this Government's desire to provide the infrastructure-in this case the human infrastructure-for the continued restructuring and development of this country in an economic sense. In that regard, disciplines such as engineering, sciences and technologies, business management, accounting and Asian studies will all be supported by this Government. It is interesting to note that with the exception of perhaps that last discipline-and I hope at some stage in the future this position might alter-the University of Wollongong, in my electorate, stands to the fore. For a number of years now this university, in a regional setting, has gone about developing its corporate image, its academic expertise and its credentials to the extent that its services are now sought by many people, not only in Australia but throughout the world. It is also interesting to note that the University of Wollongong, which started some 25 or 26 years ago with the assistance of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, or Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd as it was then, principally was concerned with developing expertise in the fields of engineering and sciences. Twenty-six years down the track this Government's policy again stresses the need for those particular disciplines. My colleague the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) mentioned, and I am sure other members on this side of the House will mention, the levels of funding being expended by this Government over the next few years under the proposals outlined in these higher education Bills. I think it is important to make some comments about the role which tertiary institutions, higher education and indeed adult education play in the development of Australia's economic and social well-being. Again I refer to the University of Wollongong. During the course of the debate on the Government's White Paper on higher education I had the opportunity on a number of occasions to go to the University of Wollongong to address students on the question of the proposals contained in this legislation-what our colleagues on the other side refer to as the graduate tax but which is, in fact, the Higher Education Funding Bill. During the course of those discussions it was interesting to see that there was a recognition that the University of Wollongong would not be disadvantaged by proposals being outlined by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) in the White Paper. There was concern about the funding question, and this has been debated long and hard. I have had a number of discussions with people such as Daniel Morrisey, the President of the Wollongong University Students Representative Council, and a couple of my branch members, particularly Joe Simone and Ian Hunt, who were very vociferous in their approach to the Government's proposals on this matter. To this day they still do not support it, nevertheless they recognise the inherent merits that are contained within the proposal and how this will lead to additional places being provided at the university. As I have said, the University of Wollongong will benefit from these proposals because of the number of places available being increased and also because of the amount of extra capital funding that it will attract. It is not easy-or it has not been in the past-for a regional university to exist in a competitive environment against some of the so-called status universities of this country in terms of attracting funding. In the past it has always been the universities of Melbourne, Sydney and so on that have seemed to attract funds because they were the places to go. That is all changing and this Government's proposals and policies are going a great deal of the way to eliminating that sort of thinking. Under the Minister's proposals we are seeing greater equity. We are seeing an improvement in course transferability, a standardisation of courses at different universities and colleges and a raising of standards at those various colleges and universities to common levels. I see nothing wrong with that. If it is going to be for the economic and social well-being of this country, then it should be supported. I might just say that the question of education policies needs to be carefully assessed. The honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) addressed a few remarks to the policy of the Liberal Party of Australia in the last election campaign and how best to fund higher education and get places in higher education. She talked about a scholarship system, free places and people being granted admission on the basis of merit. In my first experience with higher education, when I went to university, I had to go through that system. It was a full fee paying system in those days. Unless one could achieve suitable academic standards one missed out on the opportunity to go to university; or if somehow one could raise the money, whether it be from parents or whatever else, one could possibly grab a place in that way. In my case in the first year round of offers I missed out on a scholarship to university but got one to teachers college. I decided to go to university. I was one of the fortunate ones in that my parents were in a position to support me for one year. I would not have liked to have asked for support for any longer, but they supported me for one year and I picked up the scholarship at the end of that year on the basis of the academic results attained. I was a lucky one. There were a lot more people who could not make it. I would certainly like to see, in the Liberal Party's revamped higher education policy that the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) has promised us in a couple of weeks time-I believe the policy reflects what happened back in the 1960s-how it will overcome that sort of problem. I really would like to know. If we are talking about equity and access, they are basic questions in education that need addressing. Access to education was also a very important point in the contribution by the honourable member for Moncrieff. I say to the honourable member-I do so in a serious manner because I believe she made some very interesting points in her contribution-that the problem of access into higher education in the past has not been a matter of places or funding, although we could probably point to some examples. It has simply been that many people did not stay at school long enough to matriculate to universities. Why did the people who came from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds not do so? They did not simply because when they turned 15 or 16 their parents insisted, `Out to work; bring some money home to help out the family'. This Government has addressed that problem. This Government has set up the Austudy program. This Government has introduced the family allowance supplement. Taken together, those income support measures are now starting to address the problem of people not being able to stay at school long enough to matriculate and gain equal access to higher education. We have heard the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Employment, Education and Training and other members talk about the increased retention rates in high schools these days. That is not a myth. It is not something that simply came about because of a conscious decision of people to stay at school. It came about because of policies of this Government and because of the income support system that was put in place. The honourable member for Moncrieff referred to people coming here in 1983-84 and talking to the newly elected government about its policies in education and what they perceived might happen. I remind the honourable member, as did my colleague the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), about what happened in Macquarie Street, Sydney, at the opening of the State Parliament in August this year. Some 65,000 people turned up to object to the education policies being inflicted on the people of New South Wales by the Greiner-Metherell Government. The other interesting statistic is that, with the exception of one or two people who I know are branch members of the Australian Labor Party, one cannot find a teacher in New South Wales now who voted for the Liberals back in March of this year. It is funny how they now turn around and suggest that perhaps one or two mistakes were made. What is being inflicted on people in New South Wales will lead to the ruin of children's education and certainly the ruin of the education system as we know it. There are two other important issues associated with this whole question of the funding of education. Some concern was raised about the technical and further education (TAFE) colleges. Again in my electorate, Wollongong TAFE has received an incredible amount of assistance from this Government. It has done so principally in a capital way in that two important buildings have been constructed in recent years. One was a food and tourism school to train people for the booming tourist industry. Previously, New South Wales residents could go only to the TAFE college at Ryde to get experience in that area. The opportunity is now provided in Wollongong for them to receive expert tuition. As I understand it from talking to staff, the college is achieving considerable success in getting people trained and into employment in that fast growing economic area. The other important building was an administration and library block which, of course, supports the students at Wollongong TAFE. The economic benefits therefore that have flowed not only to the Illawarra region but also to the whole of New South Wales, and, indeed, in time will flow to Australia, cannot simply be dismissed by saying that the TAFE system is unworkable, unmanageable and centrally controlled. That is not the case. The other important issue is the role that adult education plays in this country. Over a long period there has been a tradition of support for adult education. I understand that there are some visitors in the gallery tonight who are here from Germany to talk about this very important issue. I am sure that, when looking at our system of adult education, they could not help but be impressed. Of course, we must take the opportunity to learn from overseas countries as to how effectively they manage this important issue. Finally, I want to return to the question of the University of Wollongong and make one important criticism of the decision which I understand is about to be taken. For over 10 years my friend and colleague the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) has served on the University of Wollongong Council. He has qualifications in education and economics. He has served in the field of adult education. He has developed a level of expertise in that education area which I believe is second to none amongst a number of people in the Illawarra, particularly elected representatives. It has come to my attention that Metherell, in his latest attack on the Illawarra region, proposes to sack my friend and our colleague the honourable member for Throsby from the University Council. Not only is Dr Metherell going to sack him but he is also going to sack people of the calibre of Eleanor Lynch, a successful solicitor in Wollongong, and Graham Roberts, the President of the Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia. Why is this happening? Simply because they were Australian Labor Party appointees to the University Council by previous Labor governments in New South Wales. Metherell has said, `I will not wear anybody with Labor connections'. The university is in my electorate and I would have thought that, given the level of funding for education that this Government has embraced in respect of the University of Wollongong, it might have occurred to Dr Metherell that it would be in his own best interests to have a voice here in Canberra to talk directly to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training if the need arose, particularly in respect of funding, capital, et cetera, for the University of Wollongong. Typical of his shortsightedness, he chooses not to and my friend and colleague the honourable member for Throsby is to be thrown on the education scrapheap, like so many other people in New South Wales. I find this an appalling situation. I appeal to Dr Metherell to change his mind quickly before he makes those appointments. Let us hope that sanity prevails. The States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill and cognate Bills before the House tonight will clearly lead to improvements in education, in TAFEs, in higher education and in student numbers. I truly believe that the opportunities being presented by this Government must be grasped by the Australian people, as I am sure they will be. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(9.50) —The House this evening is debating cognately seven education Bills which provide funding for primary and secondary schools, for the distribution of Commonwealth funds for technical and further education (TAFE) and for higher education. This is an annual responsibility of the Parliament and is of extreme significance to our nation. But, unfortunately, the Bills that we are debating here tonight probably will not even be reported in tomorrow's media. What may, however, be reported are the radical changes that this legislation makes to education policy and particularly to education direction, its impact upon the students and their parents and the institutions that serve their aspirations and opportunities in careers and in life. How the wheel has turned. I entered this place in 1972 and experienced the hype of the Whitlam years: the abolition of tertiary fees, the creation of the Commonwealth Schools Commission, the promise of utopia for school and higher education systems. My colleagues in this debate have referred to aspects of these cognate Bills relating to TAFE and the tertiary areas. I, therefore, will refer but briefly to the higher education contribution scheme (HECS), better known and understood in the community as the graduate tax, a tax on students who generally have no resources and little capacity for earnings. This new scheme is seen as a vital part of the Government's plan to meet its appalling incapacity to improve equity in or access to higher education. It is, therefore, an attempt to create additional places, up to 40,000 by 1991, through financial means. To help finance the substantial expansion in the funding of higher education announced in the last Budget, the Bill makes provision for the establishment of a graduate tax. The HECS will apply to study in award courses undertaken in higher education institutions from 1 January 1989. People who benefit from participation in higher education will be required to make, in the words of the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), a small contribution towards the cost of their study. The scheme will replace the existing higher education administrative charge which required a payment by students on enrolment. What a disaster that charge has proven to be in regard to equity, and what a bureaucratic administrative nightmare it has been over the last 18 months. We now have a user pays system where the user does not have the resources. The imposition of these charges will be upon the students and not the parents. The key features of this new tax are an annual charge of $1,800 a year for equivalent full time study in award courses, pro rata charges according to the actual proportion of an equivalent full time loading being undertaken, payment arrangements based upon a personal capacity to pay and a choice between lump sum payments with a 15 per cent discount at the time of enrolment each semester or payment through the taxation system once a person's taxable income reaches $22,000, which is supposed to be around the level of average earnings. As the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) said, the wealthy will be able to meet these up front costs, whereas the poorer people will not be able to pay and will be burdened with higher taxes in their working lives. If people choose to pay through the taxation system, the required annual payments of this liability, once the scheme is fully operational, will be nothing for personal taxable incomes below $22,000, one per cent of personal taxable income for incomes of $22,000 to $24,999, 2 per cent of personal taxable income for incomes of $25,000 to $34,999, 3 per cent of personal taxable income for incomes of $35,000 or more and no further payments once debts are discharged. The annual course charge, the outstanding debt and the personal taxable income levels above which payment is required will be indexed to keep pace with inflation. These arrangements will ensure that those paying the charge will pay the same amount in real terms regardless of how long they take to do so. The scheme will cover all higher education students, both new and continuing, undertaking study from 1 January 1989, except some areas of student enrolment. I turn now to the schools legislation. In particular, I refer to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill. The main purpose of this Bill is to implement the funding of primary and secondary education for children in the States and the Northern Territory by providing increases in general recurrent grants to both government and non-government schools in each of the next four years and by maintaining the funding levels for the range of specific purpose programs and for capital grants programs in 1989. The Bill also implements decisions announced in the May statement this year concerning new, non-systemic, non-government schools, except for special schools and Aboriginal community schools that will be funded at categories 1 to 6 only. Establishment grants will be discontinued from 1989 and reviews of recurrent funding categories will be considered only on the grounds that there has been a significant change in the need for financial assistance due to outside factors. The Bill requires the States and non-government authorities to enter into an agreement with the Commonwealth before payments can be made. I remind the House that previously these agreements applied only to the real increases in general recurrent grants provided since 1985. But this Bill provides for agreements from 1989 to apply to the total general recurrent grant each year and to reflect the objectives of the Commonwealth, the States and non-government school authorities. I remind this House with some pride that the National Party supported by its vote in this Parliament the establishment of the Schools Commission. It was a controversial decision at the time. Mr Nehl —Hear, hear! Mr Lamb —Before your time. Mr PETER FISHER —It was not before my time. Mr Lamb —Before his time. Mr PETER FISHER —It might have been before the time of the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), but he recognises the fact that we took this decision at the time. It was taken in a genuine attempt to allow the Commonwealth to correct the deficiencies and inequities in the State systems. I believe that, in retrospect, our decision was justified. The creation of a number of supplementary school programs, such as the isolated children's program, the disadvantaged schools program and the country areas program, are successful examples. What, then, has gone wrong? Why is the Hawke Government, through its Ministers, now emasculating the Schools Commission? There are basically three reasons. Firstly, the Government has allowed the Schools Commission to be politicised and bureaucratised. Its initiative and enthusiasm have been lost in red tape and inertia, and consultation has become a dirty word. Secondly, this legislation is about further centralisation of authority in Canberra but, what is more worrying, with the Minister, in a word, it is control. Mr Cowan —Talk to Dr Metherell. Mr PETER FISHER —The Government should talk to Dr Metherell because what is happening is the relaxation of so much of the control we now have over the education system. Thirdly, many of the worthwhile programs established by the Schools Commission and continued by the coalition when in government were not taken up by the State systems when the need for them was proven. It is for this reason that there are a number of major concerns within the schools community in relation to the special purpose programs, in particular, the disadvantaged schools program and the country areas program. Using the disadvantaged schools program as an example, the previous process was that a disadvantaged school, for the purpose of the program, was a school declared by the State Minister as disadvantaged on the basis of criteria developed by the Commonwealth Schools Commission and approved by the Commonwealth Minister. Therefore, the right of the State Minister to declare schools as disadvantaged was sacrosanct. The objects of the program were developed by the Commonwealth after consultation and set out in an annual or triennial public report. The objectives and guidelines for the operation of the program were set out each year in the Commonwealth program for schools, which was also a public document. But now, under the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill, we see major changes that give power to the Commonwealth Minister to declare a government school in a State to be disadvantaged, not, as previously was the case, the State Minister. Clause 5 of the Bill states that the Minister will authorise payment to a State for a disadvantaged school only if the State has entered into an agreement of a kind specified by the Minister with the Commonwealth-in other words, the Commonwealth Minister has absolute control. The arrangements for the disadvantaged schools program until this year also acknowledged a national program with objectives and processes agreed across the country through participatory processes. Although the implementation of the program varied from State to State, it was nevertheless a national program. This new legislation, therefore, fragments this program. It is now possible for it to have different objectives in each State and system. Of course, that is exactly the opposite of the original intent of the formation of the Schools Commission. Education authorities and the Opposition have been unable to obtain any information about the Commonwealth guidelines or the basis for the Commonwealth's negotiation on the nature of the program. We can only assume therefore, that they are justified. What then are the implications of the legislation if one or more States refuse to enter into negotiations? Although I have used the disadvantaged schools program as an example, the same concerns, of course, would apply to the country program and other special purpose programs. For two years I served as the Victorian Chairman of the country education program (CEP) and had direct knowledge of and access to its successes. The program was able to bring together and unite the talents within the rural and usually remote communities to the benefit of the schools and their students. As an example of the country education program, we saw the introduction of the first radio links between schools that allowed smaller classes to have tuition in a full range of curriculum activities. It was the CEP that introduced music tuition to remote and isolated students for the first time. It was the CEP that gave mobility to rural students to expand their opportunities and experiences for both educational and career opportunities. Many schools in my electorate of Mallee are today very much dependent upon the disadvantaged schools program and the country areas program simply because the State system in Victoria has failed to meet its responsibilities. I refer to just one school in my electorate, the Robinvale consolidated school, but its situation could well be repeated across my electorate of Mallee or across Australia. Here is a remote school with a very large Aboriginal population. Its disadvantaged schools program grant of $28,000 has allowed it to install computers and to develop a weekly program to assist undernourished children. The CEP has given this school access to a music tutor and enabled it to involve the talents and skills of the local community in the total school. It is no wonder, therefore, that schools and their associations are concerned about this centralisation of decision making and authority in the Minister, without negotiation and without consultation. In my view, this is punitive legislation. It is not about equity, it seems to me to be simply a desperate attempt to meet the demand for places in a debt ridden economy in which government priorities are drastically out of kilter. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(10.03) —Mr Acting Speaker, first of all I apologise to the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher). I think he thought when I interjected that I said he was not in the Parliament when the then Country Party voted with the Whitlam Government to introduce the Schools Commission. I was, of course, referring to the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl). In fact, I am pleased that we were able to join forces on that occasion. I wish to enter this cognate debate on the education Bills to discuss the social justice impact of higher education funding. I was a member of this Parliament in 1974 when the Whitlam Government abolished tertiary fees. Its goal then was to open up the universities and colleges to the poorer middle class and working class-to remove the barrier of costs. In fact, it is true that there were scholarships before that Government removed those fees, usually under teaching bursaries, et cetera, and the Government had to pick up only 10 per cent of the bill, thus relieving the States and those who had to pay the fees. That goal was only partly achieved. Studies have shown that there was a small increase in access by the lower socioeconomic groupings to higher education. Perhaps the best study is that done by Don Anderson of the Australian National University which showed that there was some increased access, mainly by mature age students and mainly women and part time students, the greatest access by the lower socioeconomic groupings being through the colleges of advanced education. This is where advances were made but there is little conclusion in establishing the relationships between the mature age students and the part timers and their socioeconomic origins. So I guess the best thing we can say in a final assessment of the Whitlam attempt is that we are unclear as to how great the improvement was in equity and access to higher education. It is true that the Whitlam Government really tackled only one factor and that was removing fees. It is essential when we are debating this package of Bills that we look at the major factors which determine a person's chances of undertaking tertiary study. The first is attaining the very necessary qualification, namely, completing year 12 or entering later on as a mature age student. The second factor is the value that the individual and the family place upon education itself and that, of course, is linked to the first factor. The next one is actually being selected to take up one of the rationed places. It was estimated at the last count that some 20,000 students missed out this year on being able to take up a tertiary education place. The fourth factor is actually being able to afford to take up the opportunity if it is given. We are referring here, of course, to the income foregone and the cost of student living during the period of study. It is within this total context that the Government's proposed higher education contribution scheme or graduate tax, as some refer to it, should be considered. It remains that despite removing the barrier of tertiary fees by the Whitlam Government and the introduction of Austudy by this Government the socioeconomic composition of the student body does not accurately reflect the socioeconomic composition of society as a whole. It is more likely that the private school educated children of high income parents who are graduates, professionals or managers, will be the students who will attend higher education and, in turn, their children. So we have this self-perpetuating cycle of inequity of access to higher education. It is as a result of tertiary education that the graduates derive the greatest benefits, yet they are financed by the taxpayers as a whole who get indirect benefit from that higher education. The Government is quite properly dedicated to redressing these inequities, to break one of the elements which contributes to the social injustice cycle; that is, equity and access to higher education. We have to look at the total package of reform. Let us take the first factor, the qualification to undertake tertiary studies. This Government has increased secondary school retention rates to year 12 from 36 per cent in 1983 to 58 per cent in 1988 and will strive to drive it higher to the 70 per cent or more which is recorded in Japan and the United States. We can count on Austudy and income support programs to bring that about but it is notable that in the working class areas the retention rate seldom rises above 20 per cent and unless we can get it higher in those lower socioeconomic groupings we will not see the flow through effect of the other parts of this package and our objective will founder. I have confidence in this Government that we will improve in that area. The third factor is to overcome the rationing of places by expanding the 40,000 new places over the next three years to allow more access, particularly in rural areas. Given the low retention rates in working class areas of society, we are likely to experience in the short term a trickle down effect of opportunity to those who are just missing out now but they will still largely be those from the better off sections of society. I point out that to offset this the Government has an agreement that the allocation of resources to institutions will be on the basis of agreed education profile defining each institution's mission and goals, of which equity and strategies will be an integral and central element. I refer, finally, to the fourth major factor of being able to afford to take up the opportunity to enter tertiary studies. The Government has revamped Austudy and Abstudy, widening access to the scheme and increasing allowances. Some 48,000 additional students are to be assisted from next year. The Government has decided to remove the higher education administration charge (HEAC) which proved to be a barrier to those students at the margin of being financially able to undertake tertiary study, full or part-time. The part-time students, I point out, have to pay the same amount as full-time students. I guess the Government cannot congratulate itself here for removing the HEAC because it was this Government which placed the HEAC barrier there in the first place, although it must be said that it had already removed it for the most needy people in society, those on pensions and those on low incomes. The Government's initiatives, the cost of its pursuit of greater equity and access to higher education, will cost $843m extra over the next three years. There would be an increase of $100m in real terms in Austudy outlays over the same period. Thus, we are looking at extra expenditure of almost $1 billion to improve equity and access to participation in higher education. If that sum were financed from general revenue and recouped through a progressive tax system on higher incomes-and we must remember that many people who benefit from higher education would be subject to that-there would be no problem from a prospective student point of view. That is a position which I support strongly and which I hoped the Government would adopt. However, public demand has been for less tax, and this is incompatible with greater Government spending in education unless it is at the expense of other programs-and who would suggest what programs should get the axe? An alternative is a larger Budget deficit or, in this year, a smaller surplus. In this year I would opt for a smaller surplus, but that probably cannot be sustained in the longer term. Where does the $943m come from? The Opposition would charge fees. We reject that out of hand. The user pays principle does not go hand in hand with social justice. That is an unacceptable barrier. The Government has gone for the second best option-a charge not on the user at the time of service or enrolment but a charge on the beneficiary when the user has passed through the system. That is where the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) was incorrect in saying that this is a user charge on the student. It is not such a charge; it is when the students complete their course of studies that they will have to pay. Those who earn more than the average weekly earnings of about $22,500 per annum-and that represents about 37 per cent of wage and salary earners-will pay a tax surcharge of between one per cent and 3 per cent. The repayment will commence at a time when many graduates will be trying to establish themselves in a career and with a family. That is an unfortunate aspect. The tax system that has been adopted is not entirely equitable. Those who are better off will have a 15 per cent discount if they pay on enrolment. It is true that the Government needs that early flow through of funds into the trust fund, but those who cannot pay will see this as unjust. I have to say that I agree with them. Later, as income rises, the total tax burden is not increased. That is a feature of an inequitable progressive tax system. Only the rate of repayment is increased. For those on lower salaries above average weekly earnings, the repayment period will be lengthened compared to the repayment period for those in higher income brackets. At $1,800 a year for a four-year course, a debt of $7,200, indexed to maintain the debt in real terms, could take between nine years and 18 years to pay off if a person's salary is just above average weekly earnings. If the Government's policy of keeping the growth in salaries at less than full indexation continues, the debt will grow and it will take that person even longer to pay it off. I get sick of Opposition members marching in here and being less than honest when they voice their concerns, as I have just done. The honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) and other members have no right to complain; they are advocates of either full fees or partial fees. Despite my strong criticisms, the Government's proposals are clearly superior to the alternatives of fees or charges. The question remains: Will this post-study tax which also applies to those who do not graduate, deter or prevent students from low income families, from the working classes, or those who study part time-and the charge could apply while those people study if they earn more than the average weekly earnings-from undertaking higher education? Student surveys indicate that the tax will deter those people, but we do not really know. This is a new barrier that will apply after the course of study. Those who believe in progressive tax would have expected it in any case. Other barriers addressed by the Government apply before and during the course of study. I predict that the tax will be a psychological barrier at the margin, operating principally on the factor determining whether study is worth the effort and the cost, a sort of `last straw' argument. Those who struggle to succeed at secondary level in working class areas where there are pressures from all sides to leave school, get a job, be successful socially and obtain consumer products and so on, will now face, in addition to the costs of income forgone, the costs of books, travel and so on-even with Austudy-the extra cost of repaying the $7,200 debt, even if they do not graduate. They will be paying back that debt for up to 10 years or more at a time when they are struggling to establish themselves. They will be those most affected. Honourable members will recognise that I have criticised this legislation. It is a mixed bag, a curate's egg. The tax collection offends the principles of tax equity. However, I will support the proposal, because it should be given a chance. It is a new initiative. Time will tell whether it reaches its objective and brings about greater equity and access to tertiary education where the Whitlam plan only partly succeeded. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(10.15) —The States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2), the States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill, the Higher Education Funding Bill, the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill, the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill and the Overseas Students Charge Collection Amendment Bill embody the Government's plans for education over the next three years, in most cases. Given the Government's gag, we have exactly from 8.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. to discuss these Bills, and I in particular am restricted to 10 minutes in discussing the future of education in Australia. That is the way in which this Government runs the Parliament. The matters under consideration are of grave importance. They involve a massive change to the way in which universities and colleges of advanced education will be dealt with under the Government's new policies. We have just heard substantial criticism from the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb) of the Government's proposals for the higher education contribution system, otherwise known as the graduate tax. I will divide my remarks into two sections in the very short time available to me, and my first remarks will deal with higher education. Since the last election a new Minister has been appointed to the education portfolio following Senator Ryan's retirement from this Parliament. Senator Ryan's period as a Minister in this portfolio was an undistinguished one, pursuing educational objectives that were supported by neither the Opposition nor the present Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins). The Minister has made clear that his educational objectives are quite different from those of his predecessor. There was some promise in the present Minister's earlier statements; he identified some of the extraordinary problems in higher education in Australia. One would agree with the Minister that within the institutions there was a great deal of institutional rigidity. There was unnecessary bureaucratisation in the control systems from the Federal Government level of higher education, and many people in positions of authority within those institutions exhibited an incapacity to determine their own destiny. Basically, there were two ways to go in the whole equation. The Minister, when he sought to overturn the views and policies of his predecessor, brought together a group of advisers many of whom would not normally have advised the Labor Party. Many of those advisers gave the Minister quite sensible advice. Basically, there were two directions in which the Minister could go in seeking to shake up the higher education system in Australia, preserving the best of it-and the best of it is as good as anywhere in the world-and trying to improve the performance of the less satisfactory parts which are unsatisfactory indeed. The Minister has a rapid timetable. Within two years he wishes to implant in the system his idea of what he calls reform. I believe he has a political timetable that has some relationship to his educational policy timetable. Unfortunately, I believe that in higher education the Minister has chosen the path of additional centralised control. Following the very bad period of his predecessor in office, there was a real opportunity to do something exciting in higher education. There was a chance to give the institutions much greater autonomy within a framework of genuine public responsibility. There was a chance to work out a totally new system that would be better than the system we had in place when we were in government, certainly much better than the system that the Minister's predecessor had in place. There was a chance to establish a hands off system of funding and a system of public accountability that would be provided partly by the market-place and partly by peer review. That option was open to the Minister and I am sure it would have been put to him by many of his new advisers outside the Department. Unfortunately, the Minister chose the path of educational profiles, a system of control of higher education with each institution, whether a university or a college of advanced education, being required to negotiate directly behind closed doors with officers of the Minister's Department for its financial livelihood. Also within the area of research, through the Australian Research Council under a system widely criticised and deeply distrusted by the scientific community in particular, there has been government interference which I believe will do grave damage to the cause of Australian research over the next two decades. In the short time I have I will not go into the detail of all this; I merely say that the Minister had a very clear choice when he came to office. He wanted to be a reforming Minister and I know he still wants to be. He had a clear choice between genuine devolution of authority within a system of accountability that was satisfactory, a system of hands off funding so far as the Government is concerned but, in effect, he chose to demolish the existing system. The system was imperfect, but he also demolished the good parts of that system, that is, some measure of public accountability through the discussion process which was indulged in by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. I have no brief for the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. I agree with the Minister that it should have been abolished. However, it should have been abolished by a system of funding which was more remote from the Government, a system of accountability which had elements of market control, and also a system of peer review. I hope the Opposition policy which will be announced shortly will contain those elements. I pass in the short time I have to the question of schools, because the funding of schools is covered by this series of seven Bills. I wish to take the strongest possible objection to the remarks made by the Minister's principal adviser on schools, Ms Lindsay Connors, Chairwoman of the Schools Council of the Government's National Board of Employment, Education and Training, in a speech reported in the Age of Thursday, 17 November. Ms Connors made a number of remarks which not only do I object to but also they are in conflict with the Minister's various public statements about excellence in education. I quote from the newspaper: Ms Connors, in an address in Canberra, said competition was said to breed excellence. But it had been seen recently in a number of spheres-such as international sport, scientific research and, for that matter, schooling-what excessive competition bred. In a word, it breeds cheating. It leads to forms of excellence which rely on anabolic steroids, rigged experiments and artificially selective school enrolment and assessment procedures. It leads to private cover-ups instead of the development of common responses to shared problems. We see schools frightened to bring a problem out into the open and to take proper measures to deal with it, for fear of damaging their reputations in a highly competitive marketplace. Instead of acting as the professional and academic leaders in their schools, we find school principals out touting for business, engaged in the futile exercise of competing with each other for a dwindling pool of students. I shall not go on because I do not have time to quote the Age report of all the various remarks made by Ms Connors during this address, but that typifies what has been wrong with professional advice in schools for the last 15 to 20 years. Mr Gear —You were in government for some of that. Mr CARLTON —I know that, and these problems have occurred in State governments run by Liberal and National parties. The honourable member for Canning loves to make partisan remarks; that is his stock in trade. I am not here to do that. I am here criticising remarks by a Government adviser which are in conflict with a number of statements made by the Minister. By excessive attacks on the adverse effects of competition, professional advisers in education in schools over the last 15 to 20 years have removed an enormous number of extremely valuable regulatory feedback systems, information systems on people's performance. If those systems were still there, the performance in Australian schools would be much better today than it now is. Of course there are problems in competition. There always have been. People will misuse competition and some people will cheat. However, to do as Ms Connors does and as many educational professionals have done over the last 15 or 20 years-that is, draw the wrong conclusions and say that there is no value in competition or that the value in competition has been grossly overemphasised or, as they do, overemphasise the difficulties with competition-is to remove one of the great motivating forces for excellence in education in Australia. As far as I am concerned, if school principals want their schools to be better they should be allowed to go out and make them better and they should be allowed to go out and tell the public how much better they are. I do not see any problem in people wanting to be better. Of course they have a responsibility to make sure that the competition is fair and that they operate by good rules. People in business have exactly the same responsibility. However, the kind of criticism embodied in this speech is highly destructive to the cause of excellence in schools and of education in general. It makes me gravely worried about the appointment that was made by the Minister and it raises quite serious questions about a conflict between the kind of philosophy we have here and that espoused by the Minister in his statement on schooling in Australia, most of which I agreed with-not a partisan point, and not an unimportant point either, because if this is the kind of advice that has been going into State educational systems for 15 or 20 years, which I believe is wrong and is still going in to the Minister, I hope the Minister will reject that advice, and therefore whatever legislation honourable members are discussing about school funding will not be informed as a result of this kind of advice but will be informed because of more sensible judgments which the Minister will himself make. Mr GEAR(Canning)(10.27) —In the short time available to me tonight I would like to concentrate my remarks on one aspect of the higher education contribution that the Government will be asking students to make to their education. As a member of a reformist government bringing in measures that aim at expanding tertiary education, and we should not forget that, and at putting 40,000 new places into the system to get more people into the work force with higher qualifications, I should explain that a benefit accrues to the students themselves. I had the Parliamentary Library in Canberra plot the lifetime earnings of somebody who takes advantage of higher education, of somebody who takes advantage of technical and further education (TAFE) and of somebody who has no education at all. If we start at the bottom of the income level, labourers and related workers, with no formal education apart from their normal schooling, over a lifetime can expect in 1986 terms to earn around $750,000. Clerks will earn $930,000; and electrical tradesmen, of which I used to be one, will earn $930,000 also. These people have a TAFE education. I notice that the Opposition has a recycle and TAFE policy. In the higher education area, natural scientists will earn $1.3m; building professionals and engineers will earn $1.34m and health diagnosticians and treatment practitioners, $1.5m. Those are conservative figures but they do illustrate that the higher the level of education one enjoys the more personal benefit accrues to the person who goes through it, and it is not unreasonable for the Government to ask them to make a personal contribution themselves. I believe the way in which the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) has done that-that is, to make them pay it back after their income exceeds average weekly earnings-is the fairest way to do it. It wipes out the higher education administration charge, which was always an obstacle, we were led to believe, for some people in that they had to pay it up front. That is removed. There are no up front charges. There is nothing to be paid back until the income of students who get the sorts of benefits I have spoken of actually exceeds average weekly earnings. In short, it is a policy that will work and will lead to an increase in tertiary education. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., the time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Beale's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lavarch, M. H.Campbell, G. Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, JohnGorman, R. N. J. Scott, LesGrace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. 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.Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B.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. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Taylor, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Lloyd, B. Darling, E. E. Cameron, DonaldKerin, J. C. Peacock, A. J.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is that the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(10.46) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 18, page 10, lines 40 and 41, omit subclause (2), substitute the following subclause: ``(2) Paragraph (1) (d) does not apply in relation to: (a) the Marcus Oldham College of Farm Management; or (b) a course of study at Avondale College that is not funded in whole or in part by the Commonwealth.''. (2) Clause 34, page 23, line 28, omit ``or''. (3) Clause 34, page 23, line 30, omit ``study;'', substitute ``study; or''. (4) Clause 34, page 23, after paragraph (c) of the definition of ``designated course of study'' in subclause (1), insert the following paragraph: ``(d) a course provided at Avondale College, McAuley College or Signadou College of Education, being a course that is not funded in whole or in part by the Commonwealth;''. (5) Clause 34, page 23, line 39, at the end of the definition of ``overseas student'', add ``but does not include a student to whom paragraph 4 (1) (a) of the Overseas Students Charge Collection Regulations applies''. (6) Clause 34, page 24, line 29, at the end of paragraph (4) (a), add ``other than Marcus Oldham College of Farm Management''. (7) Clause 35, page 25, lines 6 to 16, omit subclause (4), substitute the following subclause: ``(4) An overseas student in relation to a course of study at an institution in respect of a year is an exempt student in relation to that course of study in respect of that year.''. (8) Clause 38, page 26, at the end of the clause, add the following subclause: ``(2) Without limiting the operation of subsection (1), the following provisions of this Chapter do not of their own force require an institution to do any act or thing.''. (9) Clause 41, page 28, line 1, after ``85%'', insert ``(or such greater percentage as the student chooses)''. (10) Clause 41, page 28, line 12, after ``paying'', insert ``at least''. (11) Clause 41, page 28, line 15, omit ``15%'', substitute ``the remainder (if any)''. (12) Clause 41, page 28, line 16, omit ``15%'', substitute ``remainder''. (13) Clause 41, page 28, line 24, after ``paid'', insert ``at least''. (14) Clause 41, page 28, line 27, omit ``whole'', substitute ``unpaid part''. (15) Clause 41, page 28, line 29, after ``pay'', insert ``the unpaid part of''. (16) Clause 54, page 33, line 20, at the end of sub-subparagraph (A), add ``and''. (17) Clause 54, page 33, line 22, omit ``-that amount; and'', substitute ``or, if the student requests, under paragraph 57 (b)-that amount.''. (18) Clause 54, page 33, lines 23 to 26, omit sub-subparagraph (C). (19) Clause 56, page 34, lines 18 to 30, omit the clause. (20) Clause 57, page 34, lines 31 to 42, and page 35, lines 1 to 5, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Overpayment of contribution ``57. Where a student has made a payment to an institution in accordance with subparagraph 41 (1) (a) (i) in respect of the contribution that the institution assessed would be payable by the student in respect of a course of study in respect of a semester under subsection 39 (3): ``(a) if no contribution is payable by the student, the institution shall, as soon as practicable and in any event not later than 14 days after giving notice to the student under section 54 in respect of the course of study in respect of the semester, pay to the student an amount equal to the amount paid by the student; or (b) if the amount of the payment exceeds 85% of the amount of the contribution payable by the student and the student requests the repayment of the whole or a part of the excess, the institution shall, as soon as practicable after receiving the request, pay to the student an amount equal to the excess or that part of the excess, as the case may be.''. (21) Clause 58, page 35, line 15, omit ``15%'', substitute ``the remainder (if any)''. (22) Clause 58, page 35, line 16, omit ``15%'', substitute ``remainder''. (23) Clause 58, page 35, line 20, omit ``whole'', substitute ``unpaid part''. (24) Clause 58, page 35, line 22, after ``pay'', insert ``the unpaid part of''. The Government presents these amendments to the Higher Education Funding Bill 1988 to ensure the equitable treatment of all higher education institutions and students and to simplify administrative procedures under the proposed higher education contributions scheme. The amendments are marked `revised' to distinguish them from amendments previously circulated which are now incorporated in these amendments. Consistent with the provisions of existing States grants tertiary education assistance legislation, amendment No. 1 seeks to exempt from the prohibition on charging fees for higher education award courses any course of study at Avondale College that is not funded by the Commonwealth. Amendments (2), (3) and (4) seek to exclude from liability under the proposed contribution scheme any course of study at certain non-government institutions that is not funded by the Commonwealth, while amendment (6) excludes from liability any course of study at the Marcus Oldham College of Farm Management. This latter amendment recognises that even in that course, for which the Commonwealth provides funding, students enrolled at Marcus Oldham College are required to pay substantial tuition fees. The Government intends to review its present arrangements for the financial support of the college in the course of 1989. Amendments (5) and (7) seek to extend the range of overseas students exempt from liability under the proposed contribution scheme to include, in particular, international exchange students and overseas students awarded an institutional post-graduate scholarship before 1 January 1987 and therefore not subject to the overseas student charge. Amendment (8) is consistent with the provision of existing States grants tertiary education assistance legislation and other clauses of this Bill. It acknowledges that the provisions of chapter 4 of the Bill in relation to the contribution scheme represent a condition attaching to Commonwealth grants to the States and do not imply any direction by the Commonwealth as to the actions or operations of the higher education institution. Amendments (9) to (18) and (20) to (24) are designed to ensure that a potential recipient of a Commonwealth benefit under the contribution scheme will be able to refuse that benefit in whole or in part. The amendments give effect to this by allowing a student to pay to the institution on enrolment so much of the contribution as the student chooses. Where that amount is equal to or exceeds 85 per cent of the required contribution, the Commonwealth will pay the remainder, if any, to the institution in discharge of the student's liability to pay that amount. Where the amount paid by the student is less than 85 per cent the Commonwealth would lend to the student an amount equal to the unpaid part of the contribution and apply that amount in making a payment to the institution in discharge of the student's outstanding liability. This amount would then be subject to recovery through the arrangements involving the taxation system as set out in the body of the Bill. Amendment (19) seeks to delete clause 56 of the Bill relating to the review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of a decision by an institution on a request under clause 55. The latest legal advice on this issue indicates that such a power of review cannot constitutionally be conferred upon the AAT in relation to decisions taken by a State institution. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(10.49) —I am glad to note that the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) is at last present, having been away the week before last with, I understand, a bad ear. I suggest that he got that bad ear listening to the cacophony of noise from the higher education institutions about the changes that he is causing to take place there. They are calling him the $100m a minute man because the Government has gagged this debate. It has pushed through $18 billion worth of expenditure in three hours-that is at a rate of $100m a minute. The $100m a minute man, who has at last come into the chamber, was hiding in his office. He could not take the heat of the debate that was going on. The amendments that the Minister has just brought forward reflect yet again the arrogant and out-of-touch nature of this Government. They are ill thought through. The fact that the Minister has to bring in three pages of amendments at this late stage indicates how badly he and his Department have thought through the higher education Bills. They missed things out. They made clerical errors. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Order! The time allotted for the committee stage of the Bill has expired. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(10.51) —I move: That the Bill be now read a third time. If I might say to those charges made by the shadow Minister for education, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale)-- Mr Beale —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The debate has been gagged. The Government gagged it. The least it could do is to adhere to the gag. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Deakin will resume his seat. Mr Beale —I just want to make the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The time for discussion on this Bill expired at 10.50 p.m. It is now 10.52 p.m. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. If he reads the resolution, he will see that the debate on the remaining stages of the Bill finishes at 10.55 p.m. The Minister, I think, is making a third reading speech. He shall keep to what the House has passed. I call the Minister. Mr Rocher —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not think the Minister was addressing himself to the Bill, which was being read-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Curtin has no point of order. Mr Rocher —But I have not finished my point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Curtin has drawn the attention of the Chair to the fact that he did not think the Minister was addressing the third reading of this Bill. I have called the Minister and told the Minister what he can and cannot address himself to. Mr DAWKINS —All I wanted to do was to take this opportunity to thank those who have contributed to this debate. It is as the honourable member for Deakin says, a very momentous debate, a debate which is bringing in some very important changes to the Australian education system. In this Bill particularly, it involves some very fundamental changes which will improve our higher education system. To the honourable member who rather laboured the point that I was not here at the beginning of the debate, I say that the reason is that I was having discussions with the Victorian Ministers involved with education, particularly higher education, about the development of higher education in Victoria, particularly in the western suburbs of Victoria. So I am sure the shadow Minister would excuse me. However, I had the opportunity to hear at least his opening remarks-and found that there was not much to respond to. I found the speech made by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) to be the most thoughtful from the other side of the House. I wanted to say, as we have now finished with the second reading debate, that I think he has misconstrued a very important part of the measures within this Bill, particularly those that relate to clause 14. He seemed to suggest that by asking institutions to provide profiles and to change profiles whenever they like, this involves a great intrusion by the Commonwealth. It does not. It simply provides an opportunity for the institutions to tell us, and through us the taxpayers, what it is they are doing and how they are intending to do it. It is an arrangement for accountability for the very substantial amounts of funds we provide to them. It is not a device through which we would wish to tell institutions what to teach or how to teach it or what to research and how to research it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Higher Education Funding Bill...22 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES 3005 Mr BEALE(Deakin)(10.55) —I thank the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) for thanking us for our contribution. Mr John Brown —You have nothing to say now. Mr BEALE —What is up with the honourable member? He is running around Sydney saying he will quit on 14 December, is he not? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin will address himself to the matter before the House, and the honourable member for Macarthur will cease interjecting. Mr BEALE —It is Parramatta that is going to quit, not Macarthur. I point out again that in the three hours of debate that has been allowed here tonight we have dealt with $18 billion worth of Government expenditure. The Minister himself said that these are very important Bills, yet he was not even in the House while this was going on. He acknowledged that he heard the opening remarks from the Opposition spokesman, but no more than that. I would have thought that it would have been more important for the Minister to be in the House to hear this debate on all these Bills than it was to be talking to his colleagues from Victoria about what is happening in education in that State. Mr Scholes —Why? Mr BEALE —Because we have more important things to say. The amendments brought forward by the Minister to the Higher Education Funding Bill indicate the trouble the Government will get into over this whole measure. The late nature of the amendments brought forward, the shoddy way in which they were prepared, and the extraordinarily large number of them, indicate that the Government has not yet properly thought through what it wants to do with its higher education contribution scheme. Until the Government gets straight what it wants to do in its own head there will be trouble. If the Government comes to the Parliament seven minutes before the closure of the debate and says, `We've got all these amendments that we have to do something about', you can be assured, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when this thing starts to operate in practice there will be trouble. The Government is instituting these educational profiles which, despite the Minister's denial, essentially require higher education institutions to do what the Government wants them to do. It essentially means that the Government is forcing these institutions-- Mr Dawkins —Rubbish. Mr BEALE —The Minister is saying that if we do not do this we will not get any money. That is a nice piece of political blackmail, but that is what he is saying. The Government is saying, `You must amalgamate. Big is better. The Government knows better'. We are back to the Victorian Economic Development Corporation (VEDC) and Western Australia Inc. When the Minister was not here we referred to WA Inc. in the Minister's own backyard. That is the measure of how it is impossible for the Government to pick winners. It is trying to pick winners with profiles. It is trying to pick winners with amalgamations. It is trying to pick winners with research. It will come unstuck the same way that the VEDC came unstuck and WA Inc. came unstuck. As I said, WA Inc. is in the Minister's backyard. The amendments which the Minister brought forward to the Higher Education Funding Bill indicate that this Government is arrogant and completely out of charge. There has been a decline in living standards and it is a disgrace-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of this Bill has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommended appropriation announced. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is that is remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(11.02) —I move: Clause 3, page 2, lines 3 to 5, omit paragraph (a), insert the following paragraph: ``(a) by omitting from subsection (1) the definition of `overseas student' and substituting the following definition: `overseas student' means a person who: (a) is not an Australian citizen; and (b) is enrolled, or proposes to become enrolled, in a prescribed course or as a casual higher education student for a year; but does not include: (c) a person who is the holder of a permanent entry permit; (d) if the enrolment or proposed enrolment is in respect of a secondary education course-a person to whom subsection 8 (1) of the Migration Act 1958 applies; or (e) if paragraph (d) does not apply-a person to whom subsection 8 (1) of the Migration Act 1958 applies other than a person referred to in paragraph (b) of that subsection;''. The purpose of this minor amendment to the Bill is to include in the definition of `overseas student' a person who is enrolled as a casual higher education student. This is consequential on the proposal to impose the charge on an overseas student enrolled as a casual higher education student-that is, a student undertaking miscellaneous studies, not for award, and which is relevant to clause 4. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins) read a third time. Debate resumed from 31 August, on motion by Mr Punch: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(11.04) —The Australian Sports Commission Bill is concerned with the amalgamation of the Australian Institute of Sport and the Australian Sports Commission. This is a step which this Government believes will have far reaching ramifications in terms of the support that the Government already gives to sport in this country. This matter is quite topical at present simply because there are two parliamentary committee inquiries under way dealing with different aspects of sport. The first, the Senate Select Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts, chaired by Senator John Black from Queensland, is looking at the use of drugs in sport, and the second, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, is looking at funding and administration of sport in Australia. Mr John Brown —Chaired by the honourable member for Macarthur. Mr MARTIN —I thank my colleague, the honourable member for Parramatta. During the course of the inquiry into sports funding and administration, the Finance and Public Administration Committee has had some in depth discussions with a variety of people in sport in this country. On Monday this week there was a public hearing involving the Australian Institute of Sport and an inspection of the operations of that body at Bruce, and today the opportunity was presented to the Committee to discuss at length with over 15 of Australia's leading coaching personnel for elite sports men and women in this country the problems that they perceived with respect to the funding, the management and the administration of sport in Australia. The Bill before this House, which creates this new statutory authority and the new board and so on, is of great interest to those personnel, those coaches, and to people who are involved in sport at all levels. One also has to get involved in the philosophical dimensions of sport because clearly a number of issues have been raised in talking not only to the coaching personnel but also to the elite athletes in this country. What has clearly come out by talking to both athletes and also to the coaching staff is the necessity for the education system to be tied in with the development of elite sports men and women. Identification of the talented athletes is needed very quickly and it has to be achieved while people are at the primary school age. Representatives from the Institute suggested that the process could be greatly assisted if primary school institutions right around Australia had professionally trained people equipped to coach these young athletes and identify them early on as having elite capabilities. As we know, most States in this country have physical education teachers, and in some cases two or three are involved with each high school, but in primary education, where it is probably necessary to identify talented athletes, they do not exist. Rather, they have well-meaning people, amateur coaches, involved in taking girls and boys and those with some potential talent in sport, trying to develop that latent talent. Without top trained professional coaches that talent is quite often likely to be by-passed. As I have indicated, the committee of this Parliament is looking at this particular question at the moment and it is quite appropriate that this Institute and Sports Commission legislation that is before the House today picks up on this question of fostering talented athletes, elite sports men and women, and the whole process that is involved with the Institute of Sport. I think it is important to look at the operation of the Institute of Sport over the last few years. I have to say that the Institute was created by the Liberal Party of Australia when in government, but it has been sponsored by the Australian Labor Party in government under the tutelage particularly of the former Minister for Sport, our friend the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown). His replacement, Senator Graham Richardson, has taken on that interest in the Institute and is presently examining ways in which financial assistance could perhaps be boosted for that very important part of the training of elite men and women in sport in this country. The Institute runs a series of residential programs but more importantly it takes people in 15 or so sports and carefully nurtures those people and enables them to receive the best possible coaching available in this country. Coaches of international standard have been brought to Australia and work at the Institute. For example, the former Chinese national women's gymnastics coach has for a number of years been employed at the Australian Institute of Sport developing our young talented female gymnasts. We have hockey coaches and more recently have had rugby union and soccer coaches, and we have swimming coaches. We have a range of talented coaches, professionals all, who have put a great deal of time and effort into developing skills within Australia's elite sports men and women, and so it should be. The results of that have been quite outstanding. At the recent Olympic Games-probably the greatest test that elite sports men and women could be subjected to-we saw Australia do extremely well. Gold medals were obtained in a number of events-by the women's hockey team, by Duncan Armstrong in the swimming and by Debbie Flintoff-King who excelled in athletics. Yet if one talks to coaches in this country one finds that an ethos in sport is sadly lacking. I know that the honourable member for Perth is well versed in these issues for, like me, he is a member of our committee looking into this whole issue. He has some great theories on what is necessary in this country for the advancement of sport and I believe he shares my view that the legislation creating this new statutory authority will go some way towards looking at the whole area of sport and the promotion of it in Australia, particularly for elite sports men and women. Mr Lindsay —Particularly regional centres. Mr MARTIN —I point out also, as I was prompted by my colleague the honourable member for Herbert, that we should consider the whole issue of decentralisation and regionalisation of sport from the Institute to different parts of Australia. In discussions I had today with those elite coaches at the Institute they indicated that to achieve excellence it was necessary to have professional and expert coaches located in State sports institutes in the major capitals around Australia. Equally, it was important to have regional sports centres for excellence established. In that respect I would have to say that the assistance of the Australian Institute of Sport in establishing the Illawarra Academy of Sport has been invaluable. Three years ago seeding money was given to the Illawarra Academy of Sport. At that time there were no talented young athletes being coached by experts. Now participants in five sports lead by example in the Illawarra Academy in Wollongong. It is tapping into the expertise that exists within the coaching areas and within the University of Wollongong. It adds to that the sports facilities that already exist in the area and then promotes, through concerted effort and programs, facilities and programs for young athletes from eight to 12 years and up to 16 years and helps to develop their latent talents. The Bills before the House which establish the revamped amalgamation between the Sports Commission and the Australian Institute of Sport will further assist in the regionalisation process and the decentralisation to State sporting organisations. I also have to say that the concerns that have been expressed about the levels of funding for sport generally in this country have been recognised. The matter of $34m being expended on sport in this country has been bandied about, and that sum in the last Budget represents a 4 per cent increase on the previous year's expenditure on sport. People have been critical, saying that if one compares it with expenditure on sport in other countries, it represents only $2 per head of population being spent on Australian athletes. But if one analyses it a little further one sees that over 50 per cent of the money allocated for sport in this country is spent on elite men and women in sporting arenas. Clearly, that is most significant because it compares with about 7.4 per cent in the United States and about 10 per cent in most European countries. Those people who suggest that it is not appropriate to put money into elite sports programs such as are operated at the Australian Institute of Sport do not know the facts. They do not know the dollar facts and they certainly do not know the repercussions that come from promoting a healthier lifestyle through the identification of the elite sports men and women who win medals, who are national champions and who become international champions. By promoting in the minds of young people the desire to strive for excellence in sports of various types, by promoting that hunger-that drive in the belly, if you like-to succeed, we will promote a healthier lifestyle which will save this country and any government that is in power considerable sums of money in health expenditures. Through participation in sport, whether it be in elite sports, recreation sports or whatever, we will see a much healthier lifestyle. One has only to look at examples here in the new Parliament House, with the new sports facilities. We need a traffic policeman directing members up and down the lanes in the swimming pool each morning because there are so many people using it! Members of Parliament recognise the need to be fit, to improve their efficiency and reaction times. The legislation is a milestone. It is extremely important. It is worthy of the support of every member of this place. It goes right to the heart of the issue of how elite sport and sport generally should be administered in this country. It will prove to be the stepping stone for bigger and better things. I look forward to its operation and to the outcome of the inquiries by both my Committee in this House and the drugs in sports inquiry in the Senate. Through this legislation and the drive and determination of this Government to provide appropriate levels of funding for sport we will see a much healthier lifestyle developed by all Australian citizens. That can only be for the common good. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(11.18) —The Opposition welcomes this opportunity to debate the Australian Sports Commission Bill. It is the first chance we have had, at least in the life of this Parliament, to consider a broad range of issues that relate to sport. I and other members of the Opposition who will be contributing to the debate are very interested and keen to see the proper growth and development of sport in this country. An obvious lack of interest in sport has been displayed by this Government in recent times. This is very sad and frustrating to the six million active sports men and women, plus their millions of supporters, right throughout Australia. There is no question that since the sports portfolio was handed to the present Minister, the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson), there has been a distinct lack of interest, reflected in the recent Budget, which saw an 8.3 per cent cut in sport funding. The present Minister seems more interested in matters other than sport. Thus sport has dipped out badly. It is not just the cuts in funding which show the lack of interest by this Government in sport. One has only to consider the fact that this Bill is now 14 months late in being presented to the House from the time it was originally announced. It is late because it was given a low priority and because this Government has become so arrogant that it thinks it can govern by press release and not by the proper processes of Parliament. In September 1987 the then Minister for Sport, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), announced that the Australian Sports Commission and the Australian Institute of Sport would be amalgamated in an attempt to cut down on duplication and, therefore, reduce the cost of administering sport as well as to better organise sport to achieve better results. The Liberal and National parties do not oppose this Bill. Indeed, we proposed certain aspects of it in principle before the last election, in our 1987 sports policy. It is impossible to leave this point without referring to the misrepresentation that was propagated by the then Minister, who told the sports community that the end of the sports world would come if we were elected to government. I quote from what the Minister said about our policy on 4 June 1987 during the election campaign: The Liberal policy on sport . . . is a prescription for the complete abrogation of the Commonwealth Government's role in the area of sport. Additionally, the former Minister would tell the sports community such things as: Sportsmen and sportswomen should be aware that funding for sports would dry up under a Liberal government. That is complete and utter nonsense. The Liberal and National parties in government have a funding track record that is second to none, and we are very proud of it. If members opposite want to question that, I point out that from 1978-79 to 1982-83 when we were in government-and I take that period as an example-funding for sport increased from $6m to $25m, which is a 300 per cent increase in those four years. Mr Tim Fischer —And we established the AIS. Mr SHARP —As the honourable member for Farrer points out, we established the Australian Institute of Sport, which is the principal vehicle for the development of elite sport in this country today. Let us use a similar period to look at sport funding under the present Government. I note that under the Labor Government sports funding has increased from $37m, I think it was, in 1984-85 to $40m this year. That is an increase of about 10 per cent over that period. In all but two of those years we have seen an actual reduction in sports funding from this Government. These figures give a very good indication of the comparison between the level of support in funding terms from when we were in government up until now under this Labor Government. Any claims by the Australian Labor Party (ALP) that it is the party that supports sport should be seen in the light of these examples. While still talking about funding and claims made by the ALP designed to mislead the sporting community, I refer to the former Minister's promises on behalf of this Government. We will maintain the level of funding provided in 1986-87 for sport in real terms in the next Budget to ensure stability and security for sports development. Let us look at the facts. According to page 375 of Budget Paper No. 1 in the year 1986-87-the year that the Minister promised to keep as the benchmark for maintaining funding in real terms-sports funding was $46m. In the following year, 1987-88, funding was $43m, a cut of $3m when, in order for the Minister just to keep his promise, it should have been an increase of $3m. In real terms it is a cut of $6m or about 15 per cent, and that is a long way short of maintaining funding in real terms as was promised. I draw these matters to the attention of the House in order to highlight the way in which the sports community has been misled by this Government and the way that it misled the community over the proper intentions for our sports policy. The fact is that the coalition has every right to be proud of its record in sport and we certainly intend to continue it into the future, and so we should. Sport is terribly important to Australians. One has only to pick up a newspaper, tune into a radio or watch television and one will soon realise just how large a part of our Australian way of life is taken up by sport. In fact, to be perfectly frank there is probably more space set aside in the media to cover sport than there is to cover Federal politics. I think it also goes without saying that there probably is a greater appreciation and understanding of sport than there is of politics. Indeed, looking through the recently released list of the 200 Australians who can be considered great sports people stand out as comprising the second largest group after those classified as coming from the corridors of power. Of the 200 greatest contributors to this nation, 14 were great Australian sports people, and that is indicative of the tremendous importance sport plays in the Australian way of life. Sport can bring us international prestige and standing as well as a tremendous sense of price and national spirit. One cannot overestimate the significance sports heroes in our society. Young and old alike look up to the examples set by people such as Bradman, Elliott and Cuthbert with great adoration. National heroes are vital to a society, and sport provides plenty of them. In addition, sport contributes to the level of general fitness and health of the community, saving the nation substantially in terms of our collective health bill. Sport is also good for improving social aspects of our society. It is far better to have people venting their energy and frustrations on the sports field in a controlled and civilised manner than to have them tearing up and down the main street of any town, city or suburb frightening citizens and risking their own lives. Now, speaking from an economic viewpoint, sport is big business for Australia. It employs thousands of people in its various forms, turns over hundreds of millions of dollars and contributes substantially towards Government revenue through sales tax and income tax from those employed. So, from the economic, social, health, fitness and pride viewpoints, sport is immensely important to us all. Let me at this point say well done to our Australian Olympic team in Seoul. The performance of team members was very good. We won a credible number of medals, particularly when compared with the Los Angeles games where the Eastern bloc countries were not competing. Of course, there were disappointments but to counter those there were surprises too. Congratulations to Duncan Armstrong, Debbie Flintoff-King, the women's hockey side and indeed to all our medal winners. I also say well done to John Coates, the General Manager of the Olympic team, on handling a sometimes difficult task. The last Olympic performance is a great base to work from for the next games in Barcelona. While speaking of future Olympics, it goes without saying that the Coalition sends its congratulations to Melbourne on being the official bid city for Australia for the 1996 games. Some would say that Athens has the 1996 games sewn up as it will be the centenary of the modern Olympics begun in Athens. I note that the Australian Democrats have already backed Athens against the Australian bid. How any Australian political party, allegedly existing to represent Australia's best interests, can support another country against our own is beyond me and should be beyond every member of this House. They really are an unusual lot. If the International Olympic Committee felt it was a forgone conclusion that Athens should get the 1996 games it would not have called for bids at all. The truth of it is that Athens cannot give guarantees regarding security. Athens airport, for example, is notorious for security problems and additionally the Greek economy is not so strong that Athens can guarantee its ability to properly fund the games. On top of that, the Northern Hemisphere, particularly Europe, has hogged the games for more than 30 years and by 1996, 40 years. So where Athens is weak on security and funding, Australia is strong, and of course we are a natural choice if the games are to be held in the southern hemisphere. Those, like the Democrats, who wish to pour a bucket of cold water over our games bid, should weigh up the logic of having the 1996 games in Australia. If we are successful, as I suspect we will be, it will be a tremendous boost for Australia to hold the most prestigious event in the world and it will be a real feather in our cap. In addition, it will bring huge economic and social benefits to Australia, benefits which will have a long lasting effect. Naturally, the Liberal and National parties will, in government, bend over backwards to help Melbourne and the Australian bid. One of the overpowering issues that dominated this last Olympic Games was the controversy surrounding drugs in sport. This was brought about by the spectacular stripping of all honours from Canada's Ben Johnson, the 100-metre sprint winner, plus of course many others, one of whom was an Australian. Let me place on the record that the Opposition totally and utterly condemns the use of drugs in sport. Their use is nothing more than just plain cheating and totally against the whole ethos of sport. Sport is about fair competition. This can only be achieved when two or more athletes are competing against each other on the basis of their own natural skills. Any condoning of the use of drugs brings sport down to a competition between drug companies with human beings the vehicle for the competition. In fact, in many ways Ben Johnson's example may well do a lot of good to sport overall because it will show every budding young sports man and woman that no matter how good or high up they are or where they are competing, if they cheat they will get caught one day and become a national disgrace like Ben Johnson. This Bill is all about the Federal Government's role in sport. To date, the Australian Sports Commission and the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) have been the chief arms of the Federal Government so far as sports goes. The Australian Institute of Sport was of course established by the former Liberal-National Party Government and is the elite end of the sports world. We are very proud of the facility that we created. The Institute has of course attracted its critics, some justified, some not. However, at the moment I believe all Australians can be happy with the administration of the Institute. Ron Harvey and his team have restored credibility into the management side of the Institute following the serious problems of a couple of years ago. Although no-one can say that the Institute is running perfectly in all of its facets, and I suppose no institution does-the AIS is no exception-it does have its problems. Those problems were highlighted in a rather flamboyant manner by champion swimming coach Laurie Lawrence and are indicative of an area that needs good analysis and overhaul. Perhaps the greatest problem of the AIS is that it is in Canberra, while the athletes, coaches and their families and jobs are elsewhere. Our policy, which was launched in Sydney just the other day, tackles this problem by further decentralising the Institute; in other words, we will be taking the Australian Institute of Sport to the people rather than the people to the Institute. Overall, the Institute and its concept are much needed if Australia is to keep pace with the rest of the sporting world. I know that the Institute has the capacity to identify its shortcomings and to set about overcoming them. In government we will ask the Australian Institute of Sport to set targets for itself, so that its performances can be accurately measured. I noticed in recent days that the present Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) has said that he wants to have a review of the Australian Institute of Sport. He was quoted as follows in an article in the Daily Mirror of 24 June: We have got to have a review of the AIS, to see how well it has performed and to make sure we are happy with all of its priorities. Depending on the review, it is possible we may divert some of its resources towards healthier lifestyles. To me that indicates that the Minister for Sport has an agenda, which he has not spoken of except in that press interview, somewhere down the track, after having a review of the Institute, to change its role and function. I hope that that is not the case, because I think at present the role and function of the Institute is the most appropriate one for Australia. There is no doubt that fundamental to the Australian Institute of Sport reaching its full potential is the whole issue of funding. Whilst we all agree that, basically, sport is a competition between humans competing on a natural basis, money does make a huge difference. Sport is right at the sharp end of technology, and technology comes at an expensive price. Sport is about professional management, and that does not come cheaply, either. Sport is also about time and dedication-massive amounts of it, and that costs plenty. I find nothing more disturbing than to hear that some of our sports stars exist on the dole. For many that is their only means of existence, for to compete at international levels requires a 100 per cent commitment of time and determination, leaving little time for normal employment. So, for these many reasons government and the private sector must take a part. As other speakers on this Bill have mentioned, a comparison of sport funding in Australia with that in other countries is not very good. According to the documents that I have, Australia spends about $2 per head on sport. Switzerland spends $13.84; Czechoslovakia, $23.75; and the United States of America, $7.43. Whilst we do not want to be in an international competition of trying to spend more per head on sport, this comparison is a very useful tool to highlight the deficiencies in sport funding in Australia. As I said earlier, the Government, with the new Minister, seems to want to take a smaller part each Budget time-and yet it gives no incentive to the private sector to take up the slack and invest in sports sponsorships. At this point I can almost hear Senator Richardson saying, `But we haven't cut sport funding at all; in fact, we've increased it'. However, Senator Richardson cannot hide from the truth-even if he is a member of the New South Wales right wing. The Budget papers tell the story-sport funding has been cut by 8.3 per cent. There it is on page 202 of the most recent Budget Papers. Indeed, those in the industry itself know that to be the truth. I was fascinated to see Senator Richardson, in an interview with Mike Gibson on the Today show, contradict himself in the space of just a few moments. Let me demonstrate this by quoting what the Minister said in that interview. Senator Richardson said, `The sport budget went up . . .', while only a few minutes later he said: We've had four years, or three years, anyway, of Budget cuts, and when you've got to cut things that affect ordinary people's lives then you can't isolate sport. But I think that period is over; maybe next year will get better. That was an admission by Senator Richardson that sport funding has been cut by this Government-indeed it has been cut by 8.3 per cent. The Liberal Party's new policy, which we launched the other day, does two things: Firstly, it states that we will not step back from the present level of funding and, secondly, and more importantly, it states that we will hold an inquiry into the funding of sport to find out just how much money is going into it, from whom it comes, for what purposes it is given, and what results it achieves. I note that since we launched our policy and announced that that is our intention, the Government has now picked up that facet of our policy, and the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) is chairing a committee looking into that. That is an initiative of our two political parties that the Government has picked up. One of the great problems is that this Government is giving no incentive or encouragement to the private sector to provide sponsorship in the sporting community. One of the positive gains from this inquiry will be recommendations as to how we can give the private sector some sort of encouragement and incentive to invest in sport. We look at it this way: perhaps the inquiry might recommend that we establish some sort of tax incentive scheme. That could be one way in which governments, particularly our Government, could look to the private sector in the future to pick up more and more responsibility for funding sport in our community. Kevan Gosper, the President of the Australian Olympic Federation, said in a speech to the National Press Club on 26 August this year: The growth in importance of corporate sponsorship deserves further comment . . . any major sporting event you care to name-there is today a corporate input that is invariably the key to its successful staging. It underwrites the competitors, the organisation, the advertising, the equipping, the media coverage and most important of all-sport. Apart from promoting the role of the corporate sector, our policy is described as a `sport for all' approach. It is designed to encourage as many Australians as possible to participate in some form of sport. We intend to achieve that by ensuring that our approach is designed to take coaching to the kids, to provide coaches at the base of sport. In order properly to develop sport in this country, we must do two things: firstly, we must develop the base of sport so that more people are involved; and, secondly, we must develop the elite end of the Australian sporting community through the Institute of Sport itself. They are just some of the things that the Opposition, as stated in its latest policy that was released in Sydney the other day, intends to implement in government. Let me come back to the Bill. The Opposition supports this legislation because we believe that it fits very neatly into the policy proposals espoused during our last election campaign. We support it because we believe that it will lead to a further improvement in the development of sport in this country. We also believe that the opportunity to debate this issue tonight gives us the chance to explain to the House some of the very positive proposals in our new sports policy, a sports policy which is encapsulated under the title `sport for all' and which is designed to get as many Australians as possible involved in sport. That will make Australia a fitter, healthier and more pleasant place in which to live and, at the end of the day, a greater country. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(11.37) —It is a sad commentary on the Opposition's policy on sport that the shadow Minister for tourism and sport, the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), was not able to be present to respond earlier in the second reading debate. One of our concerns and something that has been made very clear to me is that for the 43 years between the enactment of the National Fitness Act in 1941 and 1984, when the former Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), who is sitting next to me at present, introduced legislation to this House, there was no debate in the Federal Parliament on sports legislation. During that time there were principally coalition governments in this country. When we hear about the Opposition's great and grand plan for sport, clearly we are disturbed and worried. The shadow Minister referred to the injection of money into sport, but he made very clear that, while the Opposition has a grand vision, the first thing it would do in government would be not to increase funding to sport but to maintain the present level of funding. It would then, wonder of wonders, establish an inquiry into sports funding, perhaps thereby delaying Government action for a couple of years. The Government has already started an inquiry which has occurred after four or five years of innovation and change in sports policy in this country. I will refer to a number of ways in which the Sports Aid Foundation, which was introduced by this Government, is seen by sports people. As a result of innovation in sport in this country, tax deductability is provided for donations to sport. It is something that was new and envisaged by the former Minister. We have an Aussie Sports program, which is providing a sports program for primary school children all over this country and which is very important. We have the promotion of women's sport and we have had veterans' sport discussion papers. We have had increased funding for disabled sports people. Mr John Brown —An increase? Dr CHARLESWORTH —Significant increases. We have the sports talent encouragement plan, which was introduced by this Government. We have the Australian Sports Commission and all of the research and investigation that is going on within that body and we have had a significant expansion of the Australian Institute of Sport. There have been so many changes and the area of sport has been a vibrant and growing area of policy making by this Government. For the Opposition to stand here and suggest that it has credentials to speak in the same vein as the Government in this area is for it to cry crocodile tears. We hear the shadow spokesman talking about funding. He says that between 1978 and 1982 the then Government increased funding from $6m to $25m. But he neglected to point out that of the $25m, $13m spent in 1982-83 was to provide the Australian Broadcasting Corporation with equipment to televise the Commonwealth Games-hardly a contribution directly to sport and hardly a significant injection into the budget. In 1980 the Fraser Government stood over sportsmen around this country demanding that they should not participate in the Olympic Games. To the eternal credit of the Australian Olympic Federation, it decided to throw off the Government's shackles and to make the correct decision in 1980. But what did we find in federal assistance for the Olympic team in that year? It was $300,000, a paltry sum. Yet in 1984 the contribution of the Federal Government to the the Olympic team was $1.4m, and this year it was $2m. Clearly the Opposition does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to the funding of sport in this country and its credentials to talk about sport. The objects of the Australian Sports Commission Bill are substantial. Perhaps they reek of motherhood proposals. The Bill talks about providing leadership in the development of sport; encouraging increased participation and improving the performance of Australians in sport; providing resources, services and facilities and enabling Australians to pursue and achieve excellence in sport; improving sports ability through improving the standard of sports coaches-something that we were able to discuss today at the Institute of Sport; fostering cooperation in access to services, resources and facilities in sport and encouraging the private sector to contribute to sports funding. They are very laudable aims and they are important. I would agree with the honourable member opposite, the honourable member for Gilmore, that there is a need for increased funding in sport. It is an argument we have time and time again. I suppose in a time of Budget stringency it is important for all areas of our economy to suffer funding cuts as a result. But it is time for sport to receive an increase in funding and it is certainly important for us to understand why that is necessary. Sport is a quality of life issue and it touches our lives in so many important ways. I wish to refer to a recent technical paper on the economic impact of sport and recreation and how it affects regular physical activity and the health of our nation. Over the last 15 years health costs in Australia have trebled, yet our expenditure on preventative health programs has declined to a measly one per cent. Sport and regular physical activity is something that can significantly change the incidence of coronary heart disease, back pain, high blood pressure and many other diseases in our community. The study estimated that in 1985 the total cost of coronary heart disease was over $2 billion and of low back pain was nearly $1 billion. It further estimated that the net benefit of each additional 10 per cent of the population becoming involved in regular physical activity would be nearly $600m. We are talking about significant savings in the long term from an increase in activity in the sporting area. If we look at Australia's image overseas, it is clear that for years sportsmen in this country have been important purveyors of Australia's image. When we talk about the bid for the Olympics in 1996, clearly the benefits for Australia could be very substantial, not only in promoting Australia overseas but also in significantly increasing the economic impact of the rebirth of a sport culture in this country. It is clear that in industry a fitter and healthier community and an increase in activity within the workplace can increase productivity. Another technical paper, produced by the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, contains an incredible statistic on the effect on our economy. Sport and recreation accounts for between 19.2 and 22.6 per cent of total private consumption and between 8.6 and 10.1 per cent of gross domestic product. We are talking about a significant industry in Australia-something that promotes tourism, which is clearly very important to our economy at present and has a significant effect on our balance of payments; an industry that employs massive numbers of people. In many practical ways, sport has a significant part to play in our economy. If one goes further and looks at sport in an ethereal way, if I can use that word, one finds that many things divide us in this world. We are divided by language and race, by economic considerations, by politics, by geography and by religion. Yet people from disparate backgrounds from all over the world can be brought together by one simple thing. One has only to watch an Olympic event and see the grace of an Olympic gymnast, to watch the endurance of a Kenyan distance runner or to appreciate the speed and power of an American sprinter to understand that it is possible for people from disparate backgrounds and with different views to be brought together. Their successes and failures can be felt in a human way. Sport is a very important part of our culture. The Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), mentioned that six million Australians are involved actively in sport every day, and I suggest one or two members of every family in this country on ever weekend are involved in some way in sporting activities. I wholeheartedly endorse the promotion of sport and in particular elite sport, and the outlining of expenditure in this area. Elite sport is the shop window of sport and provides the heroes and heroines for our young people. Our performance in elite sport has improved. In the 1988 Olympics, in which 161 countries competed, we had 56 finalists and we were successful in winning medals in seven sports. That is a greater depth and a greater distribution of success than we have ever had before, even in our halcyon days. We also had outstanding results in sports such as basketball, soccer and gymnastics and we are improving across the board in our sports performance. It is important for us to consider how to maintain and improve that performance. The Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, which is looking into the funding of sport, has discussed a most important area that is lacking in this country-sport in primary schools. We have developed the Australian Sports Commission's Aussie Sports program. This idea came from the former Minister and is something on which he should be congratulated, but we have still the problem of having closed the swimming pool gate after the child has drowned. Every high school in the country has two, three or four physical education teachers but the majority of primary schools do not have such teachers. The school which my children attend has a drama specialist, a language specialist, a music specialist and an arts specialist but no physical education specialist. We are not talking about sophisticated skills but merely about teaching kids to run and swim, to catch and throw and to jump and land and some basic gymnastic skills. From there we can perhaps develop over a period of time an interest in sports culture that is reasonable in our community. Statistics in Europe and in a number of studies show that, over time, those who are involved in sporting activities improve in their scholastic performances. Sport is not detrimental to scholastic performance. One does not have to be a philistine to be involved in sport. Clearly the offshoot of such a program and such an initiative-which of course is not just in the realm of the Federal Government; State governments have to act-is something that can wash through our system. Therefore, in the long term we will have an increase in our sporting ethos. We can have the expenditure of money that we have on the arts and we can have the expenditure that we have in other areas, but the benefits of spending money on sport, of diverting our resources to this area, can be very substantial. The old cultural cringe still exists. There was an article in the Australian on Tuesday, 18 October written by Donald Horne, Chairman of the Australia Council and clearly a person with an interest in this subject. The Australia Council commissioned a study which found that more people attend the theatre than football. I understand the viewpoint that the Australia Council is trying to put. However, it is nonsense because there are hundreds of sports that people are attending and hundreds of sports that people are playing. I am sure that there are people who go to art galleries, the theatre and do other such activities. Those activities are important and deserve substantial funding. However, I am saying that the discrepancy between sport and those other activities has to be addressed. If we look at the report entitled Public Attitudes to the Arts: 1987-Mr Horne's own survey-we find that one of the questions asked was: Which of any of the things listed would you say you are fairly well-informed about? Some 21 per cent responded that they were well-informed about the arts and some 60 per cent said that they were well-informed about sports-three times the interest. This is shown in a survey conducted by the Australia Council, an organisation which is trying to promote the arts and which is suggesting that the arts are important. I am not saying that they are not important; of course they are. I am not saying that the arts are funded too much or that they do not need more funding. I am saying that the discrepancy between sport and the arts has to be re-addressed. I say to the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Holding) that I think it is time we made the next shift up. I can see the shadow Minister smiling. However, the Opposition never did this itself when it was in government. It never went anywhere near what the Government has done. It never changed anything in sport. It is only this Government that has ever done anything. I think we need to look at things such as coaching and athlete support. We do not need to throw money at athletes. We need to provide them with the opportunity to succeed. If they succeed we should reward them. Even if they fail we should reward them by providing them with the opportunity to go on with something else in their lives; perhaps an opportunity for education or a career path of some sort. We have to think in that way. Many of those athletes who have the chance will fail. Mr John Brown —They could become MPs. Dr CHARLESWORTH —Yes, they could become members of Parliament. I think it is important that we consider those things. The Government has brought in tax deductibility for sport. That is very important. Maybe we have to consider going further. Certainly there has been pressure applied in the area of support for films that suggests that we can go further. However, this Government has started the process. It has been innovative, it has made significant changes, and it has the ideology and the will to continue. I am pleased to hear that the Opposition wants to support us. I am pleased to hear that the Opposition is happy to go along with many of the things we have done. I am pleased that the Opposition is supporting this legislation, because we have introduced four such pieces of legislation since we have been in government and this is the first piece of legislation the Opposition has felt able to support. Clearly this is something that sport sees as important. I think it is time that we considered sport in a more positive role. Certainly we are concerned about all those issues that go to income support but let us talk about some of those issues that go to the quality of our lives and the standard of living of ordinary Australians. Let us give an opportunity to our elite sportsmen to produce excellence. Let us maximise our potential. Let us plan for the long term. Let us do some things that will broaden the base. We have made some progress and we are starting to do better, but we have to go a lot further. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(11.54) —I find I agree completely with much of what the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) said. One of the things that I think we need to understand in relation to the participation in sport of the majority of the population relates to the teaching of young children. The honourable member for Perth instanced the school that his children went to where they had teachers in various disciplines but no physical education teacher. I think that is one of the changes that has come about in the modern world in a developed country such as Australia. The natural opportunities that children had in the past for developing their sporting prowess, wherever it may lie, simply are not available to many of them these days. Children used to have to ride a bicycle to school, walk or whatever. There was much more opportunity for them to play in open surroundings than is presently the case. Now that situation has been changed in a very marked way. With television, more sedentary occupations or attractions, children today need to be encouraged in a way that was the case in the past. I would agree with the honourable member for Perth that we need to look at providing not only the opportunities but also the skilled trainers for children from a very early age. When we look at the ramifications of the discussion on sport we see that tonight the debate has ranged very widely. What has been said by honourable members on both sides of the House really boils down to the fact that, no matter on which side of the political fence we sit, we should be encouraging as many people as possible throughout Australia to take part in some sporting activity. In fact, a great number of people do this. There has been some public resistance to the thought of publicly funding sporting activities because people suggest that it is something people do in their recreation time. Therefore, it should not be paid for out of taxpayers' dollars; they should be finding this themselves. Of course, this is not possible, particularly in the elite sports. There are many areas of sporting activity which require a great deal of personal sacrifice by those taking part in sporting activities. By their taking part in those sporting activities they contribute an enormous amount to the general welfare of the public. I think particularly in this instance of surf lifesaving, which is really characteristic of all that is best in the Australian character, which has earned Australia an enormous reputation overseas. In my electorate of Warringah we have several of the world's top practitioners of the lifesaving art. I think of the enormous number of young men and young women, and not so young men and women, who voluntarily give up their time virtually every day of the week and particularly on the weekends right around Australia. The contributions that they make not only in the time that they give but also in the money that they spend of their own in a voluntary service provide significant benefits to the community as a whole. I think it would be a very ungrateful person indeed who would suggest that public money should not be used in some way to augment or help defray the costs that face people in movements such as the lifesaving movement around Australia. The honourable member for Perth and the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) have mentioned aspects of community health which are assisted by a greater public participation in sporting activities right across the board. Of course, that is the case. In the very successful Life. Be In It campaign we all know of Norm sitting in front of the television set with his tinnies by his side vicariously participating in the exploits of sporting heroes. But what we want to do, and what Life. Be In It is all about is to encourage people to take part in some physical activity to assist them in developing their own health status. I think this is terribly important, again in a world which is seeking, it seems in every way, to diminish physical activity on the part of individuals. We travel everywhere by car; we have escalators to carry us; we do not climb steps; we use lifts. We sit in front of television sets a great deal of the time. All those aspects of modern life are detrimental to the health status of the individual. What we are about is encouraging people across the age groups to participate regularly in some physical activity generally labelled `sport'. I think it is a tremendous thing to encourage and it deserves public support from taxpayers' funds. Having said that, of course, what we must be very careful about is that those taxpayers' funds are spent most efficiently. One other thing I would like to draw attention to in this wide-ranging debate is that I believe we do not yet have a sufficiently flexible and effective system of picking out those with special talents within our community at an early enough age to encourage them to maximise their sporting potential. People have said in this debate that the elite within the sporting community are most important for all sorts of purposes, and I would agree with that. There is no doubt that sporting heroes and heroines really do bring great credit not only upon themselves but also upon their nation. There is no doubt that sporting contests between nations and within nations assume-quite properly, in my view-a most significant role. When the exploits of Australians are such as to be successful in the international arena, great credit comes to the nation. I recall that in my early years Australia used to be seen as a breeding ground of champions. We were very conscious of the capacity of Australian sports men and women to succeed against the rest of the world, in many cases against enormous odds. We were very proud of the fact that we, with a small population, could dominate the world sports scene as we did. That is not likely ever to be the case again; many other nations are devoting a great deal more of their resources to developing their own champions. Nevertheless I think that Australia should-to a certain extent it already does-do more to encourage and assist those gifted athletes within our community to continue in their areas of sporting expertise and to maximise their talents, which would not only assist them but would bring great credit to Australia as a whole. The range of sports now available to people is mind boggling. That is a good thing because the greater the range the greater the opportunity one has to encourage more and more people to take part in sporting activities. That is another aspect of general support for sport to which I would like to see more attention paid in the future. The legislation before us this evening relates to the Australian Sports Commission. I join my colleague the honourable member for Gilmore in supporting the passage of the Australian Sports Commission Bill through the Parliament. The purpose of the Bill is essentially to merge the existing Australian Sports Commission (ASC) with the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) in order to streamline and improve sports administration. Having said what I have about the need for attention to be paid to the whole range of sporting activities, I would like to underline my concern that the attention that is paid should be done in a proper and efficient manner. This legislation seeks, as I have said, to streamline and improve sports administration. I would have thought that the restructuring would have provided significant financial as well as administrative improvements, but it is one of the Government's weaknesses in the preparation of this Bill that, despite the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) admitting in his second reading speech that a primary objective of the streamlining is to control spending levels on sport, he has been unable to provide an estimate of the savings that should result from such a major reorganisation. All that the Minister offered was a comment that savings can be expected in a number of areas, that a reduction of five staff years has already been achieved and that non-staff savings are expected to be in the order of $250,000 per annum. This uncertain financial situation is all the more puzzling when we are told elsewhere that the merger of the ASC and the AIS provided for in the Bill has been in place since September 1987, or soon after the announcement by the previous Minister for sport that it was his intention to create a single national sporting body. I am glad to say that departmental officers attending the deliberations of Senate Estimates Committee D on 11 October this year were much more helpful than the Minister on likely savings. They revealed that the full year savings were estimated to be $460,000 with the likelihood of additional savings from the number of retentions being increased from the present five to eight. I find it very disappointing that the Minister could not have adopted such an informative and cooperative attitude as was provided by his departmental officers to the Senate Estimates Committee. With an estimated outlay in 1988-89 on sports assistance of $27.1m, I do not think that it is unreasonable to suggest that the somewhat modest potential saving of $600,000 to $700,000 could not in itself justify such a major upheaval in sports administration, but the real reason is not difficult to identify. To put it plainly, the creation of the Australian Sports Commission in 1985 and the role given it by this Government simply have not been successful. The Minister's second reading speech attempts to slide over this fact by referring to the merger and rearranged responsibilities as a streamlining of sports administration. However, if we look closely at his speech we find tucked away in it the somewhat terse comment that `these rationalisations . . . will remove the overlap and uncertainty which previously existed in Government sports administration at the national level'. What an admission that was. Furthermore, at the hearing of Senate Estimates Committee D on 11 October this year the Minister's departmental officers offered the comment that, whereas the current Institute of Sport has a major management role, it will have none under the new arrangement. So in just a few words we come to the heart of the Government's dilemma. The Australian Sports Commission, which it created in 1985 with so much fanfare and exaggerated language about the role it would play in advancing sport in Australia, has actually befuddled sports administration by cutting across and duplicating much of the work being done by the Australian Institute of Sport. Just three years later and after needless frustrations for the many administrations and sports participants, the Government uses the very polite term `streamlining' to hide the embarrassment of having created an unworkable and ineffectual management structure. Streamlining really means that it is now doing what should have been done three years ago-putting sports management on a businesslike basis with one body responsible for policy and management and the AIS restructured into a highly specialised organisation responsible for the encouragement and development of sports people with high achievement potential. The past three years of unnecessary bureaucratisation of sports administration need not and should not have occurred. Hansard shows that many national sporting organisations, as well as the Opposition, expressed concern in 1985 that the Australian Sports Commission would be unwieldy in its proposed form, and they were right. But when I reflect on the lost opportunities for those sports men and women who have passed through our national organisation at this time of inefficiency and frustration, I feel a deep sense of regret for those athletes whose achievements may have been marred by an environment which those conditions almost certainly created. I also feel some annoyance that the Minister should attempt to use cheap political language to deflect criticism of these wasted years away from the Government and on to the coalition. In his second reading speech he claimed that, prior to Labor coming into office in 1983, sport in Australia had suffered from erratic government support. The honourable member for Perth utilised the same line in his speech. I guess it is the old Goebbels' technique: if one says something long enough and frequently enough people might believe it. The Minister and the honourable member for Perth conveniently ignore the innovative programs introduced by the coalition governments between 1975 and 1983 such as the sports development program in 1977, the national coaching accreditation scheme in 1979, and the opening of the Australian Institute of Sport in 1980. We had a program of assistance for disabled people, and a cooperative program with the States to construct a full range of international standard sports facilities. There is nothing erratic about those achievements. Let us compare those achievements with the record of the Labor Government. We saw the creation of the Australian Sports Commission in 1985 in circumstances which were clearly not in the best interests of sports management, and its demise three years later into a merged organisation with the AIS. The Minister would have us believe that that is not erratic administration. He calls it streamlining in the hope that that single word will hide what has been a seriously flawed decision by the Government that he represents. What of the erratic behaviour of this Government's funding over the past five years. Budget outlays on sport and recreation in constant terms rocketed up 63 per cent in its full first year of office. It has since declined in real dollar terms in every subsequent year to a point where almost all that initial increase has been eroded. In 1988-89 alone, spending on sport will decrease by 8.3 per cent. Ask any sports administrator what those erratic funding allocations have done for stability, planning and good management in sport. Combine that with the uncoordinated bureaucracy of the past three years and we have some idea why so many Australian sports men and women have not been able to achieve their full potential. All too often, the reason probably lies not with their personal efforts and dedication but with a system which is inappropriate to their needs, a system which was unstable and uncertain, and one which allowed many frustrations to flow down through the organisations and their staff to the athletes who have personal hopes and aspirations and in whom we seek to place our national pride. That has to stop. Hopefully, this legislation, which we support, will achieve a greater streamlining if you like, a more effective organisation and administration of sport generally. As all those participating in this debate have made abundantly clear, it is necessary that this be done from a personal point of view-personal in terms of every Australian no matter what his age-and from a national point of view because if the individual participates we have a greater community involvement. We have to consider the health effects which have been quite properly mentioned by a number of speakers in this debate. We have the potential for seeking out, encouraging and assisting those people with special athletic skills, and for bringing about the development of their full potential so that they and, as a result, Australia can benefit enormously from the exhibition of those skills. 22-23 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 22-23 November 1988 22-23 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 23 November 1988 Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(12.14 a.m.) —I pay tribute to the contribution from the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) who in a very erudite way demonstrated the necessity for this legislation. He demonstrated the very positive approach that this Government has taken to sports funding and administration. I am pleased to hear that the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) finally supports the legislation. In his speech he spoke about erratic, unstable and uncertain behaviour. If I had not been hearing his speech but hearing those words in isolation, I would have thought that he was speaking about his own Opposition front bench. In any event, after the homily, which went somewhere near 20 minutes, he finally decided to speak to the legislation and demonstrate that he and his side of the Parliament support the Australian Sports Commission Bill. I thank him for that. The gratuitous remarks he made about the way in which this Government has addressed the question of sports funding were most unwelcome. They were not based on fact. 22-23 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 22-23 November 1988 22-23 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES The importance of sport as a means of providing an avenue for personal development and self-esteem, confidence and health, has been acknowledged by all speakers in this debate. It also provides the capacity for the development of management skills, administrative skills and equitable opportunities for all sections of the community. This legislation addresses those particular issues. When I am talking about equitable opportunities for people in the community, I am referring also particularly to the opportunities provided to handicapped people, to people with disabilities and to women. I want to address my remarks to participation. Participation at the general community level will continue to be encouraged as a result of this legislation as part of this Government's commitment to the philosophy of sport for all. While talking about participation levels, I remind the House that the participation of my constituents in sporting activities is higher than the national average, and indeed one of the things that people note when they come to the Territory is the level of enthusiasm not only for participation in sport but also for supporting sporting activities in all sections of the community. That is highlighted by the importance of team sports to the population of the Territory. I refer particularly to the football codes: soccer, rugby league, Aussie Rules and rugby union-which happens to be my own fetish-netball, hockey, baseball, softball and all of those sporting activities which are commonly played by people in the Territory. They are not played only by those people who reside in the major urban centres, but are in fact played throughout the community. As a demonstration of this Government's commitment to participation in sport, the Government, through this legislation, will continue to encourage equity of access to sport for all Australians including, as I have said, disadvantaged groups. The Australian Sports Commission (ASC) Aussie Sports, for example, is aimed to encourage participation by children in a variety of modified sports in the last three years of primary school. The program was launched in April 1986 and has already been adopted in over 1,700 schools and has reached more than 500,000 children. The legislation provides for financial assistance for people with disabilities through its disabled sports program to encourage their participation in sporting activities. In addition to annual allocations to the national sporting organisations for the disabled, the ASC contributed $125,000 in cash and a further $25,000 in kind in support of the Australian team attending the 1988 Paralympics. 22-23 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 22-23 November 1988 22-23 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES The Women's Sports Promotion Unit was set up in 1987 to promote women in sport and to promote sport to women. The unit will continue to take a leading role in implementing the ASC's national policy and plan for women in sport which was developed to provide a direction and framework for action on issues facing women in sport in Australia. The unit is chaired by Margaret Pewtress, an ASC commissioner. I would like to pay particular attention now to the Aussie Sports program in the Northern Territory. Aussie Sports is actually promoted in the Territory to government and non-government schools by the Northern Territory Aussie Sports coordinator, Peter Markey, who was at one time a contemporary and colleague of mine in the Northern Territory Teaching Service. He has been seconded to the Northern Territory Department of Education. Mr Markey liaises closely with the sporting organisations both at Sports House in Darwin and in the community to promote the development of junior players. In the 2 1/2 years that Aussie Sports has been operating, some 50 of the Northern Territory's 140 primary schools have adopted the program. This represents 36 per cent of all Northern Territory primary schools. The flexibility and appropriateness of Aussie Sports is indicated by the wide variety of school types registered in the Northern Territory who are participating in that program. From the Alice Springs School of the Air, schools on cattle properties, Aboriginal community schools such as at Oenpelli, and special schools such as Hembury Avenue, to local schools in Darwin, approximately 4,000 children are involved in the program at school and many more at community sport. The Aussie Sports coaching program promotes coaching courses, level 0 courses, for teachers and coaches of primary school age children. Several of these courses have been held in Darwin this year. A major coaching accreditation weekend is planned for early 1989 in conjunction with the State coaching directors which will involve a number of sports at one venue. Teachers, junior coaches and other interested people will be able to attend. The Aussie Sports Expo program demonstrates appropriate sports coaching techniques to schools and sports communities throughout Australia. In the Northern Territory, 12 expos have been held during 1988, involving 5,000 children from about 100 schools and communities, as well as many people from the local communities. Expos were held at Darwin, Jabiru, Oenpelli, Katherine, Nhulunbuy, Groote Eylandt, where there were two, Utopia, Brunette Downs Pastoral Property, the Tiwi Islands and Kintore. 22-23 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 22-23 November 1988 22-23 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Since early 1988 community clubs have been able to register with Aussie Sports as Aussie Sports clubs. This entitles them to promote appropriate activities using `Aussie Sports' and to receive information on a regular basis. In the Northern Territory about 20 clubs have registered as Aussie Sports clubs. One which has a particularly needed program is the Darwin Toy Library, which provides an excellent after-school sport program for disabled children. These children are enrolled in the Aussie Sports awards scheme and are working towards their first 25-session certificate. Other programs running in the Northern Territory include after-school vacation programs and Aussie Sports clubs being developed with the family liaison officer from the Royal Australian Air Force base at Tindal. Another initiative is the development of promotional material by Aboriginal artists. Two posters, one from Top End Tiwi artists and one from around Alice Springs, will be used across Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia to promote Aussie Sports to Aboriginal communities. The Northern Territory is unique in the high proportion of rural and isolated schools which have joined Aussie Sports. Those schools, which have received encouragement from the Aussie Sports coordinator in the Territory, their staff and the Northern Territory Education Department, are to be commended. The program has been adapted to suit the varying needs of city schools and rural and isolated communities. Several teachers from Aboriginal community schools and isolated schools will assist Aussie Sports in the development and modification of resources for these groups. I realise that time is short this evening but I wish to refer briefly to the Paralympic Games and participation in those Games by a number of sportspersons from the Northern Territory. Australian participating organisations, which are almost exclusively amateur, will have to look at providing extra money for the kind of organisation that will be needed for future participation in the Paralympics. This Government, through its ASC program, contributed a great deal to our participation at the Seoul Paralympic Games. The Northern Territory had five representatives, including three athletes-Phillip Deveraux who is totally blind, Sam Rickard who is visually impaired and Mark Davies who is also visually impaired. The other two were Brendon Killalea, who is a runner escort for the totally blind, and Nigel Rouse, who was assistant manager of the Australian team. Outstanding performances from the Northern Territory athletes came from Sam Rickard, who finished fifth in the final of the 800 metres, improving his personal best time by five seconds, and Phillip Deveraux, who came fourth in the final of the 1,500 metres, improving his best time by 17 seconds. 22-23 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 22-23 November 1988 22-23 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES I think the way in which Aussie Sports has been applied in the Northern Territory is a demonstration to other State governments, and indeed to the Australian Capital Territory, of the way in which they should approach this activity. Previous speakers have commented on the importance of increasing participation in sport as a means of increasing awareness and development of skills. Inevitably this will mean diminishing costs to the health care system. I think it is important that we see sports programs of the type we have been discussing this evening as part of a community health program. They should not be seen as just pandering to the needs of athletes who have the capacity to represent Australia in the international arena. I conclude by commending the Government for the announcement of its assistance to community recreation and sporting facilities through the program that was announced on 24 August this year by the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson). The community application sporting facilities program will particularly assist those people who live in remote communities where sports facilities are especially required. I might point out that the Northern Territory has special needs in this area primarily because of its climate. Most people would be aware of the extremes of climate of the Northern Territory, ranging from the temperate areas around Alice Springs to the tropical north. The high temperatures and hot wind conditions represent a significant restraint in the available time for the use of sporting facilities. There is a growing and increased awareness of the need to provide sporting facilities that can be used after the sun goes down so that the people who would be most adversely affected by heat will have the respite of undertaking their sporting activities under lights without the intimidation of the sun. Medical opinion shows that pre-pubertal children and persons in the 35-plus age bracket particularly are placed at some risk in terms of heat stress. It is important that we use the community recreation sporting facilities programs to minimise the stress under which these sports persons are placed. I support the legislation. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. House adjourned at 12.26 a.m. (Wednesday) 22-23 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 22-23 November 1988 22-23 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES The following notice was given: Mr MacKellar to move- That this House: (1) notes that Australia is falling further behind the rest of the world in its support for research and development and has now returned to the same level of funding as 20 years ago; and (2) expresses its concern that unless the Government reverses its funding policies to science and particularly to the CSIRO, Australia's long-term economic strategies will be jeopardised. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 22 November 1988: Admiralty Act-Rules-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 269. Air Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 277. Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals for collection of information-1988- No. 63-Quarterly survey of sales of Tasmanian hardwood timber. No. 64-Topics to be included as supplements to the monthly labour force survey: How workers get their training, career paths of tradespersons and career paths of nurses. Christmas Island Act-Ordinance-1988-No. 5-Motor Traffic (Amendment). Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determination-1988-No. 4. Companies Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 265. Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 278. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 260, 270. 22-23 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 22-23 November 1988 22-23 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Defence Act-Determinations under Section 58b-1988- No. 59-Isolated Establishment Allowance. No. 60-Temporary Rental Allowance. No. 61-Salary of Permanent Force Members and other allowances. No. 62-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 63-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. Dried Fruits Levy Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 268. Federal Airports Corporation Act-Federal Airports Corporation-By-laws-1988-Federal Airports (Amendment) (in substitution for the paper presented on 7 November 1988). Fisheries Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos 271, 272. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under subsection 7 (1). Marriage Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 276. Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing 9 November 1988 as the date on which the amendments of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act 1933 made under the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1988 shall come into operation. Public Service Act- Determinations-1988-Nos 218, 225, 226, 227, 228, 230. Parliamentary Presiding Officers' Determination-1988-No. 3. Securities Industry Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 263, 264. Ships (Capital Grants) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 279. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos 273, 274, 275. Superannuation Benefit (Interim Arrangement) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos 266, 267. Telecommunications Act-Australian Telecommunications Commission By-laws- Telecommunications (General)-Amendment No. 52. Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)-Amendment No. 84. World Heritage Properties Conservation Act- Notice of consent pursuant to section 9, dated 9 November 1988.