Tuesday, 3 May 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers. The following honourable members made and subscribed the oath or affirmation of allegiance: Campbell, Graeme, Kalgoorlie, Western Australia Hurford, Christopher John, Adelaide, South Australia Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I move: That this House expresses its deep regret at the death on 28 January 1983 of the Right Honourable Francis Michael Forde, a member for the Division of Capricornia from 1922 to 1946, a Minister of the Crown and Prime Minister, and former High Commissioner to Canada, and that this House places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in its bereavement. We were all saddened to hear during the recess of the death of the Right Honourable Frank Forde, who was a former Prime Minister and member of this House and a distinguished public figure for many years. When we look back over Frank Forde's long political career, his very significant achievements are often overshadowed by memories of his short term as Prime Minister in July 1945 following the death of John Curtin. But his contribution to this nation encompasses a period of service over 40 years with not only this Parliament but also the Queensland Parliament and overseas as Australian High Commissioner to Canada. Frank Forde was born at Mitchell in Queensland on 18 July 1890. After completing his education at the Christian Brothers College in Toowoomba, he joined the then Postmaster-General's Department. It was at that time that he first joined the Australian Labor Party. In 1917, he was elected to the Queensland Legislative Assembly where he remained until 1922 when he decided to enter Federal politics. He was elected to this House as the Australian Labor Party member for Capricornia, a seat which he was to retain successfully until 1946. In 1925 he married Veronica, a partnership which was to provide much comfort and support until her death in 1967. It was during the time of the Scullin Government that Frank Forde first achieved ministerial rank, first as Assistant Minister for Trade and Customs, from October 1929 until February 1931, and later as Minister for Trade and Customs from February 1931 until January 1932. During this time he also served as Acting Minister for Transport. In 1932 he was elected as Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party, in which position he was to serve his party until 1946. When the Curtin Government came to office in 1941, it was only natural that Frank Forde should have been Deputy Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, we all owe a debt to that Government, which led us through the dark days of the Second World War, and Frank Forde, as the Minister for the Army, played a very large and significant part in that effort. After the sudden death of John Curtin in July 1945, Frank Forde briefly became Prime Minister. When Ben Chifley was elected as Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Frank Forde continued as his deputy and Minister for the Army. In 1945 he was a respected member of the Australian delegation to the conference which established the United Nations. Surprisingly, in 1946 he was defeated at the general election. Frank Forde's contributions and talents were not lost to the country when he lost his seat at the 1946 election. He was appointed to the position of High Commissioner to Canada, a post which he filled with considerable distinction until 1953. One would have imagined that after his return to this country he would have retired from political life. However, in 1955, at a time of great turbulence in the Australian Labor Party, Frank Forde re-entered politics when he was elected to the Queensland Parliament, after a 33 -year absence. He was beaten in the closely contested State election in 1957. Frank Forde gave long and valuable service to this country in a period extending from 1917 until 1957. On behalf of the Government and of the people of Australia, I extend my sympathy to his family in their bereavement. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —I support the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and on behalf of the Opposition I join with him in expressing condolences to the surviving members of the late Frank Forde's family . As the Prime Minister has said, Frank Forde served Australia with very great dedication throughout his long and distinguished career as a member of the Queensland and Federal parliaments. He served two years in the Queensland Parliament as the member for Rockhampton before winning the Federal seat of Capricornia in 1922-a seat which he held for the next 24 years. Although he is best remembered as Australia's shortest serving Prime Minister, he held a number of important portfolios, and with distinction, as the Prime Minister has said, being Minister for Trade and Customs and Acting Minister for Transport in the Scullin Government and Minister for the Army during the very difficult times of World War II. For 15 years Frank Forde served the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party as its deputy leader and was Deputy Prime Minister from 1941 to 1946. The Prime Minister has referred to the fact that he attended the San Francisco conference in 1945. It is my recollection that he was the leader of the Australian delegation to that conference, which was, of course, one of the most important conferences in world history, leading, as it did, to the establishment of the United Nations. When he lost his seat in 1946, he was appointed Australia's High Commissioner in Ottawa, where he served his country for nine years with customary distinction. He received honorary doctorates in laws from three Canadian universities and later from the University of Queensland, and, as the Prime Minister has said, he returned briefly to the Queensland Parliament in 1955. Shortly after my election to this House, Frank Forde sought me out and introduced himself to me. We had a number of conversations over the years following that meeting. I well understand and agree with those who speak of his integrity and his compassion. He is remembered by members on this side of the House with great respect and great affection. Dr EVERINGHAM(Capricornia) —I wish briefly to support the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in honouring the memory of Frank Forde and conveying condolences to his family. Not only did Frank Forde serve Capricornia, Rockhampton and Australia well but he also served the world very well. At the San Francisco United Nations Conference he and the late Bert Evatt led the campaign of the smaller nations to have a voice and equality of voting. In that they succeeded. One significant area in which they failed, again having led the arguments at the founding of the United Nations, was in preventing the power of the veto being given to certain members of the Security Council. Today, the atomic powers -none of which were atomic powers in those days; the bombs had not fallen on Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the United Nations Charter was drawn up-have drastically diminished the value of the work of Forde and Evatt because the Security Council is now hamstrung, by the veto, in fulfilling the prime function and purpose which these men strove so hard to establish. If there is a dispute between the atomic powers, the Security Council can take no action. It would be a fitting memorial and tribute to these gentlemen if this Parliament and Australia could lead the way in trying to achieve some means of establishing arbitration and consensus in place of the confrontation which dominates the world scene. There could be no more fitting memorial. Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —On behalf of the members of the National Party of Australia and myself I support the condolence motion of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham ). Mr Frank Forde was well known to me, as was his career. He departed from the political scene the year that I entered Parliament. He was defeated in the Queensland seat of Flinders in 1957. He and my father sat on opposite sides of this House for many years. He was a very distinguished Australian who was held in great respect. After his retirement from politics he often visited this Parliament and whenever I had occasion I would talk to him and recall earlier days in Canberra. The Forde and Anthony families were very close. In the mid- 1930s, leading up to the war, the families of members of parliament lived in the Kurrajong Hotel. There were three daughters in the Forde family and two boys and a girl in the Anthony family-- Mr Young —It is a pity the Anthonys did not have three girls. Mr ANTHONY —The Fordes had three very nice daughters; I can say that. We all mixed and lived together and enjoyed one another's company. At the Commonwealth Games last year I had the opportunity of meeting Mrs Mercia Ferrier, one of the daughters, whom I had not seen for 40 years. We recalled old times and it was then that she said her father's health was failing. I also had a link in that my electoral secretary of many years was also one of Frank Forde's personal staff during the war years. I recall Frank Forde as being a very courteous, polite man and always generous with his friendship. The Prime Minister has already talked about the details of Mr Forde's career, which was long and distinguished. He was held in high esteem by members of both sides of the Parliament. They might not always have agreed with his views but he was respected as a man of great integrity, great compassion and great loyalty especially to his party and above all to this country. That respect was shown by a Liberal Prime Minister, Mr Menzies, when he extended his term as the High Commissioner to Canada when there was a change of government in 1949. It was a respect also shared by many Australian servicemen and women who looked to Mr Forde with a great deal of respect and concern when he was Minister for the Army during the War years. Mr Forde narrowly missed out on becoming Leader of the Labor Party in 1932. Mr Barry Jones —1935. Mr ANTHONY —1932. Mr Barry Jones —No, 1935. Scullin stayed on in 1932. Mr ANTHONY —Sorry. I will not argue with the expert. Mr Forde missed out on becoming leader and it is an irony that he missed out by a margin of one vote, which was the same margin by which he lost the seat of Flinders in Queensland. But he became deputy to Mr Curtin and served him loyally until his death in 1945 . It was then that for a period of six days he was Prime Minister of this country. When Mr Chifley was elected Prime Minister, he was overwhelmingly voted in as the Deputy Prime Minister. He served in that position until Mr Chifley appointed him High Commissioner to Canada. It is a remarkable tribute to a man such as Mr Forde, who had so many political disappointments, that he never carried any bitterness. He came back regularly to this Parliament full of the excitement and the interest of it. So many politicians are embittered or disappointed people, but that never applied to Mr Frank Forde. He will also be remembered in his home State of Queensland with a great deal of warmth. In 1972 the University of Queensland honoured Mr Forde with an honorary doctorate of laws degree. In that same ceremony the same degree was conferred on another former Prime Minister, Sir Arthur Fadden. Neither served as Prime Minister for very long but they both gave great service. They will both be long remembered even though they might have been on opposite sides of the political spectrum. My sympathy goes out to the members of the Forde family. They had a great father and he will be long remembered. Mr CROSS(Brisbane) —I wish to add briefly to some of the things that have been said by those honourable members who have already spoken and with whom I totally agree. Mr Forde was a person of impeccable courtesy and kindness, particularly to young people interested in politics. I first met him after he returned from being the Australian High Commissioner to Canada. He lived at Torwood, the suburb adjoining the suburb in which I live, with his brother who was then a Hansard reporter; I am not quite sure but he may have been the chief Hansard reporter in Queensland. He used to travel on the Rainworth tram to the city to go about his labours. He was working as an organiser for the Australian Labor Party for a short period. He contested unsuccessfully the seat of Wide Bay and then, of course, nominated again in Flinders. He was quite unfortunate-I am not reflecting on his very deep interest in politics-in that, while he served in the Queensland Parliament and in this Parliament from 1922 to 1946, he retired in a period prior to the introduction of the parliamentary pension scheme. He was therefore obliged to campaign in Flinders at an age when most people have retired from politics. I cam- paigned with him. I was intrigued when out door knocking in the small towns of Flinders with Frank Forde. Although he insisted on being introduced as the Right Honourable Frank Forde, he was a very humble, courteous and kindly person, interested in everyone's problems. He was defeated in an election when Labor was voted out of office. Unfortunately, a number of ballot papers had not been initialled, as required by law, at the old people's home in Charters Towers. He was defeated and, at a subsequent by-election following that decision of the Court of Disputed Returns, he was unsuccessful. He then devoted the remaining part of his life mainly to his family to whom he was extremely devoted and to the Holy Spirit Hospital in which he died. He was very active in public affairs. In extending my condolences to members of his family, I pay a tribute to them for the way they looked after their father in the closing years of his life. It was a very close-knit family. The only other comment I make is the one that has been made before today, and that is that he is principally remembered as being our shortest serving Prime Minister. I feel we should have given greater recognition to the work he did as Minister for Customs in the Scullin Government when he set up that protection of Australian industry that laid the basis of our capacity to fight the Second World War. In 1946 he was defeated because, as Minister for the Army, he was not able to meet the many requests from people who wanted their sons and close relatives discharged straight away. The Government had an orderly process of getting those people into jobs-a new experience for many of them-and he paid the price of carrying out the policies of the Government. He served the people of Australia very well. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House of the death since the House last met of Mr A. M. Blain, Mr W. P. Conelan, and Mr D. Minogue, former members of this House, and former Senator E. B. Maher. Adair Macalister Blain died on 28 April 1983. He represented the division of the Northern Territory from 1934 to 1949. William Patrick Conelan died on 28 February 1983. He represented the division of Griffith from 1939 to 1949. Daniel Minogue died on 7 January 1983. He represented the division of West Sydney from 1949 to 1969. Edmund Bede Maher died on 31 December 1982. He represented the State of Queensland in the Senate from 1950 to 1965. As a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased, I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places- Mr SPEAKER —I thank the House. Issue of Writ Mr SPEAKER —It is my intention to issue a writ on Friday, 13 May 1983, for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Bruce in the State of Victoria, in the place of the Right Honourable Sir Billy Mackie Snedden, K.C. M.G., Q.C. The dates in connection with the election will be fixed as follows: Date of nomination, Friday, 20 May 1983; date of polling, Saturday, 28 May 1983; date of return of writ, on or before Sunday, 31 July 1983. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) left Australia on 30 April to renegotiate the International Sugar Agreement at the United Nations Conference in Geneva and to attend ministerial discussions in Brussels. The Minister for Resources and Energy ( Senator Walsh) is Acting Minister for Primary Industry until Mr Kerin returns. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John Brown) will represent the Acting Minister for Primary Industry in this House. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) that US, Australian and allied forces used huge amounts of toxic chemicals for military purposes, such as Agents Orange, Blue and White, in Vietnam during the war there; (2) many of these chemicals were, and are, known to be highly dangerous to human health; (3) Australia's Vietnam veterans and their families are suffering many severe problems which may be due to their exposure to these chemicals; and (4) the Vietnam Veterans' Association of Australia has been seeking a Royal Commission for well over two years to ensure an independent investigation of these matters. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will: (a) express its support for the Royal Commission; and (b) urge the Federal Government to establish the Royal Commission immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beazley,Mrs Child,Mr Holding,Mr Milton and Dr Theophanous. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members in the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned that the taxes of all Australians will be used to finance a dam that would flood the Lower Gordon and Franklin Rivers in South-West Tasmania. Your petitioners declare that the intrinsic values of this area, and the provision of funds from the taxes of all Australians, for the destruction of this area of the National Estate and of world heritage value, does make this a national issue. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government take all possible steps, including financial and legal steps and fulfil its responsibilities under the Australian Heritage Act to prevent the destruction of this area of the National Estate. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Holding,Mr Humphreys,Mrs Kelly and Mr Lusher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the requirement that pensioners and health care cardholders fill in a complex declaration when presenting prescriptions is causing distress to beneficiaries and inefficiencies in the distribution of medicines by pharmacists . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will immediately abolish the requirement that a declaration be completed by the pensioner and health care cardholder. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cunningham,Mr Holding,Mr Les Johnson and Mr Peter Morris. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth the need for the immediate introduction of an Attendant Care Allowance for Disabled people who need assistance with aspects of daily living. This allowance will enable disabled people to live in the community. It should be in the form of a benefit paid directly to the disabled person enabling him/her to employ and train the attendant of his/her own choice. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cunningham,Mr Shipton and Mr Steedman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth submit : That off-shore oil exploration within the Great Barrier Reef Region constitutes a serious threat to the richest and most varied living system on earth. Your petitioners request that your Honourable House will: 1. Prohibit oil exploration within the Great Barrier Reef Region, 2. Declare the entire Great Barrier Reef Region a Marine Park under the Federal Government's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, 3. Provide the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority with the staff and resources for effective management of the Region. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton and Mr Kerin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Since the Australian Whaling Protection Act, 1980 provides for the banning of importation into Australia of all whale by products and 2. The Prime Minister has stated that he and his Government support the International Banning of Whaling, 3. Then consistent with (1) and (2) this Government should immediately legislate to ban the importation of all marine mammal by products including the harp seal of Canada and 4. Through the Australian delegate in the United Nations General Assembly the Prime Minister should state his Government's support for an International ban on the slaughter of any marine mammal for commercial reasons. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: Consistent with legislation on whaling this Government should ban the importation of marine mammal by-products, and support an International ban on the slaughter of any marine mammal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cross and Mr Humphreys. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Those recommendations of the Davidson Committee Report into telecommunications services in Australia that could result in an increase in charges to people living in country areas not be adopted by the Federal Government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal Government reject those recommendations. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hicks. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully shows that implementation of the recommendations of the Davidson Committee Report into telecommunications services in Australia will leave Telecom with responsibilities for unprofitable services only and that this, together with the proposal to time charge local telephone calls and increase telephone rentals, will mean a drastic increase in charges for the ordinary telephone consumer, particularly: (a) the frail, aged and the disabled for whom the phone is often the only means of communication; (b) the lonely who utilize emergency relief organisations such as Lifeline and talk-back radio programs; and (c) people in rural areas and outer suburbs. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will reject the report. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that ''The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State'', and Whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the Nation at this time. (2) 'The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the work force, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, support Adult Migrant Education Service teachers, the Ethnic Communities' Council of NSW, the NSW Ethnic Affairs Commission, the NSW State Government, the NSW Labor Council and the ACTU; in demanding that all full -time casual teaching positions in the AMES in NSW be made permanent, through the allocation of extra Federal funds. We urge the Federal Government to make a real commitment to the migrants with the Establishment of a permanent service. by Mr Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: The Australian Aircraft Manufacturing Industry has suffered serious setbacks since its creation, because of the lack of a coherent Australian Government policy for the Industry, as illustrated by: (a) Reduction in R.A.A.F. flying hours. (b) Cut backs in the Gruman Tracker. (c) Delay in the introduction of new tactical fighter. (d) Delay in the introduction of the trainer project. (e) Cut back on the production of the Nomad aircraft from 200 to 170. This will further destabilise the industry and many jobs and vital skills will be lost. We deplore the Government's decision to proceed with the proposed retrenchments and by so doing ignore the resolution passed unanimously by the Senate 'That no compulsory retrenchments of employees should take place until both houses of Parliament have debated the joint committees report on this reference.' The decision to go ahead with retrenchments has been made without proper consultation with employees and unions in the industry. Your petitioners therefore, humbly pray that the Government will reverse its recent decision to retrench initially 38 employees, followed by further retrenchments in the new year, until both Houses of Parliament have considered the finding of the present Senate inquiry into Defence matters. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Holding. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have Harp and Hooded seals protected. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will propose Harp and Hooded seals to be listed on Appendix 1 of the Washington Convention ( CITES). And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Holding. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the slaughter of baby seals in Northern Canada should be stopped. The slaughter is inhuman and threatens the species. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives make representations to the Canadian Government to either ban or more tightly control the slaughter of baby seals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Holding. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are gravely concerned at proposed future hydro-electric developments in South West Tasmania. This area is on the Register of the National Estate and therefore is of national concern. Your petitioners therefore humbly call upon the Federal Parliament not to allocate funds or allow funds to be raised for development of roads or dams in the South West of Tasmania but rather to provide such funds as would enable the preservation of this area. This is a national issue and therefore Tasmanians should not be made to bear any financial burden resulting from its preservation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Howard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are gravely concerned by the Government's failure to act to relieve the plight of many Australians who are being financially crippled by high mortgage repayments. That we protest on behalf of all those seriously affected by the current crisis in rising mortgage repayments and those facing the near impossibility of obtaining housing loans. That your Government's policies are forcing a downward trend in the percentage of Australians striving to achieve the 'Great Australian Dream' of home ownership. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: Resolve to demand immediate Government action to institute policies which recognise our grave problem and will preserve and maintain the 'Great Australian Dream' of home ownership rather than continue to destroy that dream. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That sandmining on Moreton Island poses a threat to the natural ecology and environment of the Island. 2. That Moreton Island is included on the Register of Australian Heritage Commission, and the Federal Government is urged and indeed it must, under the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 take into consideration the protection of the island. 3. That the Queensland Government has given approval to the sand-mining of Moreton Island despite the advice of conservationists and despite the opposition of the majority of electors in the Moreton Region. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives will request the Government to refuse export permits covering mineral sands mined on Moreton Island. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That continued use of animal ingredients in cosmetic products, and the inhumane use of animals in scientific research for cosmetic products is abhorrent and barbaric. That the Industries Assistance Commission, because of the Commission's terms of reference, seems unable to impose any regulation or recommend any regulation which might restrict the activities of Cosmetic Companies which produce cosmetics in which animal ingredients have been used, or for which animals were subjected to research. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will: Legislate to require comprehensive labelling of perfumes cosmetics and toilet preparations to indicate: (1) whether a product contains any animal derivative. If so, the ingredient and source should be indicated. (2) whether the research and development of that product or any of its ingredients involved experimentation on animals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That continued use of animal ingredients in cosmetic products, and the inhumane use of animals in scientific research for cosmetic products is abhorrent and barbaric. 2. That no central records exist on such inhumane use of live animals for experimentation purposes, yet research institutions in several Australian States engage in such a practice. 3. That there exists no uniform legislation between the States concerning responsible standards of research conduct, indeed, in some States there is a complete lack of legislation altogether. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will enact legislation to require: (a) the Australian Bureau of Statistics to produce annual statistics on the numbers of live animals involved in research, and provide information as to research purpose; and (b) the National Health and Medical Research Council to develop humane and responsible standards of conduct for researchers using live animals in all Government, Industry and Educational Research Laboratories. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that: (1) the high cost of many pharmaceutical items, necessary for the management of diabetes, imposes a heavy financial burden on sufferers of this disease; (2) while insulin is available on prescription under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, syringes and needles, which are the only means of administering insulin, are not. Your petitions therefore pray that the Government will extend the provision of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to cover syringes and needles required by diabetics. by Mr Jacobi. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That animal welfare organisations play a vital role in the community in caring for animals and lessening the burden on governments and government authorities charged with the task of dealing with neglected or unwanted animals. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that donations made to animal welfare charities be allowed as tax deductions to remove the unjust tax anomaly which discriminates against charitable animal welfare organisations. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Les Johnson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth our concern that: 1. The Income Tax Assessment Act (the Act) and its administration is inadequate in providing retirement benefits for employees in private enterprise; 2. The Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) denies deductions necessary to index retirement pensions; 3. Deductions for self-employed and employed are inadequate; 4. The Commissioner has exercised his discretion improperly by negating a choice the Act allows on investment in Government Securities; 5. The Commissioner's constant alterations to guidelines and lack of communication has created great uncertainty; 6. The Commissioner is acting arbitrarily, and without proper notice in restricting trustee's investments with employers; 7. The Commissioner seeks to apply new actuarial guidelines retrospectively to July 1981. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, take action to remedy these inadequacies and in particular we pray that action be taken: (i) To ensure that the Commissioner exercises his discretion only with proper regard to legal principles; (ii) To ensure that the Commissioner does not delegate to auditors part of his function of administering the Act; (iii) To enact legislation allowing proper levels of retirement benefits to be provided; (iv) To ensure that retirement benefits are regulated by a Department with a primarily social welfare function. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Katter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, residents of Mount Isa in the Division of Kennedy respectfully showeth that: Because of the isolation and distance from the centres of population where colleges of advanced education are situated hardship exists when students who complete grade 12 and apply for entry to a tertiary institution to undertake a course in arts are required to travel to Brisbane, Townsville, Toowoomba, Rockhampton for a selection interview before acceptance into the chosen college. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: 1. A selection panel travel to Mount Isa at the end of each school year to interview applicants; or 2. Applicants be permitted to travel south for interview on a Government warrant. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Katter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That currently discrimination in the provision of work, in appointment to jobs, in promotion to positions of authority and lucrative incomes, in the provision of goods and services, in the provision of accommodation, and generally in relation to political, economic and social institutions of power exists in Australia on particular grounds including, inter alia, grounds of sex, race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy and/or sexual preference; and That currently discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits is exercised against particular groups of individuals-in particular, against married women. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That adequate and appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction, in the provision of accommodation, and the provision of goods and services; and That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to sex and/or marital status. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That the area in South-West Tasmania, proclaimed as a World Heritage Area, shall be protected, and that the construction of any dam on the Gordon and Franklin Rivers be immediately stopped. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will use all of its available powers to intervene on our behalf. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That since 1788 discrimination has existed in Australia on particular grounds including, inter alia, grounds of sex, race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy and/or sexual preference; That since 1788 such discrimination has been accepted and promoted by Australian laws and practices, particularly in the provision of work, in appointment to jobs, in promotion to positions of authority and lucrative incomes, in the provision of goods and services, in the provision of accommodation and generally in relation to political, economic and social institutions of power. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That adequate and appropriate laws be immediately formulated and passed through the Parliament to render unlawful discrimination in all areas over which the Commonwealth holds power, namely, in employment of all persons in the Commonwealth Public Service and employed in Commonwealth Statutory Authorities and other bodies, in the provision of Commonwealth accommodation and goods and services and also in all areas over which legislation for the Australian Capital Territory would be valid. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth : That the Government's decision to impose a tax on books, magazines and newspapers particularly educational publications and books of a religious nature , is abhorrent to the notion of the right to information, a clear infringement of our democratic freedom, and that no such tax is levied on any other country with which Australia is usually compared. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government withdraw its announced intention to impose a sales tax on books, magazines and newspapers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Millar. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Federal Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned Australian taxpayers and citizens oppose the present Government aid to the Philippines (80 per cent of funds are for road construction in Northern Samar and Zamboanga Del Sur). Recent reports released by 'Community Aid Abroad' and 'Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace' indicate that these roads are having no impact on poverty and are helping military oppression. Your petitioners most humbly pray: That these Government aid projects be stopped. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That citizens of Western Australia view with great alarm the removal of Director of the Office of Child Care and fear for the future of that office and the children's services programme which it administers. We believe the Office of Child Care to be inappropri- ately placed within the Department of Social Security, where children's services are in competition with welfare services for the aged, disabled, and other such groups. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should take every step as necessary to obtain immediate withdrawal of the Office of Child Care from the Department of Social Security and the establishment of a Children's Commission. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth their anger and condemnation at the unrealistic low priority given to Children's Vacation Programmes and other Children's Services which has resulted in the withdrawal of funds from programmes which provide an essential community service. We protest at the disastrous effects this will have on parents and children. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government provide public funding for all children's services including vacation programmes to ensure quality services are available for all children and parents who require it. Further that funds be immediately released to prevent closure of Vacation programmes for the 1981-82 financial year. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Uren. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the lack of podiatry service for lower fixed income members of the community. Podiatry is an essential health service especially in preventing greater dependency of older people. It would be much more cost effective to maintain the mobility of older people through adequate and effective services than to force them into premature institutional care. The fees for repeated podiatry consultations to provide essential ongoing care are well beyond the means of pensioners. Considering that Department of Veterans Affairs' pensioners are entitled to podiatry care, and this scheme is already operating successfully, we strongly urge that this service be extended to cover all pensioners. We believe this could be best achieved through including podiatry along with the existing concessions on the Health Care cards. This would enable a flexible system of care through private practice, community health or rehabilitation services. It would also be essential in negotiations with the Podiatry Association to ensure assistance would be available to the house-bound and those in institutions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards,Ms McHugh and Mr Mountford. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the citizens of Queensland respectfully show: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hayden,Mr Hurford and Mr Peter Morris. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of the Division of Richmond, shows their objection to the proposed desecration of the South-West Wilderness area of Tasmania on the Gordon below Franklin River System. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will take all necessary action to intervene and prevent the construction of the dam, and the further exploitation of this area now included on the World Heritage List to ensure its preservation for future generations of Australians. by Mr Anthony. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of undersigned electors of the Division of Isaacs respectfully showeth: 1. That the proposal to charge local telephone calls on a time basis will increase telephone bills, thereby disadvantaging those people who could least afford it, such as pensioners and other low-income earners. 2. That the proposal to change Telecom into a company would be the first step towards selling Telecom to private enterprise. 3. That the proposal to sell parts of Telecom's more profitable operations can only lead to increased charges, particularly for domestic and country services. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government guarantees: (1) That local telephone calls will continue to be charged on a per call basis. (2) That Telecom will remain a Statutory Authority. (3) That no part of Telecom will be sold, and that Telecom's more profitable operations must continue to subsidise domestic and country services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Charles. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled: The petition of certain (electors of the Division of Queensland) shows-your petitioners are concerned that Queensland will not benefit from a decision by the Commonwealth Government to make money available for the Australian Broadcasting Commission to develop programmes captioned for the deaf. Your petitioners petition that the large numbers of deaf people resident in Queensland should be included in considerations concerning captioned television and in this regard call on the Government to ensure that the Australian Broadcasting Commission's captioned programmes are broadcast in this state as well as in Victoria and New South Wales. by Mr Cross. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned electors of the Division of Macquarie respectfully showeth: That all Australians will be financially disadvantaged by private sector involvement in activities currently performed by Telecom Australia; That the recommendations of the Davidson Enquiry, if implemented, would reduce Telecom's capacity to provide the standard of communications service Australians presently enjoy; And that, private sector involvement in the profitable areas of Telecom's activities would ultimately mean increased telephone charges, particularly in rural areas, to compensate for Telecom's loss of revenue. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will take all steps necessary to preserve Telecom as a public utility. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned supporters of the Animal Rights Campaign and Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the export of over 5 million live food animals for export in 1979, and an estimated 6 million in 1980, has caused and will continue to cause unnecessary suffering to the animals concerned. And that this trade of live food animals is economically irrational, disregards the well being of the animals and loss of jobs for Australians. You petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will legislate to prohibit the export of live animals and allow only carcass trade and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Barry Jones. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of the Australian Capital Territory shows: That the exclusion of Taxis from the Civic Passenger Transport Interchange is an unjust decision and places hardship on the sick, elderly, disabled and the public in general. Your petitioners therefore pray that immediate action be taken to permit Taxis to use the Civic Public Transport Interchange. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain parents and friends of Wanniassa High School, electors of the division of Canberra shows: (a) Concern in relation to learning conditions and health difficulties suffered by children at Wanniassa High School the conditions giving rise to that concern being caused by the inadequacy of ventilation in the school during periods of high temperature. (b) Concern in relation to the learning time lost as a result of the need to release students from the school when conditions become so unbearable as to prevent effective learning and teaching. (c) Concern that a large school building such as Wanniassa High School should be built on behalf of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia without opening windows or air cooling systems. (d) Concern that there exists no firm plans to rectify the situation discussed while the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia sees fit to provide financial assistance to two private schools in the Australian Capital Territory to solve ventilation difficulties. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of the Commonwealth of Australian take immediate action to ensure that unsatisfactory conditions suffered by students at Wanniassa High School due to excessive heat be rectified before the summer months of December 1983, January 1984 and February 1984. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned Citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth that your petitioners are outraged and disturbed by the inhumane slaughter of baby harp seals off the coasts of Newfoundland and in particular, the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Magdelen Islands. 1. That, as a people of a democratic society, we urge the Australian Government to halt all imports of seal products. 2. That we can be assured that the murdering of harp seals be discontinued in all forms at the real and perilous threat of the extinction of yet another Arctic animal species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government take heed of their petitioners' protest, and give seals the right to life. by Mr Kent. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned Citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth that your petitioners are outraged and disturbed by the exportation of live animals for slaughter to overseas. 1. That, as a people of a democratic society, we urge the Australian Government to ban the export of live animals for slaughter overseas. 2. That the export of live horses to Japan for slaughter for human consumption be banned on the grounds that it is cruel and unnecessary. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: 1. We, the undersigned employees of Camaco Pty Ltd, of Ferntree Gully, Victoria , are concerned about losing our jobs as a result of: (a) The dumping of products in Australia by overseas suppliers (b) The Closer Economic Relationship Agreement between Australia and New Zealand which we believe is unjust and unfair particularly at a time of heavy unemployment in Australia, and call on the Government to require all Government corporations institutions, agencies and departments to 'Buy Australian' goods and services. 2. We urge our member of the House of Representatives, Mr Peter Milton, Member for LaTrobe, to send this petition to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and present our case to the Federal Government for urgent action. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the citizens of the City of Woodville and supported by the citizens of South Australia, being deeply concerned over the threat of closure of the Woodville Plant of General Motors-Holdens, respectfully show- 1. That the management of General Motors-Holdens has failed over a period of more than two (2) years to give any assurances that the Woodville Plant would continue in operation. 2. That a recent statement attributed to the GMH Managing Director, quote: 'The overall objective of our South Australian rationalisation plan has been to eliminate all productive activities on the Woodville site' end of quote. This statement has not been refuted. 3. That the elimination of the Woodville Plant will cause enormous social dislocation hardship and misery to the citizens of Woodville and South Australia . Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament of Australia will condemn this callous disregard for the citizens of Woodville and South Australia, and do all in its power to force General Motors-Holdens to retain its operations at the Woodville Plant. by Mr Scott. Petitions received. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 1, I shall move: That this House deplores the cavalier approach of the Government towards so many of its pre-election promises. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 2, I shall move: That this House is of the opinion that the Government should- (a) continue and maintain the level of support being given to public education of the hazards of drink driving, and (2) encourage, in co-operation with the States, greater degree of uniformity of road laws, driver licensing procedure and traffic practices. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 3 , I shall move: That this House, in condemning the continued occupation of Laos and Cambodia by Vietnam- (1) deplores the repeated incursions by Vietnamese armed forces into Thailand, and (2) expresses- (a) its support for the Thai nation and the Cambodian refugees as the disastrous consequences of the Vietamese military action; (b) its strong support for the efforts of ASEAN in the United Nations to bring Vietnam to the conference table, and specifically confirms its support for Resolution No. 37/6 of 28 October 1982 of the United Nations, and (c) concern at the uncertainty created within ASEAN by the Government's determination to attach a high priority to bilateral relations with Vietnam. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 4, I will move: That this House is of the opinion that- (1) the Government should establish a uniform system for the rapid exchange of data on stolen vehicles, and (2) disposal of stolen vehicles should be made more difficult. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 5, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its grave concern over the pressures that will be put on public hospitals throughout Australia under the so-called 'free public hospital' provisions of the Government's Medicare scheme and (2) calls on the Government to abandon this aspect of the scheme. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns- (1) the Leader of the Opposition for the destructive tactics which he adopted at the Constitutional Convention and (2) the failure of the Federal Opposition to abide by undertakings they had adopted at the Standing Committee of the Convention. Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 6, I shall move: That this House condemns the Government for its negative and damaging policies on the mining and export of Australian uranium which have led or will lead to: (1) The development of the Northern Territory and South Australia being placed in jeopardy. (2) The potential of thousands of jobs being lost. (3) The abandonment of proposals for a uranium enrichment industry which would have meant much greater export earnings for secondary processing of Australian uranium. (4) Valuable and long-standing relationships with some of our most important trading partners being placed in jeopardy. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 7, I shall move: That this House is of the opinion that the Government should promote the establishment of a central data base and data bank to assist in the national effort against road crashes. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 8, I shall move: That this House condemns the Government for its gross abrogation of responsibility in allowing the shearers dispute to degenerate over the past six weeks to a stage where the Australian wool industry is jeopardised. Fundamental issues of law and order are being allowed to be flouted by sections of the Australian Workers Union. The Government has failed to support rulings by the highest industrial court in the land, namely the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and the Government should direct the shearers to return to work. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 9, I shall move: That this House, noting the legacy left by the Fraser Government relating to the great need for improved infrastructure, calls upon the Government to seek the co-operation of the States and Territories so that Federal civil works and State public works programs are undertaken in a planned and integrated way. Mr LUSHER(Hume) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 10, I shall move; That as a matter of urgency the Government initiate a full inquiry into the operations of coastal shipping in Australia. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 11, I shall move: That this House deplores the drop in housing commencements in 1982-83 due to the inadequate policies of the Fraser Government, and congratulates the Hawke Labor Government on initiatives being taken to improve this situation. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 12, I shall move: That this House deplores the failure of the Government to co-ordinate policies relating to education, training, employment creation, wages and taxes with the result that Australia's prospects of returning to the high levels of employment have greatly diminished. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House is of the opinion that the Australian Government should develop a promotional campaign on the theme of 'Buy Australian' in an attempt to bring about an awareness of the effects that imports are having on Australian employment levels. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 13, I shall move: That this House, noting that the Minister for Science and Technology was prevented by the Government from delivering a speech dealing with high technology in the Australian economy to the Economic Summit: (1) Deplores the fact that as a result the Summit, among other shortcomings, did not systematically address the great challenge-opportunities as well as problems-which high new technology presents for the future of Australia; and (2) Calls upon the Minister to make a statement to this House on thus being precluded from addressing the Summit and table the speech in the Parliament. Mr BURR(Wilmot) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 14, I shall move: That this House requires the Federal Government to give a firm commitment to maintain the sovereignty of the States, and condemns any move by the Federal Government to overrule any State government. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 14, I shall move: That until the Government repudiates the advocacy of the Minister for Health that the drug marihuana should be allowed to be grown and consumed at home, the Government stands condemned for the encouragement this policy provides for those involved in drug trafficking and for the disincentives it applies to the officers of all law enforcement agencies. Mr SPEAKER —For the information of honourable members, I understand that that notice of motion refers to the second part of General Business Thursday No. 14. I think there is a little confusion about this and that honourable members should be advised of the position. Mr SINCLAIR(New England) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 15, I shall move: That this House condemns the decision by the Government not to acquire an aircraft carrier without establishing an alternative structure for the fleet and providing it with an adequate anti-submarine warfare capability. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 2, I shall move: 1. That the private sector involvement is of the utmost importance for ensuring the future growth of Canberra; and 2. This House deplores decisions taken by the Minister for Territories and Local Government which discriminate against and undermine private sector confidence in the Australian Capital Territory. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House commends the Federal Government for gaining the co-operation of business and trade union leaders at the Economic Summit, thus giving the unemployed more hope after seven weeks of Hawke Government than in the previous seven years. Dr DAVID BELLAMY Notice of Motion Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: 1. That this House notes with interest that the Minister for Environment has generously praised one Dr David Bellamy for his stand against the people and the Government of Tasmania; and 2. Reminds the Minister that this Dr Bellamy is the greeny stooge who announced before he left Britain that he was coming to Tasmania to be arrested and to spend his fiftieth birthday in gaol; and 3. Calls on the Minister to say whether he approves of people breaking the law of the land. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condems the illegality and gross impropriety of the use of operational units of the Commonwealth defence forces against the State of Tasmania. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 3, I shall move: That the Government be condemned for its failure to provide adequate ministerial representation for northern Australia and particularly for the State of Queensland. Mr PORTER(Barker) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 16, I shall move: That this House condemns the Government for breaching its undertakings to the Aboriginal community regarding consultation, self-determination, land rights and independence through the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs' intervention in the Northern Land Council negotiations on behalf of the traditional owners who want to share in the benefits which would flow from mining uranium at Koongarra. Mr FISHER(Mallee) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 4, I shall move: That in the light of speculation that sponsorship of sport by tobacco companies could be banned that the Federal Government- 1. immediately establish an inquiry to investigate the financial effects this would have on sport in Australia, and 2. examine alternative methods of assistance to sporting bodies and to individual sportsmen and women taking into account such items as tax averaging of incomes and tax deductibility of gifts to sporting bodies. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 5, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the recent reported statements of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism concerning- (a) Adelaide, Perth, Port Hedland, Launceston, Hobart, Sydney, Brisbane, Townsville and Cairns; (b) penalty rates; (c) Australia being a marvellous secret; and (d) koalas, and (2) calls on the Minister to withdraw these statements and to refrain from making such ill-considered statements in the future. Mr MOORE(Ryan) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House draws the attention of the Minister for Finance to government department Budget votes and requests that one line appropriations be introduced, starting with the Department of Industry and Commerce. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House rejects the Government's decision to abandon the findings of the Major Airport Needs of Sydney study, urges the upgrading of the Sydney ( Kingsford-Smith) Airport without delay and deplores the upheaval and disruption which is being caused in the western Sydney area by the secretive, unsympathetic actions of the Federal Government. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Australian public for their good judgment in electing four Labor governments throughout Australia in the last 12 months; and (2) calls on the Opposition to act in a manner which will allow the intentions of the Australian public to be carried out. Mr SINCLAIR(New England) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls on the Government to maintain and extend its Defence Co- operation Program aid for the countries in our region and that DCP aid to Indonesia not be disrupted because of uncertainties over the Government's attitude to East Timor. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) deplores the total inaction of the Government with regard to the administration of primary industry, and (2) is of the opinion that- (a) the exclusion of the Minister for Primary Industry from the inner Cabinet; (b) the nominal representation of primary industry interests at the recent National Economic Summit Conference; (c) the cursory debate accorded to primary industry issues during that economic summit conference; and (d) the scant attention given to primary industry by the Government in the Governor-General's speech on the opening of the Parliament are cause for concern to primary producers and citizens living in rural Australia. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House commends the Prime Minister for calling together an Economic Summit on the way to repairing the economic damage caused by the last government . Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 18, I shall move: That this House- (1) recognises that the small business sector is the dominant force in the Australian economy, and (2) calls on the Government to introduce specific measures as a first priority to encourage the growth of this sector. Mr PEACOCK —I ask the Prime Minister: What would be the effect on the level of unemployment of a 3 to 4 per cent wage increase this year? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the Leader of the Opposition for his question because one has to assume that he asks it with a due sense of responsibility for this economy. I am glad to see that he has entered into this state of grace because it is in very marked contrast to the way in which he has treated the Australian people in the last few months. One of the great tragedies of the Australian political scene in that period was that the Leader of the Opposition-and he was not alone in that respect-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —The tragedy, of course, was that the Leader of the Opposition-he was not then in that capacity-showed the greatest irresponsibility in respect of the Australian economy that had ever been exhibited by any politician in the history of this country. As a result of his gross irresponsibility, this situation occurred: There had to be a 10 per cent devaluation of the Australian dollar. He has been deliberately responsible for the lining of the pockets of people inside and outside this country, due to the currency speculation that took place as a result of his statements. He showed no concern with the condition of the economy . Now-- Mr Spender —I raise a point of order. The Standing Orders provide that the answer should be relevant to the question. So far nothing has been said which has been relevant to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I am prepared to rule on the point of order. A number of precedents have been established by those who have occupied this chair regarding this matter. There is no substance in the point of order. The answer is the property of the Minister responding. Mr HAWKE —I have necessarily gone to this preface to show the hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition when he seeks information about what will happen in this economy, because of the fact that his actions brought about those deleterious results on the Australian economy just a few weeks ago. On the basis of that hypocrisy, let us come to the question that he has asked, that is, what might happen in regard to a movement in wages in the latter part of this year. He asked what would happen in terms of a possible 3 per cent to 4 per cent movement in wages. The answer, of course, is that no one can say at this stage what the effect of that movement would be, unless-- Mr Shipton —Have a guess. Mr HAWKE —No. I am asked to have a guess. We have had enough of guesses from people on the other side of the House. We had the guess, or was it a deception, as to what the level of the deficit would be in 1983-84. We have had enough of these guesses. In the regulation of this economy it is about time we had a serious discussion and a serious analysis of what is likely to happen. I will proceed to do so. In the latter part of this year there will be in place, as a result of the deliberate decisions of this Government, an apparatus whereby the claims upon the resources of this community, not only by wage and salary earners but by all sections of the community, will be related to the capacity of this economy. As a result of what has come out of the National Economic Summit Conference, by the end of the year we will have a prices surveillance mechanism which will cover claims by a wide range of people upon the resources of this community. If we have that situation in which we are able to look with confidence at a lessening of the rate of inflation and by which at the latter stage of this year wage and salary earners will have already suffered a very significant reduction in the levels of their real incomes, I believe that an increase of the order of 3 per cent to 4 per cent and no more by the end of this year will be consistent with a situation in which the Australian economy will be able to move into 1984 best placed to take advantage of the gradual improvement in the rate of economic recovery which will mark this economy by the end of 1983 as a result of the following factors: Firstly, growth in confidence in the business community associated with the election of the Labor Government on 5 March, which is already evident; secondly, the recovery that will be associated with the relief of the drought; and, thirdly, the recovery that will be associated with what is happening in the United States of America. In the context of all of those developments and because all claims of the community will be subject to surveillance in the public interest, I think that an increase of the order which has been referred to will be consistent with a significant increase in economic growth and the growth of employment opportunities as we move into 1984. Mr SIMMONS —Will the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations indicate whether the Government views the current shearing dispute over the use of wide combs with concern? If so, what action is the Government taking to end this dispute? Mr WILLIS —I thank the honourable member for this question. The Government is concerned about this strike, which arose as a result of the variation of the federal pastoral industry award by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission some five weeks ago to allow the use of so-called wide combs. The strike, which has been going on for all that time, has had adverse effects on the pastoral industry, including endangering stock in some areas. There have been some reports of violent confrontation between striking and non-striking shearers and some reports of intimidation of graziers. All of those matters are of considerable concern to the Government. The honourable member asks what action has been taken. We have conferred with the Australian Workers Union, the union involved, and with the wool growers to try to find ways in which to end this strike. We supported the AWU executive's proposal some two weeks ago to take a so-called section 59 application to the Arbitration Commission and for the members of that union to return to work. A section 59 application enables the Commission, if it agrees with the application , to suspend an award or part of an award. Unfortunately, the members of the union disregarded their federal executive's recommendation and decided to stay out. The Government condemned that decision of the members. Since then we have continued to try to find a basis for settlement. We believe that will come only with the involvement of the Arbitration Commission. In view of the unwillingness of either of the parties, the growers or the union , to take the matter back to arbitration, I took the very unusual step-it has not been done for many years-of notifying an industrial dispute to the Arbitration Commission under section 25, to try to get this matter back before the Commission. I did that a few days ago. On the same day the Australian Workers Union initiated action in the High Court to seek a re-hearing of the matter before the appeal bench of the Arbitration Commission. Today I should inform the House that there have been further developments. I understand that the Australian Workers Union now intends to lodge a section 59 application in the Arbitration Commission, today or tomorrow, and to withdraw its High Court action. The Government will intervene in that section 59 hearing and support the Australian Workers Union's right to have a full hearing of the matter, a right which the union contends it was denied in the previous arbitration hearings. Our support for the union's right to have that hearing will be conditional on two provisos. They are that there is a return to work by the striking shearers, and that the union agrees to abide by the Arbitration Commission's decision. We believe that provides a real basis for settlement of this difficult dispute. Mr HOWARD —I direct my question to the Treasurer. I refer the honourable gentleman to paragraph 18 of the National Economic Summit communique. Does the expression 'over time' in that paragraph refer, as claimed by Mr Simon Crean and others, to a catch-up of wage adjustments not received since the last community round, or does it mean that in current circumstances the Australian economy cannot afford real wage maintenance? Mr KEATING —The Australian Council of Trade Unions has made it quite clear that it is prepared to exercise restraint in the area of incomes, and it has delayed that claim. The Government, as a result of the decisions of the National Economic Summit, has determined to go back to a basis of centralised wage fixation. That proceeding will be before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. There has been a lot of speculation about the adjustment of wages towards the end of this calendar year, but that is now in the hands of the Arbitration Commission. One thing is clear, and that is that the former Government, of course, is now beating its breast about the wages pause when, in fact, we should remember that it grew out of a party room discussion in which someone said-I think it was the former member for Macarthur-'We should be seen to be doing something'. If the former Treasurer wants to jawbone here about wages, he should go back to the result of 1980-81, when his Government destroyed the basis of wage fixation and moved to a decentralised basis of wage fixation, which kept up the inflationary surge that we have seen. We have made it quite clear that the basis of the ACTU-Australian Labor Party accord is an adjustment of wages over time. Indeed, as late as yesterday, Mr Fitzgibbon, the vice-president of the ACTU, made it clear that in his view a wage increase of about 3 per cent would be appropriate towards the end of the year. Mrs CHILD —My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Bearing in mind the cost-sharing arrangement between the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments for the funding of public hospitals, is the Minister aware of the report that the Chairman of the Royal Hobart Hospital Board has resigned in protest against the Tasmanian Government's handling of the public hospitals in that State? What steps will he take to ensure that Tasmanians continue to receive an acceptable standard of health care? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware that Mr D. A. Kearney, the Chairman of the Royal Hobart Hospital Board, resigned yesterday afternoon in protest against the standover tactics of the State Health Minister-standover tactics which are becoming increasingly common in the Tasmanian Government. Because we have an intimate cost-sharing arrangement with the Tasmanian Government, I am deeply disturbed by the evidence presented in the letter of resignation about the condition of health services in Tasmania. Mr Kearney makes it quite clear that, firstly, over the last 12 months there has been a decline in the quality and quantity of health services in that State; secondly, there has been an undermining of staff morale; and, thirdly and most importantly, there has been a decline in the standard of patient care. Because we have this intimate cost-sharing Budget arrangement with the Tasmanian Government, any Federal Health Minister must be disturbed when an impeccable source-Mr Kearney is a man of unimpeachable integrity who has a long record of service to the Tasmanian community-makes statements of this kind about the budgeting process provided by the Tasmanian Government: It was amateurish and naive and resulted in a shambles insofar as the Royal Hobart Hospital and, I am sure, many other hospitals were concerned. Mr Kearney further stated: To summarise, the initial provisional budget exercise was a farce; it was ill- conceived, incapable of being implemented and accompanied by threats and intimidating statements. Only 10 days ago we provided advance funds to help the Tasmanian hospital system . Honourable members will understand the alarm I felt when today I read in this letter: . . . the financial and other harassments to which it- That is the Royal Hobart Hospital- has been subjected, particularly in the past ten months, and the untold damage which will be caused to the Tasmanian public hospital system if the present policy of ad hoc and unco-ordinated reductions in services is not replaced by . . . detailed definition of hospital roles within that system. It is quite clear that, because of the arrangement with the Tasmanian Government , any Federal Government must be concerned, particularly in these economic times , about this record of mismanagement. It is quite clear that all public hospital systems need to have close and cost efficient systems of expenditure. What seems to have happened in Tasmania is that the Government has used intimidatory tactics to force on hospital boards useless and futile methods of cost cutting rather than working out a definition of hospital roles and then applying funding in relation to that. The Hawke Government will offer co-operative relationships with all State Governments in dealing with their difficult hospital problems. We regret the turmoil in the Tasmanian system, which is one further product of the jackboot attitudes of the Tasmanian Government. Mr MOORE —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Given the recent consumer price index figures and the non- competitiveness of many parts of Australian industry, does the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations believe that wage catch-up is desirable and in the best interests of the economy? Mr WILLIS —Of course the Government believes that this country needs a return to a centralised wages system rather than the shambles we had under the previous Government, and that that system must involve some orderly system of wage fixation. We have made it clear that the orderly system of wage fixation which we support is a system of wage indexation. That system must be introduced in the proper time and the proper context. We have made it very clear that we do not think that system can be brought in at this time. We say that it has to be brought in over time. The appropriate time at which it should be brought in is a matter for final determination not by this Government but by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We simply do not have the power. We will have an attitude on that but it will be decided by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In this context I make it very clear that we do not believe that we should move to a system of indexation on a case by case approach but rather that this should be done in an orderly and national way by decision of the Commission and not by individual agreements at industry level. Mr MILTON —Has the Minister for Finance seen reports that the Government has gone soft on tax evaders, following yesterday's announcement of further details of the system of source deductions of tax from payments for labour and services and the associated household reporting system? Has the Minister also seen reports that the new collection procedures will be disruptive of industries such as the building industry and will drive up housing costs? Are those reports correct? Mr DAWKINS —I did see reports in the newspapers today, following announcements that I made yesterday concerning the Government's decisions about the introduction of the source deduction of withholding tax. First of all, I point out that this tax was first announced by the former Government in the 1982-83 Budget and it was one of 16 measures which contributed to the legislative chaos which this Government inherited in relation to taxation measures. If the previous Government had been more interested in getting on with the business of running this country and less interested in trying to conspire a propitious electoral circumstance, we might have had those matters brought into law instead of their confronting this Government with the prospect of having to make detailed decisions about measures which the former Government had already announced. The former Treasurer in fact had not settled important issues concerning the source deduction of withholding tax and therefore it was for this Government to try to settle those questions quickly, having first consulted with the industries concerned. Over the last four weeks, on at least four occasions, I have had discussions with the building industry about the detail of that particular proposal, and indeed with other industries to which that system will apply from 1 September. As a result of those discussions we did take notice of some of the points that were made to us by the industry. Instead of imposing a tax of 25 per cent of the gross payments, which was the apparent intention of the former Government, we decided to impose the tax at the level of 10 per cent. That will not pose a cash flow problem for the industry. It will not be disruptive of traditional work practices within the building industry and other industries. Yet at the same time it will have the effect of bringing in revenue of about $300m in 1983-84 which was the prospective amount which had been built into the revenue estimates for 1983-84. As far as going soft on this matter is concerned, I give an unequivocal commitment that this Government will carry into effect the spirit and indeed the direction of the communique of the National Economic Summit Conference at which we were instructed by the Summit-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr DAWKINS —We were instructed unanimously by the building industry-by the builders, by the Housing Industry Association, by the Master Builders Federation of Australia Inc. and by the Confederation of Australian Industry-and we are required as a result of the communique to act against tax evasion and tax avoidance. That is precisely what we intend to do. I also mention that apparently the pretext for saying that we are going soft relates to the question of whether the reporting mechanisms which will apply to householders have been liberalised. The point is that whatever are the reporting mechanisms in relation to householders, they will have absolutely no effect on the amount of revenue in 1983-84. Let me refer to the extent that it will affect the revenue in the following year. If the limit had been in terms of what the former Government wanted of work involving $3,000 or more the amount of revenue collected would have been about $17m. As a result of extending the limit to $10,000, the amount will fall to $14m. I think, and the Government thinks, that we do not want to use this particular procedure as a means for harassing householders in the way in which the former Government intended. We think that the important objective is to stamp out tax evasion wherever it exists and the amount of $3,000 or $10,000 bears no relationship to whether we collect the $300m which we intend to collect in the forthcoming year. The point is that we are serious about the question of evasion . The former Government was absolutely paralysed in relation to making decisions about this measure because of the emerging controversy and scandal about bottom- of-the-harbour schemes late last year. The former Treasurer delivered us with a completely unsettled, undertermined provision. We have moved to settle those matters and we will be bringing them before the House in order that they may be legislated for in the current session and the tax implemented as from 1 September. Mr ANTHONY —Will the Prime Minister assure the House and Australia's primary producers that he and the Government fully recognise that although the drought has been eased to some extent by the very welcome rains that have fallen the financial problems of farmers caused by the drought will not be eased for some time? Will the Government ensure that adequate drought relief measures are maintained and that appropriate financial assistance will be available to farmers as they work to restock and rebuild their properties after one of the worst droughts that this country has seen? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the Leader of the National Party for his question. The Government has, I think as the right honourable member will understand, fully honoured the commitments to assist the States with drought relief measures undertaken by the previous Government. We of course recognise that despite the most recent welcome rain, relief measures will continue to be needed for some time. There is no question about that. The Government will continue to monitor the situation and to consult the States which, as the honourable member realises , have the initial responsibility for the provision, the administration and the funding of drought relief measures under the National Disaster Relief Arrangements. The Minister for Primary Industry is preparing a review of drought relief measures for early consideration by the Government. As the situation improves, we anticipate an increasing requirement for carry-on finance under the NDRA scheme for restocking and restoration purposes. The Government has just received the Industries Assistance Commission's interim report on the adequacy of the rural adjustment scheme to meet the immediate adjustment needs of rural industry- Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It might assist the House, Mr Speaker, if the Prime Minister, who is reading his answer, tables the document from which he is reading. Mr SPEAKER —There is a request to the Prime Minister to table the document. Mr HAWKE —I have to confess that I arranged a Dorothy Dix question with the Leader of the National Party. I am referring to notes and, of course, for the edification of the Leader of the Opposition, I will make them available. Mr SPEAKER —You will table them if they are not confidential? Mr HAWKE —Yes, of course I will. Mr SPEAKER —I understand that you are using notes. It is not a paper. Mr HAWKE —It is not a paper, it is notes. As I was saying-- Mr Peacock —I raise a point of order. The Prime Minister indicated that he would table the documents. I would be pleased if he would. Mr SPEAKER —He said he would make them available to you on your request. I understood that was the intention. Mr Scholes —Mr Speaker, I suggest it is unreasonable to deprive an honourable member of material he is using to answer a question while he is answering that question. The two points of order taken were both out of order. They can be taken only after the honourable member has finished his answer. Mr SPEAKER —The Prime Minister has indicated that he is referring to notes. That solves the question. Mr HAWKE —They are notes. As I was saying, the Government has just received the interim report of the IAC on the adequacy of the rural adjustment scheme to meet the immediate adjustment needs of the rural industries resulting from the drought. Of course the Government will give consideration to that report before making its response. Mr BRUMBY —Will the Prime Minister inform the House of the results of the recent visit by the Chinese Premier to Australia, particularly in regard to discussions held in Canberra? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for his question. Mr Spender —And surprised, no doubt. Mr HAWKE —We can expect some intelligent questions from this side of the House. This Government took particular pleasure in the visit of Premier Zhao in 1983 because it marked the end of the first decade of the cordial relations which were established with the People's Republic of China by the Whitlam Labor Government. These were in marked contrast to the relationship between our country and China that marked the previous administration before the Labor Government came to power at that time. It was perfectly appropriate that the Premier of China should pay this country the great credit of being one of the first Western countries to which he paid a visit. The Premier's visit was of considerable benefit to the Government and will be of considerable benefit, in the future, to this country. Our talks were wide ranging. In addition to the top-level talks which were held in the Cabinet room, we also had individual discussions between my Ministers and officials and Ministers and officials travelling with the Chinese Premier. Those discussions were very wide ranging. They covered the Chinese Premier's analysis of the global situation, the regional situation and the bilateral relations between our countries. We had the benefit of an exposition by the Chinese Premier of the detailed developments that were taking place in his country which would be of significance to us in terms of developing the already firm bilateral relations Mr Cadman —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This material is of great interest to all members of the House. I think it would be proper if the Prime Minister made a ministerial statement on it. Mr SPEAKER —There is no substance to the point of order. Mr HAWKE —We will give consideration to that suggestion, but we have not reached the stage where questions of this kind are not to be answered when they are put to me or to members of my Ministry. I repeat that the discussions were not simply of value and benefit to us at the time for the purpose of a better understanding on our part of developments in China and of China's relations with other countries in our region, but they were also specifically of value in forming the basis for what I am sure will be a strengthening of our relations not only in terms of the understanding between this country and the very important country of the People's Republic of China but also in the areas of trade and scientific and cultural co-operation. I trust that the essentially bipartisan nature of the approach which has marked our relations with China since 1973 in this country will continue and that the attitudes that we expressed and the basis for future co-operation which was firmed up in those discussions will be accepted and acted upon by the Opposition in this country. Mr LLOYD —My question is directed to the Minister for Communications. Was the Minister or any member of his staff approached or contacted by anyone suggesting that he intervene either to weaken the content of the Four Corners program alleging political interference by the Premier of New South Wales in the course of justice in that State or to prevent the segment being televised? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for his question. The answer is no. Mr WELLS —My question is directed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. Is it a fact that, arising from the National Economic Summit Conference, a housing mini-summit was held? What was the purpose of that housing summit? What have been its achievements? Mr HURFORD —It is true that one of the many benefits of the National Economic Summit Conference was an initiative taken by the Prime Minister to call together the summiteers, as they are now called, who were interested in and involved with housing. It is true that last Thursday I had the privilege of chairing a mini- summit on housing. I was pleased that the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance were able to be with me. I want to make the point first of all that those present recognised that this was the first occasion, over the last seven or eight years anyway, on which there had been true consultation on housing matters prior to a government making decisions. We need go back only to the 'great' announcements of March 1982 when a housing package was put forward. On that occasion the package was determined by government and the so-called consultation took place as all of the various parts of the great housing industry were called into the Cabinet room and told what the package was. In this case the consultation is real. It was most heartening to have the sort of response that there was from bankers, permanent building society chiefs, people in the non-traditional areas of housing finance as well as people from housing industry associations, master builders organisations and the rest. The purpose of the meeting was, as I have indicated already to the House, that we should have the views of all those present as to how we could get the housing industry moving from the woeful levels to which the previous Government had allowed it to sink. The expected levels of commencements this year are down to about 106,000, and that is nothing less than appalling. I am glad to say to the honourable member for Petrie and to the House that, arising out of that meeting, I have already been able to put submissions to the Government. I am hopeful that the package will be of great benefit not only to the industry but also to the whole of this country. I hope that the package will be of benefit not only for economic reasons to help the economy to get moving again but also for social reasons because of the importance of housing to the level of our standard of living. Mr MACPHEE —My question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is supplementary to the question asked by the honourable member for Calare. In the rehearing by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission of the wide combs dispute will the Government be asking the Commission to alter the decision with which the Australian Workers Union members refused to comply? Has he promised that to the union? Does he consider that his failure to persuade members of the union to cease their violence and return to work casts doubt upon the special relationship which the Government claims to have with the union movement? Mr WILLIS —As I said previously in answer to the honourable member for Calare, what the Government will be supporting is the right of the Australian Workers Union to have its case heard in a section 59 application. There will, of course, be a procedural argument about whether it should be able to pursue a case in which it would seek suspension of that part of the award which was put in by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in allowing the use of wide combs. In that procedural argument we will support the right of the AWU to have that full hearing. We have not made any commitment nor will we be intervening to support the AWU's application for suspension of that part of the award. We will leave it to the union and the wool growers to fight out the issue in respect of the substance of the case. Our intervention is in respect of the right of the union to have that full hearing which, as I said previously, it claims it has not been able to present to the Arbitration Commission to this stage. Mr FREE —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Does the refusal by the building workers to withdraw their pay claims and the failure by the Australian Council of Trade Unions to oppose those claims mean that the prices and incomes accord is crumbling? What is the Government going to do to stop this situation? Mr HAWKE —I think honourable members will appreciate that in a sense this question is related to the first question asked today by the Leader of the Opposition. Let me make it clear what the general position of the Government is in regard to wages policy and then, if I may, in that context, answer specifically the question of the honourable member. The position of the Government, in a sense, is very much reflected by statements made by the Leader of the Opposition in another capacity in 1982. I would, in terms of saying exactly what our policy is in answering the honourable member's question, remind you, Mr Speaker, of the statement that was made by the Leader of the Opposition in 1982 on this matter. He said: Unless the Government adopts a coherent wages policy, unless it delivers its promise of tax cuts, unless it develops a working relationship between government, employers and employees in industrial relations, there is little hope that inflation be contained and the condition set for growth in our economy . It is understandable that the employees should seek to maintain their real income after tax. The policy of this Government is essentially the same as that expressed by the Leader of the Opposition in that capacity. What we have been about in the prices and incomes accord and in the National Economic Summit Conference is to establish the setting within which this legitimate claim, which the Leader of the Opposition then recognised and which we recognised, has the best chance for success. So what we are aiming to do in conjunction with the trade union movement and with the support of other elements in our society is to get the position where the wage increases that occur through time reflect the capacity of the economy as a whole and where there are not sectional wage increases reflecting some perceived particular capacity in those areas. It is in that sense that we are having discussions now, particularly through the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, with the unions in particular and with the Australian Council of Trade Unions to see that there is adherence to that principle. I believe, on the basis of the discussions which are taking place, that there will emerge in the building industry a situation not of a pressing first of all of the claim for the reduction of the working week to 36 hours. I say on behalf of the Government that that claim in the current and immediately foreseeable circumstances is not on. Secondly, I say, in regard to the question of wage movements, that there should be no increases in normal wages in the building sector which go beyond increases which will flow from national wage case decisions. Because of the particular circumstances of the industry and because there could emerge agreement between the employers and the unions in respect of allowances which are specific to that industry and not capable of generation beyond that industry anywhere else, something may occur in the non-wage area. I repeat, on behalf of the Government, that in accordance with the prices and incomes accord and the communique of the Summit, which communique reflects that prices and incomes accord, there cannot be in the building industry wage increases relating to the capacity of that industry beyond what may come out later this year in any national wage case decision. That is the clear commitment of this Government, it is the clear commitment of the ACTU and I believe it is what will happen within the building industry. Mr GROOM —I refer the Minister for Defence to the flights by Royal Australian Air Force aircraft over South West Tasmania to gather evidence for the action in the High Court of Australia between the Commonwealth and Tasmania. Will the Minister confirm in this House that there were only two flights? Did the Minister authorise these flights himself? If so, when did he authorise them and was that authorisation given in writing? Mr SCHOLES —Firstly, there were two flights. Secondly, they were not authorised personally, although negotiations were carried out. Mr Groom —Were there two flights? Mr SCHOLES —There were two flights. The flights were not authorised by me personally. The negotiations took place on the basis of department to department requirements after the task was agreed between the Attorney-General and me. The flights in this instance were authorised in the same way as flights and activities of this nature are authorised for the purpose of aid to the civil community. I repeat, actions of this nature in respect to assistance to the civil community take place within the arrangements for the defence forces. Mr BEDDALL —Has the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs seen three articles in the Medical Journal of Australia of 16 April 1983 which indicate the high mortality rates of Aboriginals on 14 Queensland reserves? If so, what action is his Department taking on this issue? Mr HOLDING —Yes, I have seen those articles. We have been in communication both with the authors of those articles and with the Queensland Government. We have expressed our concern to the Queensland Government about the substance of the allegations. There has been a series of arguments going on about some of the statistics contained in the articles. Certainly, from our point of view, we have made it clear to the Queensland Government that we do not want to reduce this very important matter to an exercise in arguing about statistics. The fact is that there is an uncommonly high rate of disease and mortality on Queensland reserves. That has to be a matter of concern to all members of this House. It is certainly a matter of concern to the Government. I have indicated to the Queensland Minister that in our view Aboriginal ill health in Queensland is not simply a matter of living conditions; it is related to the whole question of social dispossession and to the breakdown in tribal patterns that has occurred. Of course, that is not just the view of the Government; it is also a view which was put forward in a joint parliamentary committee report which examined the question of Aboriginal health throughout Australia. This situation highlights the need for more concerted action both at State and Federal level. We are providing very significant funds to the Government of Queensland. While we are concerned to co-operate as fully as possible, we will certainly ensure that that Government discharges its responsibilities in respect of its Aboriginal citizens, just as it has to discharge its responsibilities in health to all its citizens. Mr NEWMAN —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Defence, follows on the question just asked by the honourable member for Braddon. Is it a fact that an F111 aircraft flew a mission in the dam area of South West Tasmania on 24 March? Did this aircraft fly over the Crotty Road area and other construction sites in the South West dam area? Did this aircraft fly at heights of approximately 400 feet? Did the aircraft take photographs of the area? Was the pilot debriefed after this mission? In view of the previous answer given by the Minister for Defence to the honourable member for Braddon, will he now make a full and frank disclosure of all Defence Force activities, or planned activities , in that area? Mr SCHOLES —Firstly, I am surprised that the honourable gentleman does not know the difference between the various types of aircraft in the Australian defence forces. The aircraft that he is talking about was a Mirage, as I understand it. He asked me whether those activities were undertaken by an F111. Mr Newman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I do know the difference between types of aircraft. I asked whether the aircraft was an F111. Mr SPEAKER —I call the Minister for Defence. Mr SCHOLES —Details of the flights, the arrangements and the documents have already been tabled in the Senate and I am certain that the honourable gentleman has had the opportunity to study them. I can assure the honourable gentleman that I will not add to or speculate on his rather irresponsible activities in seeking to beef up his case by claiming that units of the Special Air Service were in Tasmania and his rather unscrupulous and, I think, cowardly attempts to involve the Chief of Defence Force Staff in a political activity. The honourable gentleman has been a Minister of the Crown in this Parliament-- Mr Newman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Ministers are required to answer the questions that are asked. I asked a specific question: Was an aircraft flying in that area on 24 March in addition to the two aircraft talked about? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no point of order. I call the Minister for Defence. Mr SCHOLES —I was asked whether other units of the Defence Force were used. I am answering that question. I suggest that the honourable member has acted in a cowardly manner in trying to involve the Chief of the Defence Force Staff in his beefed up arguments because he did not believe that he could get enough publicity by being honest. The facts of the matter are-- Mr Goodluck —Withdraw that remark! Mr Newman —Mr Speaker, I request-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bass is making a request which is inaudible to me. Mr Newman —Mr Speaker, on a point of order, I request that the Minister withdraw that comment. If he had been honest in the first place it never would have happened. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Bass has taken exception to the remarks of the Minister for Defence. I am sure he will withdraw. Mr SCHOLES —I withdraw. I am sure honourable members will be able to make their own judgments. The facts of the matter are that the Opposition was scared stiff of the National Economic Summit Conference and has done everything it could since to destroy the good will there; it is seeking to create diversions. In this instance it has seized on what is a very minor matter to try to disguise the fact that it is involved in the rape of the wilderness of Tasmania with the full support of every honourable member opposite. The Opposition is trying to disguise what it is all about and is making political capital-- Mr Peacock —Was there a third flight? Mr SCHOLES —There is no third flight listed in any of the documentation that I have seen. Mr Peacock —Are you in control of your Department? Mr SCHOLES —If the honourable gentleman were more interested in the future of Australia than he is in getting back to the divisive policies of the previous Government he would not be concerned about this; he would be concerned about the national interests of this country and he would get himself off his behind and help this Government stop the building of that dam, which is a disgrace to Australia and a disgrace to every member of the Opposition. Mr Hodgman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is a specific one. I do not believe the Minister heard the question, because it related to 24 March. I respectfully suggest that in answering questions relating to 6 April and 7 April the Minister may have gone off on a tangent. The question relates to 24 March. Mr SPEAKER —That is not a point of order; it is an explanation. I call the Minister for Defence. Mr SCHOLES —Mr Speaker, the honourable gentleman would be a great judge of how to avoid or how not to answer questions. The matters which are related to the question are the matters related to authorised flights or other flights in respect of the particular mission requested by the Attorney-General. I inform the House that it is a regular practice of the Royal Australian Air Force to conduct reconnaissance missions, to fly over areas of Australia, to take photographs, to record features, and to practise its proper role as a member of the defence forces. I was not aware, until I was told a few minutes ago, that Tasmania was not part of Australia. The date, 24 March, was completely outside the area in which any discussions took place between the Attorney-General and me . I would be very surprised if there was not an RAAF aircraft in the air on that day, somewhere. Mr SPEAKER —I present, pursuant to statute, the report of the Auditor-General dated 2 May 1983 on audits, examinations and inspections carried out under the provisions of the Audit Act and other Acts. I also present the report of the Auditor-General dated 2 May 1983 on an efficiency audit of the Administration of Public Hospitals by the Capital Territory Health Commission. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908 authorises the publication of (a) the report of the Auditor- General upon audits, examinations and inspections under the Audit and other Acts and (b) the report of the Auditor-General on an efficiency audit of the Administration of Public Hospitals by the Capital Territory Health Commission. (2) That the report be printed. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations for 1981-82. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the National Training Council for 1981-82. The report was made available to honourable members during the recess. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to section 58 of the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Australian Trade Union Training Authority for 1981-82. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members I present an interim report by the Industries Assistance Commission on certain iron and steel products. The report was made available to honourable members during the recess. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —Pursuant to section 30B (2) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973, I present a report by the Temporary Assistance Authority on certain high alloy steel products. This report also was made available to honourable members during the recess. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Department of Industry and Commerce for 1981-82. The report was made available to honourable members during the recess. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Representing my colleague, the Minister for Resources and Energy, and pursuant to section 45 of the Pipeline Authority Act 1973, I present the annual report of the Pipeline Authority for 1981-82. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Pursuant to section 21 of the River Murray Waters Act 1915, I present the River Murray Commission annual report for 1981-82. The report was made available to honourable members during the recess. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Defence Support) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Department of Defence Support for 1981-82. The report was made available to honourable members during the recess. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —Pursuant to section 43 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Australian Heritage Commission for 1981-82. Ministerial Statement Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-Mr Speaker, I wish to make a full report to the House on the National Economic Summit Conference, as foreshadowed by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 21 April when he tabled documents which had been submitted to the Conference. The National Economic Summit Conference which assembled in this place on 11 April 1983 was, by any standards, a significant and historic event. No such conference of this scale or scope had been attempted before in Australia. It represented a new beginning, a first step towards our great national goals of national reconciliation, national reconstruction and national recovery. It is now possible to reflect thoughtfully on the outcome of the Conference, to identify its key elements and to translate them into an action plan for all of us to follow in working towards recovery. Indeed in the two and a half weeks since its conclusion, important steps have already been taken by the Government and principal participants to ensure that the work of the Conference becomes the basis for continuing and effective processes in the task of national recovery. The Government has already tabled in this House the government documents submitted to the Conference and volume 2-a transcript of Conference proceedings- out of a planned three volume record of Conference documents and proceedings. Volume 1 of this record, a consolidated set of the government papers already tabled in the House, and volume 3, containing submissions to the Conference by other participants and observers, are not yet available but will be tabled shortly. I regret the delay in the availability of the third volume particularly , but would observe that perhaps only the most diligent parliamentarians would by now have fully absorbed the documents tabled already. Mr Speaker, I would like to thank, at the outset, both your predecessor as Speaker of the House of Representatives, Sir Billy Snedden, and the former President of the Senate, Sir Harold Young, for their ready agreement to make Parliament House and its services available for the Summit Conference. I would also like to thank members of parliament for their co-operation in assisting delegates to the Conference with office and other facilities, and for their forbearance in suffering any inconvenience caused. I turn now to the main business of this statement. We called the Summit Conference because Australia is facing its gravest economic and social crisis in 50 years. In the words of the Summit communique: The Australian economy is in deep recession. Economic activity and employment are continuing to fall and unemployment is still rising. Profits are depressed, and wage earners have had to accept deferral of improvements and maintenance of living standards. Inflation and interest rates remain high. There are signs of improvement in the world economy and of an end to the drought in the eastern States. There is wide agreement, however, that sustained economic recovery and significant inroads into the unacceptably high level of unemployment will require a steady improvement in business and consumer confidence and more effective processes of income determination. There is also wide recognition that Australia's economic problems are deep-seated and not amenable to rapid solution . The call for a National Economic Summit Conference came from many sections of the community and, most importantly, had the clear endorsement of the Australian people at the 1983 Federal elections. The Conference has been a long time in its genesis. Well before the recent election campaign I had advocated such a meeting . I would remind the House that, even before the election was called, I had had this to say on 30 January of this year: We will convene a National Summit Conference with representatives from the employers, the A.C.T.U. and the State Governments . . . to expose all of us together, to the realities of what is happening in the domestic and international economic scene and the problems, dangers, opportunities and challenges of what is involved in those developments. At that stage, the envisaged purpose was to: . . . attempt to analyse the reciprocal implications of movements in wages, profits, patterns of work and individual reconstruction. This Conference- As I said then- would clearly occupy several days and provision would be made for an early follow-up if the parties considered it desirable . . . The concept and procedures I outlined at that time, and in more detail in the course of the recent election campaign, were faithfully followed in arrangements for the Conference. The Government made every effort to ensure that those invited were as fully representative as possible of Australian industry, the Australian work force and the Australian people through their elected governments. The letters of invitation were sent immediately the Government was formally sworn in on 11 March of this year. The 100 participants who accepted my invitation included representatives of all State governments and of the local government sector. The union movement was represented by the full Australian Council of Trade Unions Executive. Business was represented through two avenues: Through the representative business organisations the whole structure of business, large and small, was covered; and in addition, many individual businessmen from some of the largest individual enterprises were invited. The Australian Council of Social Services was invited as the major umbrella organisation in the social welfare sector. In addition, the Government recognised that community organisations had a valid role to play in the process and 18 such organisations were invited to send observers. Understandably perhaps, some fears were raised that the Conference could not succeed and that it might simply become a forum for partisan position taking and disputation. There were some, perhaps, who thought that the spirit of conflict and confrontation has become irrevocably entrenched in this country. But the Conference was never envisaged in any way as a point-scoring exercise, let alone a partisan political affair, nor did it turn out to be. That it did not is a high tribute indeed to the responsibility shown by all participants. In seeking consensus on Australia's economic and social problems from the Conference, the participants were not intent on simply settling for the lowest common denominator, the bare minimum of agreement on an approach to a solution to the current crises. Throughout, the proceedings were marked by a combination of responsibility and realism, practical commonsense, and a sense of common interests. All participants agreed that every section of the community, excepting only the impoverished, should share the burden of restraint. Further evidence of the constructive spirit in which the Conference was approached by all can be found in the proceedings and in the many worthwhile results that emerged, particularly through the Summit communique. I must stress that never at any stage did we of the Government regard the Conference and its outcome as some means of shirking, or shedding the responsibilities of governments, and particularly the national government, to take decisions. We recognise and reaffirm that we, as the elected representatives of the people of Australia, have the primary and fundamental responsibility for the economic and social policies of this nation. But as I said in my closing address to the Conference, effective policy cannot be made in a vacuum. The Conference made a very substantial contribution to filling that vacuum, to bringing out clearly the economic and social realities which must form the context for government decisions. We are now all better equipped, and all have a clearer perception of the prospects, possibilities and plain hard work that lies ahead. In the deepest sense, the Conference was a key step in bringing Australia together. I deeply believe-and I am now doubly reassured that the overwhelming majority of the Australian people believe this also-that Australia can no longer afford to go down the path of confrontation which characterised much of the past decade. What we sought was genuine consensus on the path forward towards national reconciliation, recovery and reconstruction, and the co-operation of all in setting the nation upon that forward path. Specifically, we set the following objectives for the Conference. They were: To secure broad agreement on the role of an incomes and prices policy, in our efforts to promote employment and to achieve recovery and growth; and to ensure that the benefits of recovery are not lost in another round of the wages-prices spiral; to devise machinery for achieving the necessary restraint, including methods of wage fixation, influencing non-wage incomes, and price surveillance; to secure a better and wider understanding of the broad economic framework, within which we have to operate; to seek broad agreement on the relationship between a successful prices and incomes policy and the implementation of policies on industrial relations, job creation and training, taxation, social security, health, education and the other major community services; to examine the competitiveness and efficiency of the Australian economy; and, finally, to reach agreement on arrangements and machinery to monitor and continue the work of this Conference, especially in regard to continuing the process of consultation and co-operation between government, business and unions, initiated by this Conference itself. The objectives and the problems addressed by the Conference are encapsulated in the question of unemployment and the restoration of sustained economic growth which avoids a new bout of destructive inflation. As all honourable members know, the Conference ran from Monday, 11 April, to Thursday, 14 April. It was well reported in the media, giving many in the community the opportunity to read, view or listen in, and to discuss amongst themselves the important issues raised here. The sharing and acquiring of knowledge and information which was an essential feature of the Conference itself was extended, in a very real sense, to the community at large. This process of information-sharing is one to which my Government is committed in the future. Overall, perhaps the most satisfying feature of the Conference from the Government's point of view was the outstanding spirit of co-operation, frankness and willingness to respect the integrity of differing points of view that prevailed throughout. In particular, there was a willingness on the part of all participants to acknowledge that we all bear some responsibility for our current economic malaise and that all have a part to play in overcoming our current difficulties. I believe this augurs well for the implementation of a successful and effective prices and incomes policy, which is a cornerstone for our strategy for economic recovery. I turn now to the more specific achievements of the Conference. At the broad level, I think there were three of about equal importance: Firstly, the degree of common understanding reached on the nature and source of Australia's economic problems-an achievement due in no small measure to the frank and detailed information and analysis put before the Conference by the Government and by many of the participants and observers themselves; secondly, the degree of consensus reached-as expressed in the communique-on the basic framework and approach required to begin to arrest the decline in our economy, to arrest the expansion in unemployment levels, and, in an ongoing sense, to put our economy on a path of sustained non-inflationary growth; and thirdly, the recognition on all sides that the consensus reached at the Conference is only the first step and commitments have been given, again on all sides, to translate that consensus into effective action. The main specific conclusions of the Summit are set out in the communique which was tabled earlier in the House along with other documents submitted to or emerging from the Summit Conference. The communique was virtually unanimously adopted; only the Government of Queensland, from the multitude of participants, formally reserved its position, though even the Queensland Premier by no means rejected entirely its main thrust and conclusions. Naturally not every conclusion and every piece of information shared in the Conference could find expression in such a document. What it had to cover was the principal message of the Summit, the main points of the framework within which we must all now follow up in setting about tackling the serious economic problems facing this country. I would like now to point out to honourable members some of the more significant points made in the communique. I will necessarily be selective, but would commend the document as a whole for close study by every member of the Parliament and indeed by every Australian who is interested in this nation's welfare. The key elements of the communique, as I see them, are: First, in paragraphs 2 to 5, recognition of the nature and sources of the serious economic problems facing the Australian economy, the need for a co- operative and innovative response to those problems, and, particularly, the recognition that to achieve recovery will require restraint in expectations and claims from all sections of the community except the impoverished; second, in paragraph 12, recognition of the importance of tackling the problems of unemployment and inflation simultaneously, and that an effective incomes and prices policy is essential if an expansionary fiscal policy is to be pursued without adverse consequences for inflation; third, in paragraph 18, recognition by the trade union movement that the maintenance of real wages will be an objective over time, during a period of economic crisis; fourth, in paragraph 20, consensus on a return to a centralised approach to wage fixation and recognition that a suppresson of sectional claims is essential except in special or extraordinary circumstances; fifth, in paragraph 26, recognition that the Government has a mandate to establish a price surveillance mechanism and agreement on an examination into the most appropriate form of functioning of this mechanism; sixth, in paragraphs 24 to 28, agreement that if restraint is to be exercised then such restraint should be exercised universally, including in respect of dividends and non-wage incomes; seventh, in paragraph 31, acknowledgment that increased aggregate public expenditure may require increases in taxation or less than full tax indexation. eighth, in paragraph 33, recognition that priority in the social security area should be on real improvement in entitlements to those in genuine need; ninth, in paragraph 34 acknowledgment that, in the next session of Parliament, the Government would introduce a Bill abolishing the Industrial Relations Bureau and facilitating the amalgamation of unions; tenth, in paragraphs 43 and 44, agreement that the basic rights of women should be recognised and protected and on the need for imaginative policies to assist young people severely affected by the recession; eleventh, in paragraph 48, recognition of the importance of stable health policies and reaffirmation by unions that they will accept an offset in wage increases on account of the introduction of the Government's proposed health insurance scheme; twelfth, in paragraphs 50 and 52, stress on the importance of continuing the sharing of information to aid understanding of Australia's economic problems; thirteenth, in paragraph 53, general agreement that a small independent representative Economic Planning Advisory Council-EPAC-should be established to continue the process of consultation begun at the Conference; and finally, in paragraph 54, expression of hope that the Summit marks the beginning of consensus, not the end, recognition of the enormous amount of work that still remains to be done and commitment to that task. All in the community have a part to play. For its part the Government has already taken a number of concrete steps to follow up the success of the Summit Conference by setting off firmly on the path to recovery to which the Summit pointed. The representative working party foreshadowed in the summit communique has already met under the chairmanship of my colleague the Treasurer, and has made substantial progress in mapping out the most appropriate form and functioning of the proposed Economic Planning Advisory Council and Prices Surveillance Authority. The Government intends to introduce legislation to establish the Economic Planning Advisory Council in this parliamentary session. Work towards that has taken precedence over work to establish the Prices Surveillance Authority, but the Government intends to introduce legislation to establish the latter in the Budget session. The Government is also moving to establish a tripartite advisory committee on the prices and incomes policy. Central to the conclusions of the Summit was the recognition that the degree of restraint exercised in expectations and claims is absolutely vital to Australia' s prospects of recovery. As far as wages are concerned, the Government will participate in the conference on wage fixation scheduled to be held in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We will base our approach to that Conference on the conclusions of the Summit and on the prices and incomes accord. In that context, I would point out again that all at the Summit agreed that if a centralised system of wage fixing is to work, there must be an abstention from sectional claims except in special and extraordinary circumstances. Let me say that my Government's interpretation of what constitutes such circumstances is the common -sense interpretation and leaves no room for selfish claims from maverick sections of the trade union movement. Participants at the Summit Conference recognised that if restraint in incomes is to be exercised, then it should be exercised universally. In that spirit of equitable sharing of the burdens of recovery the Summit also stressed the need for restraint in non-wage incomes such as dividends, professional fees and the like. I have written to the chief executives of larger public companies and through the media have addressed the boards of all public companies in Australia seeking their co-operation in exercising restraint in dividends and non-wage incomes, such as directors' fees, over which they have an influence. It is important that such incomes do not increase faster than movements in wages. My colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has also written to major national organisations representing non-wage income earners drawing their attention to the Summit outcome and seeking their support in achieving income restraint in their areas. The Minister will also be writing to the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission drawing attention to the Summit communique in regard to non-wage incomes, and seeking his support in having fees voluntarily reviewed by Commission members. There was widespread opinion at the Summit that strong expansion of housing construction from recent depressed levels must be an important part of any general economic recovery. My colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), last Thursday in Sydney, chaired a post-Summit meeting of building unions and firms involved in housing finance, construction, trade and materials supply. The Treasurer and the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) also participated in the meeting. The Summit and the post-Summit meeting both contributed substantially to the ideas that are being developed within government to ensure that housing construction returns to its proper role in the Australian economy. The details of a new housing policy package will be announced soon. In this context honourable members will be aware that there will be a special statement of economic measures later this month, announcing a package of relevant economic fiscal measures. These measures will follow up the Summit and build on the new spirit of confidence already evident in the economy since the Summit. Some major elements of the Government's recovery program will be announced, aiming to get the economy moving and to create jobs. The Summit was a first step. By itself it has already helped to restore confidence, and in that way helped in getting a recovery under way. But its real contribution over the period ahead will fall far short of what is required unless it is effectively and consistently followed up. There is a responsibility on every member of the Parliament and every member of the community to see that the opportunity opened up by the success of the Summit is not frittered away. The spirit of shared sacrifice and restraint and the determination to take the steps needed to achieve recovery must be carried into effect in all areas: In wages and industrial relations; in the policies of business throughout the economy; and through the policies of government. I commend this vital national enterprise to each honourable member and the nation we represent. I believe that the Conference did more than establish the basis for confidence in the recovery of the economy. I believe it helped-as a first step-to restore confidence in ourselves as a people and as a nation, confidence that we can talk together and work together, that we can co-operate to seek solutions for our common problems, in the knowledge that what unites us is infinitely more important and enduring than the things that divide us. The revival of that sort of confidence in ourselves is essential if we are to overcome our present grave economic problems. But even beyond these problems, this new spirit of confidence and co-operation, if it can grow and strengthen, can be made an enduring basis for an even better and stronger future for all Australians. I present the following paper: National Economic Summit Conference-Ministerial Statement, 3 May 1983. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from speaking for a period not exceeding 26 minutes. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(4.25) —I think that all Australians have recognised that the National Economic Summit Conference was a valuable opportunity for Government Ministers, trade union leaders and the leaders of industry to exchange views, and I am certain that all participants found that that aspect of the Summit was of great value. I also acknowledge the many thoughtful, pertinent and useful contributions made at the Summit by a number of participants; in particular, some of the employers. It was unfortunate that the tone and substance of many of these contributions were not reflected in the final communique. Australia's fundamental economic and social problem is unemployment. It is a problem tearing at the very fabric of our society. One of the most substantial achievements of the National Economic Summit was its recognition of that reality and the truism that one man's or one woman's pay rise is another person's job. Not only did the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the employers recognise the crisis of unemployment but it was given the highest priority in the rhetoric of both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the New South Wales Premier. Mr Wran said there were only three issues at the Summit-jobs, jobs, jobs. The Prime Minister highlighted what I have always regarded as the degrading and demoralising effect of unemployment, and he told the Summit: The raw statistics do not show what unemployment means in terms of the loss of human dignity and self-respect, what it means in terms of the break-up of families and the social alienation of one-third of the best and brightest generation we have ever produced, what it means in terms of the defeat of human hope and the crushing of the human spirit. I could not agree more with these sentiments. But are these words matched by Government actions which demonstrate a genuine concern and genuine compassion for the unemployed? The fact is they are not. If they were, the Government would have placed before the Australian people a program which maximises the prospects for a sustained reduction in unemployment. I challenge it to place such a program before this Parliament. It is clear that the Government has not given the problem of unemployment its highest priority after all. Its words at the Summit were like the sound of the orchestra on the deck of the Titanic-sweet to hear, good for morale but of no practical significance whatsoever. The Government's own Summit figures show that the quickest and surest way to reduce unemployment is, first, to extend the wages pause at least into 1984 and, secondly, to relate future wage increases to the capacity of the economy to pay. Even the New South Wales Premier, the Government's pseudo-Whip at the Summit, supported capacity to pay as the major criterion for wage levels. That policy would help make Australian industries competitive again. Had reducing unemployment been the Government's highest priority, the Government would have argued for the maintenance of the wage pause and it would have continued the wage pause at least until 1984. But we now know that, for the Government, a deal with the unions has a higher priority than a deal with the unemployed. It is worth reflecting on the reasons that have been put forward for not adopting a responsible wages policy. It was said by the ACTU leaders that an extension of the wages pause was 'unrealistic'; that it was likely to lead to industrial disputation. I have a great deal of faith in the Australian workers. They have shown time and time again that when given an honest, frank and complete picture they are willing to make considerable sacrifices in the interests of their fellow workers. They have on occasions taken pay cuts and worked a four-day week rather than see their fellow workers lose their jobs, and the vast majority of Australian workers embraced the wages pause. They knew the pause would not only help them stay in work but also help the unemployed get jobs. This Government has had a unique opportunity to put to Australian workers the undeniable truth that, according to the Government's own calculations, an extension of the wages pause and part indexation in 1984 would bring down unemployment to 8.7 per cent in 1985-86. That would have been the caring, compassionate thing to do, but of course that would have required leadership and this Government would not do it. Instead, it chooses to pay its political debt to the ACTU. Instead, it chooses to condemn over 100,000 more Australian workers to the dole queue, to demoralising inactivity. Unemployment is not just a statistic, not just an exercise in semantics, it is harming people-people with families, with hopes and with the will to work. Not only has the Government apparently waved the white flag to the ACTU now the Summit is over; it has allowed the ACTU to take the initiative in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This is not just incompassionate and insensitive; it is plainly inept. The Prime Minister has acted more like a barometer than a leader. He has a habit of saying one thing and doing another, increasingly looking like a misleading practitioner of mellowspeak. The Government's idea of consensus it to compromise with the ACTU. The price of that compromise is the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Australians, and the Opposition will not support that kind of compromise. The Opposition is not advocating a responsible, realistic wages policy because it wants to make things harder for the working man and his family. We appreciate that with current levels of inflation it is difficult to make ends meet on average weekly earnings and we know that more than half the work force earn less than that, but it is a great deal more difficult for those whose only income is the dole. For the Opposition, if not for the Government, they are of the highest priority. Let this Government match its rhetoric with action; let the Government show it really does care; let this Government bring into this House a sensitive, responsible wage policy. What is so ironical about the new Government's wages policy is that it represents the abandonment of consensus, not its creation. All eight Australian governments recognised the need for a wages pause. Every government in this country and the vast majority of Australians, including the trade unionists, knew that the wage pause was the only way to put Australians back to work. Now the pause and that historic consensus have been destroyed. The country will judge this Government not by how it talks about compassion but by how often it demonstrates it. When will the Government shift the focus from politics to policies? It plays with semantics and Australian lives. A 'deficit of despair' suddenly becomes a 'deficit of hope'. The shift from rhetoric to reality seems just too tough for this Government. It was not surprising that the Government disregarded the interests of the unemployed at the Summit. After all, the unemployed were not at the Summit. The representative of the Australian Council of Social Service said: The interests of all Australians cannot be represented by unions, business or government. We are concerned that ACOSS is the only voice here for the unemployed and the three million people receiving a pension or a benefit. Many other disadvantaged and alienated sections of the community feel locked out and unable to contribute to these discussions about their future. ACOSS said that because it was a Summit dominated by big business, big unions and big governments. It is not just the Opposition which has said that; others have said it as well. It is summed up in those words of ACOSS. It was a Summit where the strong, the powerful, closeted together to plot the future of Australians. Big business, big unions and big governments are not the Australian community. The community consists largely of small businesses, farmers and unorganised groups without a power base-people such as the young, the aged, the unemployed and women. These are the very people who are vulnerable to the whims and the decisions of unions, of government and of big business. Who was at the Summit to represent pensioners when means testing of their hard earned pensions was discussed? Who was at the Summit to represent those affected by the Government's flirtation with high tax on lump sum superannuation payments? Who was at the Summit to defend the right of mothers to the family allowance introduced by the Liberal-National Party Government? Remember that this unelected, unrepresentative Summit was supposed to be deciding what the future level of unemployment in Australia would be. In fact it aimed at deciding whether the unemployed and future school leavers could look forward even to having a chance of getting jobs. Yet the very people most severely affected by unemployment-the young and women-were not even directly represented. Today the Prime Minister has painted a glowing picture of the consensus in the communique. However, the real test is whether the unions, the Government and employers live up to their commitments, general as they are, or whether in fact they understand the commitments in the first place. For example, the crux of the communique is the commitment to wage restraint. The communique states: The trade union movement also recognises that while the maintenance of real wages is a key objective, in a period of economic crisis, as now applying, it will be an objective over time. The Confederation of Australian Industry interprets this to mean that there will be no catch-up of consumer price index increases during the wage pause. The ACTU interprets it to mean that the catch-up will definitely occur. Again, the CAI interprets it to mean that future wage setting will be based on capacity to pay. The ACTU now interprets it to mean increases in line with the CPI. This is despite Mr Kelty's having said at the Summit: The catch-up and continued maintenance of real wages is an objective over time. It is small wonder that the average Australian is confused about the Summit. A further example is the statement in the communique that centralised wage fixing requires a suppression of sectional claims except in special or extraordinary circumstances proved before the centralised wage fixing authority. Does this not suggest that the current campaign outside the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission by building workers for higher wages and shorter hours breaches the communique? But no, we find that the ACTU fully supports the campaign. Another example of a failure to understand the communique was a statement made recently by Mr Ivan Hodgson of the Transport Workers Union. Mr Hodgson's words were: I don't recall agreeing to wage restraint at the Summit. He went on to describe the Summit as 'a public relations exercise'. They are not my words, but Mr Hodgson's words. Insipid as the communique may be, I hope not all Summit participants will interpret it as Mr Hodgson has. I hope it has some meaning because without any wage restraint the fight against unemployment is lost. There is one further disturbing feature of the Summit to which I wish to refer. In his election policy speech, the Prime Minister promised 'immediate reductions in income tax for almost six million Australian taxpayers'. He spoke of 'a major concession to the small businesses of this nation'. The Labor Government was given a mandate by the Australian public to grant those tax cuts. Most Australians will be horrified now to see the Government using the Summit to abandon its promise. In other words, this Government has used the Summit to get a so-called fresh mandate, a mandate to increase taxes and it thereby regards the mandate of the Summit-a mandate of big unions, big business and big government-as more relevant than the mandate given by the Australian people. That challenges the whole basis of democracy. I am sure that Australians will remember for many years the Prime Minister's words in his policy speech when he said: I offer no fistful of dollars to be snatched back after the election. They are not my words but the words of the Prime Minister. I hope that, if there are future summits, the Government will never again use them in such a cynical and arrogant way. The Summit communique is replete with platitudes about the economy but what Australians are now looking for is substance. This afternoon the Prime Minister has revealed what the Government will do as a result of the Summit. In his speech this afternoon he said: The Government has already taken a number of concrete steps to follow up the success of the Summit Conference by setting off firmly on the path to recovery to which the Summit pointed. Let us look at the concrete steps which are taking us so firmly down the path to recovery. They consist of the following: First, the working party foreshadowed in the Summit has had a meeting and the Government is going to establish another body, an advisory council. Second, the Government is to establish yet another body, a tripartite advisory committee. Third-these are the concrete steps-the Government has indicated that it will say something to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission at some stage. Fourth, the Prime Minister has written letters to the chief representatives of large companies. Fifth, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has also written a letter, this time to representatives of non-wage income earners. Sixth, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) has had another meeting at which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) were also present. Seventh, there will be some sort of statement later this month on some economic measures. For goodness sake, by no stretch of the imagination could these eight measures be called 'concrete steps', setting us off firmly on the path to recovery. Rather, they represent inept and irrelevant shufflings of an indecisive and to date directionless government. In making these remarks I do not wish to be confrontationist, to be partisan or to play party politics. That may be the way the Prime Minister characterises my remarks, just as he did when we on this side of the House did not agree with everything that was laid down by Labor spokesmen at the Constitutional Convention. We should bear in mind that the only people who voted en bloc on every item-on every resolution-at that Constitutional Convention were those in the Labor Party. Who played party politics? The Labor Party did. Let me make it clear on behalf of the Opposition that we do not regard this country as a one- party state; nor is it a corporate state, so fashionable in the 1930s, run by big bureaucracies for big business and big unions. This is still a democracy and we still have every right-indeed a duty-to put our views just as vigorously as the Prime Minister and the Summit participants put theirs. We still have a right to be heard expressing our views in the best interests of the Australian people and, above all, we retain the right to speak for those many millions of Australians who were unrepresented at the Summit. We intend to scrutinise closely all of the Government's policy proposals. Indeed, it is clearly in the national interest that we should do so. Where the Government is right, I will not hesitate to say so and neither will my colleagues. Equally, we will not hesitate to criticise the Government firmly and loudly where its policies are not soundly based. It would appear to me, in the early stages of this Government, that to this Prime Minister consensus apparently means uncritical docility, and that we will never accept, that we can never accept. This country does not need, as the Prime Minister seems to need, this side of the House to be a cowering clone of the Government. This Government pitched expectations very high indeed. Through its rhetoric at the Summit and during the election campaign, it raised the hopes of Australians for a quick return to better times and it is with a great deal of regret that I conclude by saying that there was little in the Summit communique, or indeed since, which leads me to believe that these hopes and aspirations will be realised. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.45) —I have listened to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and his crocodile tears for the unemployed. It is a pity he has not been crying for some years because in February 1976 5.4 per cent of the work force was unemployed. In February 1983 that figure had grown to 10.7 per cent. A lot he did about unemployment when he was a member of a Cabinet presiding over Australia's fortunes and the fortunes of those in and out of work in those six to seven years. Now he comes into this chamber and talks about the performance of this Government, which has been in office for only a few weeks. Let us look at the miserable, pathetic level of economic growth that the so- called economic managers on the other side of the Parliament were able to produce. There was a growth of 1.6 per cent in gross domestic product for the period of six years up till 1983. We have seen that simply to hold the line of unemployment we must have a growth rate of something like 3.5 per cent. I think the question that the Opposition should first ask itself is who does it think it represents? I can assure the Opposition that it did not represent the people at the National Economic Summit Conference. The business people at the Summit seemed to have no truck with the Opposition and no interest in it because business people realise that the Opposition is incompetent and that it has failed. I recommend to the Opposition that it sticks with the rhetoric of looking for the best interests of the nation. I consider the Summit the most important meeting that I have witnessed in my political career. People interested in the national welfare of Australia came together to look at the problems, to talk about them, to analyse them and to do something about them in a spirit of co-operation. I suggest that the Opposition should not talk to us about a wages policy. The Opposition has never had a wages policy. It destroyed the only wages policy we had, which kept wages at least near the inflation rate and below it in the period up to 1980. The Opposition went for a decentralised basis of wage fixation. Then it talked up, for its own political ends for the 1980 election, the so-called resources boom which spawned inordinately high wage increases of 1980 and 1981 and which led to a surge in inflation and ultimately, in part, to unemployment. That is the Opposition's record on wages policy. It has never had a wages policy. The Opposition should not come into this House suggesting that it may have had a wages policy if it had been returned to power. I will tell honourable members what would have happened if the Opposition had been returned to power. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the former Treasurer, made it clear a couple of weeks ago. It would have introduced a highly contractionary Budget. It would have tightened down the monetary aggregates and it would have tried to do the same old tired number that it has tried so many times before, that is, to deal with inflation first. That would have been the cry. The Opposition would have said that we could have a non- inflationary recovery, that unemployment and inflation could not be dealt with at the same time and that inflation would need to be dealt with first. We would have seen all the old Fraser rehetoric and all the old boring tory shibboleth brought out again to drag down inflation, and we would have been back to contractionary Budgets and high interest rates and waiting for the day for the much vaunted non-inflationary recovery. This nation has waited and this nation has got very tired of waiting, and it put the Opposition on the other side of the Parliament where it belongs. Let us make this clear. The Opposition has never had any possibility of talking to organised labour in Australia. It has not even talked to business, it turns out. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) made the point by way of interjection to the Leader of the Opposition when he, not so eloquently, attacked the prospect of both myself and the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) being at a meeting of the housing industry. Let me tell honourable members that at least an accolade was paid to us at the meeting of the housing industry representatives. They said: 'This is the first such meeting where we have had a meeting with Government before something was decided.' The Opposition takes the view that business has nowhere to go but to it. I can assure Opposition members that business is not turning to it now and will not in the foreseeable future and labour, of course, would never have anything to do with the Opposition. Labour would not have a bar of the Opposition because of the policies it pursued . Let me make this clear. We have turned our backs upon the failed strategy of inflation first and we believe that the only way to approach the economy is on the basis of dealing with both inflation and growth and therefore unemployment simultaneously. We not only believe that; the Summit communique also expressed it. It was expressed very eloquently by the late Sir Keith Campbell, who made it very clear that companies were watching their businesses and the lives of their employees being destroyed while the Opposition fiddled around with its monetary aggregates, believing that it could actually stay closeted up in this building and pull some sort of monetary lever and push some sort of fiscal lever and then , somehow, all of the problems of income determination would simply be solved outside. They were never solved outside in that way and they will never be solved in that way, as honourable members well know, and we simply have to get down to talk about the way in which income shares are determined in this country . That is what the Summit process was about. We got a very generous response about restraint in respect of prices and incomes. Business representatives volunteered restraint upon dividends and directors fees and in fact in the area of non-wage incomes. I refer also to what the Australian Council of Trade Unions said concerning the catch-up matter which the Leader of the Opposition mentioned . That is the sort of response which was engendered by the Summit Conference. I go back to some words of the Leader of the Opposition on 29 January 1982. He said: We must re-establish a feeling of trust and a good working relationship between the Government, employers and unions, so that the conciliation and arbitration process is the foundation of our industrial relations, and not confrontation. I ask him where is that view, then expressed, at difference with what this Government did in the Summit process? In the same speech he said: Unless the Government adopts a coherent wages policy, unless it delivers its promised tax cuts, unless it develops a working relationship between government, employers and employees in industrial relations, there is little hope that inflation will be contained and the conditions set for growth in our economy. In other words, what he was implying was that the Government to which he belonged less than a year ago had an incoherent wages policy, which of course it did. He went on to say: That policy must contain a procedure to guarantee orderly wage adjustments. There are major pressures on Australia's economy and if we have no national wages policy and inneffectual communication between the Government and the trade union movement we will have problems in the economy. I see that very much at difference with the sorts of noises coming from the Leader of the Opposition today. I would have thought that those expressions of opinion when he was out there in the boondocks of the back bench trying to be heard, trying to say something relevent and useful for a change, were very much in accord with the sorts of reasons why the Government set up the National Economic Summit Conference and why, in the process of the Conference, we saw the spirit of co-operation engendered therein. I think it is fair to say, and I do not think I am overdoing it in saying so, that as a result of that Conference a feeling of confidence has swept this country through the areas of business and organised labour which I think provides the basis for a national recovery provided it is backed up with sensible government approaches to the problems and sensible economic policy. To return to the wasteland of inflation first and not to deal with inflation in the process of dealing with employment at the same time is, of course, the cruelest policy which can apply to those hundreds of thousands of Australians who have borne the brunt of the failure of coalition policies for years and years. We reject those policies. It is now, of course, a matter of record that the participants at the Summit Conference reject them as well. I make it clear that we saw at the Economic Summit representatives of major companies, the AMP Society, the banks, the major industrial companies and the major mining companies. When has the Opposition ever been able to assemble a group like that which took it seriously. It never has because it was never interested to ask their views and never interested to achieve a co-operative result in terms of the management of the Australian economy. We have turned our back on the Opposition's policies. We embrace the policies of expansion which are, at the same time consistent with our inflation objectives and to achieve, over time, an improvement in the problem of unemployment, to see a restoration of growth and to get back to dealing with the root core problems in the Australian economy. As I said, the major objective of the Summit was to establish a common understanding on the part of labour and of governments as to the nature and extent of those problems. The documents prepared for the Conference provide an unprecedented amount of information. Again, I hasten to add that never before has any government taken the Australian public into its confidence by revealing as much public documentation or as much information as we did to give all and sundry an idea of the state of current economic conditions. Interested people, businessmen, representatives of labour and academics were, for the first time, given information which previously had been kept private. These papers are publicly available. The full proceedings of the Conference will be published shortly. I will also be making a detailed statement on the economy in late May. There is no point in the Leader of the Opposition again trafficking in derisory comments about the Economic Planning Advisory Council, the Prices Surveillance Authority and the meeting with the housing industry because these were the ongoing commitments which the Government made at the Summit to see that the Summit process did not die with the ending of the Summit. It was a commitment of the Summit to establish an Economic Planning Advisory Council so that this Government could sit down with the States, with business, with labour and with other bodies such as the Australian Council of Social Service and in these high level discussions look at the broad parameters of problems, be in a constant and useful advisory role and, over time, look at the establishment of growth targets for the economy and take an active part in the development of economic policy. Again, that is a totally strange concept to the coalition which had a business advisory council made up of its friends. It would ring it from time to time to get confirmatory advice of what it was doing. This is a totally different approach. The commitment in relation to the Economic Planning Advisory Council and other commitments which were given at the Summit to which the Leader of the Opposition referred have been continued and will be continued in the spirit of the Summit. I will introduce a statement on economic measures in late May which will give early effect to the Government's election commitments and to those commitments expressed at the Economic Summit. Again I dismiss, as I can, out of hand the foolish comments of the Leader of the Opposition in that respect. I think that the Conference succeeded in getting very substantial agreement on the nature and extent of our current economic problems. It recognised that economic activity and the level of employment are continuing to fall and unemployment is rising; profits are depressed; wage earners have had to accept deferral of improvements and maintenance of living standards; inflation and interest rates remain high, and there are tentative signs of improvements in the world economy which is now strengthening. I believe that the modelling process- the scenarios-which the Government provided to the Summit indicates that, over a three-year period which was the study period there will be a substantial growth in employment and that the Government's stated objectives throughout the election of creating half a million jobs will be met. I reject out of hand the derisory comments of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The Treasurer's time has expired. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(5.0) —I suggest that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) go back to getting the Department of the Treasury to write his speeches. After that pathetic, unrehearsed and almost incoherent defence of the Government's grasping for an economic policy at the present time, I think all of us hope that he might at least go back to getting some professional advice on how to present arguments . I believe that the one great legacy-I use that word quite deliberately because I think it is-of the National Economic Summit Conference is that perhaps more conclusively than any other event or any other bringing together of a group of people it has focused the attention of the Australian people on the central economic problem of our time, that is, the link between excessive wage rises, unemployment and inflation. To that extent, all of us should be indebted to the Government, to the trade union movement and to the business people who attended the Summit because I think, better than anybody has been able to achieve before, that meeting focused the public's attention. I think that is something that we ought to be grateful for. That is a great legacy of the Summit. The great tragedy of the Summit is that the Government has not heeded the lesson from the meeting. It brought those people together. Information was provided. That and the sheer logic of argument resulted in the realisation that so many of the things that had been said by the former Government about wages, and which were derided by the likes of the Treasurer when he was in Opposition, were after all true. Despite the public recognition of that fact, the Government is not following the logic of what was so clearly revealed at the Summit. That is the great tragedy. Having brought these people together and having brought about this realisation, the Government is not following up the sorts of policies that are required to check an inevitable further growth in the number of unemployed in Australia over the next 12 months. The Opposition has welcomed a number of aspects of the Economic Summit. Despite the wordy protestations of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Opposition wished the Economic Summit well. Most of the people who went to that Economic Summit, whether they came from the trade union movement or whether they came from the business community, attended with the wish to do a good job for Australia. I belive that many of them, when their comments are analysed, gave a very, very remarkable contribution to a discussion of a very, very serious economic and social problem. I think the Government was very wise to broadcast the proceedings. I agree with the Prime Minister that more frequent televising of these proceedings is desirable. I welcome the provision of so much information. I think the former Government perhaps could have provided more information in some of these economic areas. I have said that before and I do not mind repeating it in this debate. But, more than anything else about the Summit, of course I welcome the way in which the Government embraced so many hitherto elusive economic realities. I remember debate after debate about the economy when I sat on the other side of this place last year. The Treasurer and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), as they now are, came in here and said: 'Well, it really has nothing at all to do with the state of the world economy. It has all to do with your inadequate domestic economic policies'. Yet I sat and listened to the Treasurer say at the Economic Summit that the most important thing we have to understand is that the main reason for our economic difficulties at the present moment is the impact of the world recession on the Australian economy. Then we had to hear from the Treasurer and we had to read from the three economic scenarios that were presented by the Government to the Economic Summit one undeniable fact. It stood out in every presentation, it stood out in every analysis and it came out in every speech. I believe that it was most eloquently expressed by the person referred to by the Treasurer, and that was the late Sir Keith Campbell. I acknowledge that he did say certain things about the need to fight unemployment and to fight inflation at the same time. I do not wish to have an argument with the Treasurer on the issue of words of a deceased person, but let us remind ourselves of some other things Sir Keith said. He said: The Treasurer presented, in his expose, three economic scenarios. He warned us correctly of the deficiency in econometric models and asked us to concentrate on the broad messages. The broad but very clear messages were: The longer the wage pause the lower the wage adjustments, the lower the rate of inflation, the higher the rate of growth and the lower the rate of unemployment. They were the words of Sir Keith Campbell at the Economic Summit. He went on: For the jobless and I suggest for the whole economy, scenario C-- That is, the wage pause scenario, the much derided wage pause scenario- Offers the most hope. But it still predicts, its deficiencies accepted, an unemployment rate on average in 1985-86, little different to that in 1982-83. Surely that is not good enough. If we genuinely care about the jobless and genuinely wish to incur discipline and sacrifice, we need to put together a scenario D. Unless the broad messages from the scenarios are meaningless we must clearly extend the wage pause to the end of 1983, we should clearly agree that there should be no catch-up at that date and we should agree further to review, on behalf of the employed and the unemployed, this vital community matter during the first quarter of 1984 having regard to our then progress and circumstances. I am happy to rest my argument today on those words of a distinguished Australian who was prepared in a totally unselfish manner to serve governments of different political persuasions at both State and Federal level over a very long period. I believe those words express very eloquently both the legacy of the Summit and the tragedy of the Summit. Having been given the facts, having received such goodwill-I admit that the Government generated a great deal of goodwill for itself out of the Summit and it deserves praise for that-and having been presented with that evidence the real tragedy is multiplied and is more manifest because the Government then failed to implement the right policy. The fact is that despite all the words of concern about the unemployed that were uttered by the Government over the last few months, despite the mountain of material and despite the overwhelming weight of economic evidence, the Government still finds itself unable bluntly to state the obvious, and that is that the only way in which a significant reduction in unemployment can come about in Australia in current circumstances is for the entire Australian work force to accept the necessity for a reduction in its standard of living. It is no good sugar-coating the pill; it is no good using obscure words; it is no good trying to bluff people with a mountain of paper and a mountain of words. The situation is so serious at the present time that we have to accept that there has to be a reduction in living standards. Unless the 90 per cent of the work force in Australia who have jobs at the present time are prepared voluntarily to accept a reduction in living standards they will through that refusal thrust upon some of their fellow Australians an involuntary and far more catastrophic reduction in living standards through throwing those people out of work and adding to the lists of the unemployed. That is not the propaganda of the Liberal Party. It is not the propaganda of Andrew Peacock or Doug Anthony or John Howard as it was described by the Labor Party during the election campaign. That is the upshot of the Labor Government's own economic material presented to the Summit. This material flies in direct contradiction to a prediction and an undertaking that was given by the Prime Minister on 1 March, two days before the Labor Government was elected. That is what he said on an A.M. interview-the final interview before the electronic blackout on 1 March. He said: I made my position quite clear before and that we would expect that no movement would take place in the wages area prior to the calling of the Economic summit conference and what we would do in the area of wages would then depend upon the assessment of the economic situation- I repeat that. He said: . . . What we would then do in the area of wages would then depend upon the assessment of the economic situation, arising out of that economic summit conference. That is the position that has been made quite clear by Mr Dolan on behalf of the ACTU. That is my position and there is no difference between us and the oil industry would come into that category. That was the statement of Mr Hawke on 1 March. He said: 'We will make a decision about wages according to the economic analysis presented to the Summit'. The overwhelming economic analysis that came out of the Summit was that the more we restrain wages the better the outcome on employment, on inflation, on growth-on all the sorts of things that are important to us on both sides of the House. The clear unmistakable, unambiguous message coming from the Economic Summit was that if the Government really were concerned about unemployment, if it were really serious about economic growth, if it were really serious about inflation it would try to follow the tightest possible wages policy, it would at least extend the wages pause until the end of this year and it would at least thereafter gear wage increases according to the capacity of the economy to afford. When I put down a notice of motion this afternoon about the cavalier approach of the new Government to the promises it made during the election campaign I was not only talking, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) mentioned, about taxation cuts-as my colleague the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) has said , a promise of a tax cut from the Labor Party in an election campaign means the guarantee of a tax increase after it has been elected-but also and far more importantly and far more fundamentally I was talking about the way in which the Prime Minister has repudiated the commitment he made on 1 March about how he would respond to the meeting of the Economic Summit, of how he would respond to the analysis presented to that Summit. I conclude my remarks by saying again that the great legacy of the Economic Summit is that better than ever before the focus of the Australian people has been drawn to the link between the rate of growth in wages, unemployment and inflation. The great tragedy of the Summit is that despite the overwhelming evidence the Government does not have the political courage to embrace the option that would do more than anything else to give real hope to the unemployed of this country. Debate (on motion by Mr Humphreys) adjourned. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1982-83. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1982-83. Loan Bill 1983. Social Security Amendment Bill 1983. Assent to the following Bills reported: Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1982-83. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1982-83. Loan Bill 1983. Social Security Amendment Bill 1983. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. On page 12 of the National Times of 13 March, which I think in fact was published on about 11 March, appears the statement: . . . according to one report, Hayden told Hawke in Bowen's presence that one of the consolations was that he would no longer have to work with- Instead of 'Bowen', an offensive term was used-- as deputy. I make the point that no such statement was made to me or in my presence. Mr Hawke confirms that no such statement was made to him or in his presence. My Press secretary contacted Mr Geoff Kitney and Mr John Hurst, who were the authors of the article. They made the surprising admission that they did not write that part of the article but that it was inserted by the editor. It would be uncharacteristic of me even to have accepted such a statement without making some reply. As you would know, Mr Speaker, in Caucus on 8 February I supported a motion applauding Mr Hayden's efforts on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. I would not have done this if Mr Hayden had made the alleged statement. Surely the editor could have checked that situation. Further, neither Mr Kitney nor Mr Hurst nor the editor contacted me at any stage. I asked my solicitors to get an apology from the chief editorial executive of John Fairfax and Sons Ltd. I sent that company the appropriate evidence from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that no such statement had been made. My solicitors received a reply from Stephen Jaques Stone James stating that, according to them , they had information that might have given some validity to this anonymous informant. They did say that, if I wanted to send them a letter setting out a denial and quoting the Prime Minister, they would publish it. On 6 April I sent a letter prepared by my solicitors in these terms: In an article 'The Unmaking of Bill Hayden' in the issue of your paper dated March 13 . . . you referred to a reported remark by Mr Hayden to Mr Hawke in my prescence during a meeting held shortly before Mr Hayden announced his resignation as party leader. By the remark, as reported, Mr Hayden was expressing criticism of me. The fact is that no such remark was made and nothing was said at that meeting which could be taken as critical of me. Not only am I able to say this, but I hold written confirmation of that fact from Mr Hawke and from Mr Hayden. It is also of some note that I was not consulted by the authors of the article at any stage. Please publish this letter in a position of comparable prominence to the article. I have to report that following that letter my solicitors received further advice from the solicitors for John Fairfax and Sons that, if I were to sign a release to say I would not take any action, they would publish the letter. I think this is an outrageous bit of blackmail. I want to make the point in public that I thought John Fairfax and Sons would have some standard of ethics. In the past the editor of this paper has expressed views about me which clearly show a malicious intent. This report was conceived in a lie and published with malice. I am disappointed that John Fairfax and Sons has aided and abetted him. Mr FIFE(Farrer) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented? Mr FIFE —Yes. On 17 November 1982 the Melbourne Age reprinted a document tabled in the Senate on 16 November 1982 showing domestic travelling allowance for 1981 for certain office holders. That table incorrectly records my home base as Albury. My home has always been at Wagga Wagga and any claim submitted by me for travelling allowance purposes has been made on the basis of Wagga Wagga being my home base. Further to this, it has been my practice never to claim for travelling allowance whilst in my electorate of Farrer and to claim only when I have been away from my home at Wagga Wagga and outside my electorate on parliamentary or ministerial duties. I have done this even though during the period I was a Minister there were many occasions when I was entitled to be paid travelling allowance when I was absent from my home at Wagga Wagga and within the Farrer electorate on ministerial duties. The error concerning my home base was made in the then Department of Administrative Services when the information was being extracted on the day it was tabled. Recently the Department of the Special Minister of State, to which this function has been transferred from the Department of Administrative Services, confirmed to me in writing that the error was made, and apologised for the embarrassment this caused me. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the letter from the Department of the Special Minister of State dated 25 March 1983. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Dear Mr Fife, I refer to your letter of 7 March 1983 addressed to Sir Peter Lawler, O.B.E., Secretary of the Department of Administrative Services, concerning a document tabled in the Senate on 16 November 1982 which contained an error in that it listed your home base as Albury instead of Wagga Wagga. I confirm for the record that your home base for travelling allowance purposes has always been Wagga Wagga and that the error was made in the Department of Administrative Services when the information was being extracted in some haste on the day it was tabled. The files show that you have not claimed, or received payment, for overnight stays in Wagga Wagga, Albury or in any other place in the Farrer electorate. There would, of course, have been occasions when you would have been entitled to claim the allowance, in your capacity as Minister of State, for certain overnight stays in your electorate. I apologise for the embarrassment this error has caused you. I am replying to your letter as the particular function has been transferred from the Department of Administrative Services to the Special Minister of State. Yours sincerely, P. LANCE Assistant Secretary Mr FIFE —I thank the House. When this error was first brought to my attention I was not greatly concerned, because I knew my claims had always been made on the basis of Wagga Wagga being my home base. I am correcting the public record now because of genuine concerns having being expressed by several of my constituents and in view of mischievous comments and allegations being rumoured by a small number of my political opponents. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to pursue a wages policy which will prevent a further rise in unemployment. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(5.22) —The Opposition has the unexpected pleasure of now finding out that the Government, by the arrangement of business, has in fact complemented the matter of public importance that the Opposition has decided to raise today. I welcome the opportunity to develop further the argument that was being developed by the Opposition during the debate on the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). During my remarks a few moments ago I placed considerable emphasis on the economic data and material which had been presented to the National Economic Summit Conference. I indicated that one of the great advantages of the Summit and one of the areas where in the past I have had reason, as I do again today, to compliment the Government regarding the Summit, was the provision of so much of value in terms of economic material and economic data. The House would be very well aware that the basis of the Summit discussion was the preparation and publication of three economic scenarios. Basically the first of those economic scenarios assumed an outcome on wages which could be regarded as extremely permissive-if one likes-and extremely expansionary. Another was an outcome in wages which involved a continuation of the wage pause at least until the end of the year and a very tight approach to wages thereafter. The third and final one-scenario A, the one to which the Government is clearly committed, if indeed it even gets to that particular barrier-was somewhere between the other two scenarios. It was perfectly clear from all the material presented and from all of the debate-this really does bear repetition because it lies at the heart of this matter of public importance, it lies at the heart of the debate that has just concluded on the Prime Minister's statement and it will lie at the heart of economic debate in Australia over the next 12 or 18 months and even beyond that, because it really is the central economic issue which is facing us at present- that scenario C, which was presented to the Conference by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), had the lowest of average weekly earning rises, gave the best results for the consumer price index, real household disposable incomes, real private consumption, private capital expenditure on both dwellings and business, real domestic demand, gross non-farm product, gross domestic product, employment, unemployment, and finally, gave the lowest money supply. In other words, the scenario was based upon a continuation of the policy of the wage pause, which we introduced, which we continue to advocate and which almost alone the Federal parliamentary Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions derided and opposed at the end of last year and the beginning of this year. A scenario based upon a maintenance of that policy produces-not according to me, but according to the Labor Government and its Treasurer-the best possible outcome on inflation, employment, economic growth, disposable income, and control of the money supply. What more eloquent testimony could there be for the correctness of the policies that were advocated in the wages area by the former Government and so strongly derided and criticised by the Labor Party federally and by the Australian Council of Trade Unions at that particular time? Indeed, one of the most instructive things in which a really objective observer of the Economic Summit would be able to indulge would be an analysis of the statements made by Labor spokesmen during the election campaign with many of the statements made, particularly by the Treasurer, in the course of the Economic Summit. I was reminded that during the election campaign the Prime Minister exhorted us all to throw away our calculators. Whenever the then Government said : 'But you cannot afford to promise tax cuts; we have already had some', the Prime Minister would say: 'Whenever you talk about spending some money those conservatives get out their calculators and start adding up the cost of it'. He said that it was about time we all threw away our calculators. Of course, that was the exhortation that came from the Prime Minister in the course of the election campaign. But when we came to the Economic Summit there was much wringing of hands about the difficulties facing the Government. There was much wringing of hands about problems that it faced and the problems which had been inherited. But the most important thing was, as I said in my earlier remarks, that more than anything else the Economic Summit demonstrated that, unless a wages policy markedly firmer than anything which has been advocated by any member of the Government since its election on 5 March is adopted by the Government, the outcome must unavoidably be that more tens of thousands of Australians will be thrown out of work. The material that was presented at the Summit demonstrated that even the best scenario-that was scenario C-predicted an unemployment situation in 1985-86 which is little better than that which obtains at the present time. That is the core of our charge against the Government. Despite all the evidence and the overwhelming consensus-if I can use the great buzz word-at the Summit, the Government still refuses to embrace a wages policy that will prevent further rises in unemployment. The material presented at the Economic Summit made it perfectly clear that: . . . in the long term, a return to strong employment growth requires a substantial and sustained increase in the rate of growth of output, perhaps to a rate of 5 per cent per annum. Only one projection (C) envisages a growth rate of non-farm product of much more than 5 per cent. In other words, having said that the only way to get a strong rise in employment is to have a rise in output, the Government's own economic material says that we will only get that rise in output if we adopt scenario C. The Government has made it perfectly clear that, if there is one scenario it will not adopt, it is scenario C. The material went on to say: All cases involving payment of catch-up whether paid in 1983 or 1984, involve continuing high rates of inflation througout the projection period. That cold fact is relevant to the answer, or perhaps the non-answer, that was given by the Treasurer at Question Time earlier today. It is perfectly clear that when the expression, 'over time' was inserted in the Summit communique, the participants had vastly different views as to what it meant. It is perfectly clear that the Confederation of Australian Industry believed it to mean that in present economic circumstances real wage maintenance simply was not on. That is an understandable view because in present economic circumstances real wage maintenance will only result inevitably in more people being thrown out of work. But it is equally clear that when it was inserted in the communique it meant a vastly different thing to the representatives of the ACTU. That has become increasingly apparent since the Summit concluded. The other morning on the AM program the Vice-president of the ACTU, Mr Simon Crean, made perfectly clear what he believed the expression 'over time' referred to. It merely referred to the time at which a catch-up was paid in relation to wage adjustments that have not occurred since the last community round. There is a very clear difference of opinion and a very strong position is being taken by the ACTU. When it talks about making concessions and about real wage maintenance over time, it is not talking about the overwhelming economic reality that at present real wage maintenance will put people out of work. It means that it might be prepared to negotiate-that was Mr Crean's word-the time at which a catch-up in relation to the 9.1 per cent of consumer price index increases that have occurred since the last community round takes place. That represents a vastly different point of view. If anyone believed that arising out of the Summit we had a clear idea of where the Government was going on wages policy, let alone whether the Government had an adequate wages policy, any hope of that disappeared earlier today. When the Treasurer was asked what the expression 'over time' meant, he evidenced his inability to answer by talking in very vague and nebulous terms about the nature of the Government's case to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Perhaps the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who has been more talkative on this matter in the media than has the Treasurer, would be kind enough to explain to me and to many members of the public precisely what the expression 'over time' means. Does the Minister adopt the interpretation that I believe many ordinary people in the community adopt, or does he adopt the interpretation which has been placed upon it by the ACTU, namely, that the only thing that they are prepared to negotiate about is the timing of the payment of the wage increases that have been forgone during the wages pause. As days go by it becomes more apparent that the great single lesson that came out of the Economic Summit is the unbreakable link that exists between excessive wage increases, unemployment and inflation. That is an acceptance that has been subscribed to by a very wide cross-section of the Australian community. It is no longer just the rhetoric and the assertion of the Liberal and National Parties as claimed by our political opponents. It has been embraced by the economic evidence of a national Labor Government. It has been accepted by all reputable economic commentators around the country. It has been recognised by both sides of the political argument. The overwhelming evidence, out of the mouth of the Government's own Treasurer, and as advised by its own public servants, is that unless the Government has the courage to pursue and adopt at least Scenario C, as presented by it to the Economic Summit, the inevitable result must be tens of thousands more Australians unemployed. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(5.35) — We have just heard a speech from the man who presided over the economy of this country for more than five years. He stood here seeking to lecture us about unemployment although, during the period for which he presided over the economy, we saw an enormous increase in unemployment. Indeed, he presided over the worst unemployment situation in the Australian economy for 50 years. What credibility has this man to stand here and lecture us or anyone else on matters of unemployment and wages policy, or indeed economic policy generally. He has no credibility in that regard. I suggest that it is incredible hypocrisy for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to stand up in this Parliament on the first full sitting day of the session and presume to lecture us or anyone else on matters concerning which he has been shown to be such an appalling and abysmal failure. The Opposition has an incredible gall to bring such a matter before the Parliament today. One would have thought that its supporters would have gone away and hid under a tree for six months rather than comment on wages, employment and the economy. The reality is that the former Government came to office in 1975 proclaiming that it would provide jobs for all who wanted to work. In fact, during its term in office, unemployment increased by almost half a million to the present rate of 10.4 per cent. What sort of record is that on which to lecture others about unemployment? Over the last 12 months that the former Government was in office unemployment increased by more than a quarter of a million or, to be precise, 271,000. I repeat, Australia now has an unemployment rate of 10.4 per cent or three quarters of a million unemployed. All of this is totally attributable to the previous Government, certainly not to that which has been in office for less than two months. Surely the previous Government must bear the responsibility for that. That being the case, I suggest that honourable members opposite have an incredible effrontery seeking to lecture the Government about the policies that are best suited to the reduction of unemployment. What an incredible gall they display. Clearly, when in office, they had no answers concerning unemployment. Surely they should be the last to attempt to lecture anyone about means of reducing unemployment. Similarly, who are they to lecture another Government about wages policy? From the time that they got into office, on a lie, they had no wages policy. Of course, lots of lies were told but in regard to wages policy in particular they said prior to the 1975 election that they would support wage indexation. Immediately they came to office they broke that promise and for the next six years set about bringing down wage indexation. They were successful in 1981 when finally they brought that wage fixation system to an end. The only policy they had for controlling wages during that period and since has been to use the bludgeon of unemployment to reduce wage claims. That was a deliberate act of policy. The former Government pursued budgetary and monetary policies designed to make it more difficult to advance wage claims. As we saw, under such policies an unemployment rate of 10 per cent was needed to bring wage claims down to their present state, one in which virtually no increases at all are taking place . Until recently we saw a continuance of this policy of using massive unemployment to reduce the level of wage increases. That was the only policy that the former Government had. It is totally inhumane and inappropriate if other policies are available. The Government strongly believes that there are, and has for years set about providing the basis for their introduction. I have described the previous Government's wages policy, insofar as it had one. After it destroyed the wage indexation system it had no basis for fixing wages except a totally decentralised system, one of fixing them at company or industry levels rather than on a national level; the national wage fixing process had been destroyed. The former Minister for Industrial Relations who now happens to be the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said in April 1982 that the previous Government had no wages policy. He recognised the reality when he saw it clearly from the back bench. In an article which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 April 1982 he is reported to have said: In industrial relations, the most critical element is wages policy. Regrettably , there has not been a wages policy. When indexation was knocked out by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, no long-term plan was put down, and no interim policy was put down while you were working to a long term-plan. That is what the present Leader of the Opposition said about a year ago in regard to the previous Government's wages policy. He should have known. He had been Minister for Industrial Relations, the Minister who was supposed to be in charge of wages policy, yet he said after he resigned from that portfolio that the previous Government had in fact had no wages policy. Therefore, there is no doubt that that Government was bereft of the ability to provide any answer in regard to unemployment and bereft of a wages policy, yet it now presumes to lecture the Government, to tell it what is the best wages policy to follow, what is the best policy to reduce unemployment. I do not believe that, for a very long time, we should listen to, or take notice of, what members of the former Government say in that regard. They have a long learning curve to follow before we can regard their remarks as having any credibility whatever. They have shown that they learned nothing during their seven years of abysmal failure in office. The former Government destroyed the wage indexation system and had no wages policy. What happened? Naturally, there was a big increase in wage levels. The whole matter was left to the market and in 1982 wages increased considerably; that is an undoubted fact. The former Government deplored that and said that it was a terrible thing to have happened. Why did it happen? It happened because the former Government had no wages policy. It destroyed wage indexation, the one system that it had going for it. Properly organised, wage indexation could have produced a sensible wage system but, that destroyed, the previous Government had nothing going for it. Its supporters threw up their hands in unholy horror when their non-wages policy produced a wages outcome that they regarded as terrible. It certainly created considerable problems for the Australian economy. Supporters of the previous Government said 'it is not our fault; the terrible unions are to blame', but as a government it had a responsibility to produce a clear wages policy. As the present Leader of the Opposition has said, it had none. Therefore, I believe that on the wages front supporters of the former Government totally lack credibility. The only policy that they had, apart from unemployment, was that of introducing a wage freeze. Such a freeze relied very much for its effectiveness on unemployment. A private sector wage freeze would not apply at present but for the presence of unemployment; that is the reality. Even though the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has imposed a wage freeze with regard to arbitrated decisions, the freeze would not hold if there were not also massive unemployment. Therefore, such a policy as the former Government had at the end of its term of office depended on its basic underlying concept of creating more and more unemployment. That was its only basic policy in regard to wages. Given that kind of record on both the unemployment and wages fronts, we need not pay too much regard to what its supporters now tell us our policies should be. The Government has the confidence that it can produce policies of its own, policies that will be infinitely more successful than those pursued by the previous Government. They will enable Australia to have a strong wages system, one that will be compatible with economic recovery and employment growth. They will not produce a disastrous wages shambles such as occurred under the previous Government. Equally, they will not be accompanied by a deliberate policy of creating more and more unemployment as the only real means of controlling wages. Of course, we are able to make that assertion because years ago when in opposition realising the enormous importance in this area we set about developing a policy which would be credible and usable in government and which would enable us to pursue policies which would start to produce economic recovery in this country and start to get employment growth going again. That is what the prices and incomes accord was all about. It took a long time to negotiate, but it was a policy which broke completely new ground; it had never been attempted before in this country. That accord, which was finalised in February of this year, in a very large respect though not completely, has been endorsed by the National Economic Summit Conference which was held in this chamber. Large segments of representatives at that Conference agreed to it, particularly on the need for a centralised wages system. It was endorsed by the Summit Conference. The employers stood in this chamber and said that they supported the centralised wages system-not the kind of mess which they have had before. The employers did not say that they supported the prices and incomes accord in every respect, but I expect that, when the matter comes up before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for decision, they will not support wage indexation. We cannot expect unanimity of view on everything. There was a large degree of unanimity of view at that Conference. In respect of both the accord and the Summit Conference, there is a tremendous amount of unanimity and of agreement. I believe that enables us to say to this Parliament that we are now in a position to pursue a wages policy which will be credible, which will hold and which will be compatible with economic recovery. I say that despite the assertions which are being made that there are all sorts of breakdowns in the accord and so on. There is no such breakdown. Overwhelmingly, the trade union movement supports the Government's policy in this regard. That policy is that we will introduce a centralised wages system, that that system will provide for real wage maintenance and that it will be introduced some time later this year. When that system is introduced, it will provide a basis on which sectional wage claims will not be able to be pursued except in special or extraordinary circumstances, as was agreed at the Summit Conference and as was said in the accord. There is no problem about that. That is the agreement of the trade union movement. It is specifically said in speeches in this chamber including the speech by the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions as well as in the communique. We have every reason to believe that that remains the position of the trade union movement. The trade union movement realises the importance of wages policy in respect of economic and employment growth and it, as much as anyone, wants to see employment growth in this country. I say that as a generality. Some areas of the trade union movement may not fully agree with every aspect of it. All I can say is that the Government intends to pursue its policy-the policy in the accord and the policy in the communique-and that policy does not provide for sectional wage increases. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition spent much of his time in both of the speeches which he made here this afternoon talking about the desirability of pursuing scenario C as set out in the working paper which was put before the Summit Conference, that is, projections of the Australian economy to 1985-86. There were three scenarios. Scenario C provided for no wage increase at all this year and then for about 80 per cent wage indexation in the ensuing two or three years. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that this was the scenario which we should pursue because this gave the best outcome. Let me say two things about that: Firstly, it is a fact, which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should realise, that there were different budgetary assumptions in respect of each of the three scenarios. In respect of scenario C, a more stimulatory budgetary assumption was made than in respect of the other two scenarios which, of course, accounts for a substantial part of the difference in terms of economic and employment growth. Secondly, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should have regard to what is stated on page 12 of the document. In regard to these matters it states: Fulfilment of all of the various assumptions on which any of the projections is based would be an unlikely outcome. In particular, the three wage-price outcomes are not regarded by the Committee as equally feasible. Projection B assumes continuing strong increases in wages, notwithstanding that economic activity remains weak. Projection C assumes an extension of the wage pause until well into 1984, then very modest increases in wages throughout the remainder of the three years, notwithstanding that the rate of growth of activity is accelerating fairly strongly. In other words, what this document is saying-it was produced not just by bureaucrats but by people from the trade union movement and employers-is that projection C is of doubtful validity in terms of its feasibility. That is the whole point which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition missed, that is, that scenario is simply not feasible. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(5.50) —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) came into the Parliament this afternoon and attempted to decry the credibility of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). The reason why this matter of public importance was pulled on for discussion was to look at the options which the Government has put down for this nation for the next three or four years-not at what has happened in the past so many years. What we are concerned about is looking at the future, looking at the policies which the Labor Government is putting forward for this economy and for this country and not at what has gone on in the past. What has gone on in the past has been put to one side by what happened on 5 March. Mr Campbell —You will get yours. Mr LUSHER —What do the Australian Labor Party scenarios-whether they be A, B, or C-hold for the unemployed? The best that the unemployed can look for is the same number of unemployed in 1985-86 as there is today. That is what the Labor Party is offering the unemployed. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie would be well advised to look at what the Government is offering before he shoots off his big mouth. What we are talking about is not the previous Government's policies but the present Labor Government's policies. The Minister said that he believed that there are other polices. Every one of those policies implies an unemployment level of about what we have now. If they are the sorts of policies which the Labor Government wants to introduce, what has changed? Where is the benefit to the unemployed from the policies that have been put forward by the Labor Party? That is the reason why the Opposition brought forward this matter of public importance for discussion today. The Opposition seeks to make it clear to the electorate-that is, the people of Australia-that the Labor Party in Government has accepted that unemployment in this country will remain at around the 9 per cent or 10 per cent level. The Labor Party, in exactly the same way as it is going to determine what the level of the deficit will be this year, will determine also the policies which will set the level of unemployment in this economy. The Labor Party has accepted a set of scenarios. We do not know whether it likes scenario A or scenario B. We know that it does not like scenario C. The Government put aside the suggestion that the late Sir Keith Campbell raised that perhaps there should be a scenario D. The reality is that the policies of the Labor Party are being framed around the acceptance of an unemployment level in this economy of 9 per cent or 10 per cent. That is the reality. What has happened since the National Economic Summit Conference is that things have become even worse. Since the Summit, the call is now clear, understood and accepted, as we see it, from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who in the House this afternoon said that later this year there will be, supported and granted, a wage rise of around 4 per cent and maybe even higher. Mr Charles —He didn't say that. He didn't say 'even higher'. Mr LUSHER —No. What I am saying is that it will be even higher because the pressures are coming on as a result of the consumer price index being higher than anticipated when the Summit was going on. An increase of 3 to 4 per cent was agreed upon in the lobbies behind this place when it was thought that the unemployment figure for the last 12 months would be around 10 per cent. We now have the reality that it is over 11 per cent. It is my suspicion that when the trade union movement gets together and determines its submission for the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission later this year, it will be going for higher than 4 per cent. Let us see whether I am wrong. The pressure is coming on the Government. It is coming on the policy which came out of the Summit communique and the accord between the trade union movement and the Labor Party. Already the building unions want to go back to the accord. They do not want the communique because the accord allows for more increases in wages than the Summit communique might have. Mr Braithwaite —Maintenance of real wages. Mr LUSHER —As my friend the honourable member for Dawson points out, real wages. There are inconsistencies in the Summit communique. Paragraph 8 talks about productivity increases. Paragraph 18 talks about real wage maintenance. These sorts of things will put on all sorts of pressures, because the Australian Council of Trade Unions has its outs. What we must continue to return to and not to forget is that what the present Government is doing is, as we say in the wording of this matter of public importance, pursing a wages policy which will not prevent a further rise in unemployment. Unemployment will still be out of control in Australia as a result of the policies being followed. Dr Theophanous —What do you know about it? Mr LUSHER —The Government has put down the scenarios and has told the country what will happen under those scenarios. Let us look at them. The Government cannot even get inflation down under the scenarios, let alone unemployment coming down. Growth will be unattainable under those scenarios, given a recovery in our economy as a result of overseas improvements and the breaking of the drought. Scenario C provides the only real way in which this economy can move. It is the only way. Scenario C is the scenario which goes for growth. The only way in which this economy will get out of the sorts of difficulties it is in, which are largely caused by drought and by overseas conditions, and by high wage policies, is growth. Growth must be the only answer to the problems. If we do not follow policies that will get maximum growth, which will ultimately lead to the best level of employment, there is no justification whatever for pursuing the sorts of policies wanted by the Government. We have seen at Question Time this afternoon and in the discussion that has gone on over the last few days that the Government does not know where it is. It does not know where it is on what real wage maintenance means. It does not know where it is on whether there is to be a catch-up. But if there is a catch-up and if there is real wage maintenance, all that is clear is that the scenario's results will be worse than those laid down by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) when he put them before the Summit Conference. That is what needs to be understood. There cannot be any catch-up because there is nothing to catch up. The only thing that needs to catch up in this economy is profits. If profits are allowed to catch up, then there will be growth, then there will be investment and then there will be jobs. But that will not happen under the Labor Government's policies. That is why there will be increasing unemployment, unemployment continuing at high and unacceptably high levels under this Government's newly announced policies. It needs to be understood, and the House needs to understand, that the policies that have been introduced and followed by this Government, the framework within which the Budget and this country's economy will be drawn up in the next couple of months, is predicated on unemployment of 9 per cent or 10 per cent for the next few years, with no signs of improvement. That is what it is about, and that is the reality of which people ought to be aware. I find it absolutely depressing that after all the rhetoric, all the election promises, all the hype of the Summit and all the expectations that have been raised by the present Prime Minister and those who support him, they have put all that to one side within a couple of weeks of achieving office and they have said: ' Nothwithstanding all that, and notwithstanding that we still hope to be able to create half a million new jobs over the next couple of years, here is our scenario as to the way in which the economy will move over the next three or four years'. All those scenarios-with the exception of scenario C, of which the Government will not have a bar-imply unemployment at 9 per cent or 10 per cent. As I say, that must be unacceptable, under the Government's own definitions, because Labor members kicked us around the electorates over the last couple of years on exactly the same sort of thing, as they did during the election campaign. They walk into office and they accept it. They are saying to the unemployed in Australia: 'We cannot do any better for you than what Mr Fraser and Mr Howard did for you'. What the Opposition is saying is that we must adopt policies which will provide the maximum growth and the maximum chance for business to restore its profitability and its investment and to restore the jobs that the community will need. That is why we have brought forward this matter of public importance. That is why we think it is important. The people of this country need to understand what Mr Hawke, Mr Keating and Mr Willis are putting forward. They are putting forward unemployment at 9 per cent or 10 per cent for the next so many years. If that is not a failure to pursue a policy that will reduce unemployment, I do not know what it is. That is why this matter of public importance has been brought forward and it is why it ought to be supported. Sitting suspended from 6.1 to 8 p.m. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(8.0) —The House has before it a matter of public importance, the terms of which state: The failure of the Government to pursue a wages policy which will prevent a further rise in unemployment. The hypocrisy of the coalition never ceased to amaze me when it was in Government and it has carried that on into its Opposition days. This matter was brought on by the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). He came into the House with this proposition for debate even though he was part of the Government that for seven years pursued policies which put inflation and unemployment through the roof and allowed a no growth situation to occur at the same time. Let us not forget that the former Treasurer was part of the Government which brought in so many policies that were rejected by the Australian public only a matter of weeks ago. He was aided and abetted by the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser. Let us not forget either another member of the Cabinet for most of that time-the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). That Government brought in tight fiscal and monetary policies time after time to screw down the economy. It had no wages policy whatsoever, and yet the former Treasurer today asks about the Government's policy on wages. He asks why it has not presented a cure-all for our ills. He was a main instrument in bringing Australia to the economic ruin from which the present Government will extract it in the next few years. What did the now Opposition achieve with its policies over the last seven years ? Inflation is still at 11.5 per cent, only a fraction below what it was in 1975 when the Fraser Government came to power. As I have said, there has been no growth in the economy whatsoever and unemployment is still going through the roof. Let us look as some of the statistics on unemployment, as released only a couple of weeks ago by the Commonwealth Employment Service. Of course, such figures were suppressed by the previous Government for two years because it thought they could be a little embarrassing for it. As at March 1981, which is when publication of the figures was stopped, 457,000 persons were registered with the CES as looking for full time employment. In March 1983, two years later , 822,000 people were registered as looking for full time employment. That is an increase of nearly 400,000 people. In fact, as the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) said earlier today, nearly 300,000 of those have been placed in that situation in the last 12 months. That is an incredible rise in the number of registered unemployed. If we took into account not only the registered unemployed but also people who are not registered but are looking for full time employment, Australia would have, conservatively, over one million people looking for employment. That is a disastrous situation. The former Treasurer, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, helped cause the ruination of the economy and yet he has the gall to talk about the failure of this Government's wages policies and its failure to present a cure-all for the national economy. We also had the delight of seeing the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) waltz in and present a speech that did not accord too much with the facts. He had scant regard for the facts. He mentioned growth but forgot to mention that he was a member of the Government parties for many years and did not say anything at that time about the fact that there was no growth. He ran away from the facts of the last seven years. He did not want to talk about them when they were raised by members on this side of the House. He did not want to talk about the last seven years; he wanted to talk only about what is happening this very second. He disregarded everything that had happened. The honourable member for Hume did not do his homework at all. He referred to the National Economic Summit Conference and especially the paper entitled ' Projections of the Australian Economy to 1985-86'. He said that he wished the Government would follow scenario C because scenario A would not reduce inflation . Page 26 of that paper, in part (ii) under the heading 'Prices, Wages and Factor Shares' shows that he did not do his homework, because it clearly states: The restrained way in which wage increases resume after the wages pause, and the Medicare impact on the CPI, set wages and prices growing on a fairly low track from 1983-84 onwards, so that in terms of the CPI, inflation moves down from about 11 per cent in 1982-83 to 6 per cent in 1983-84 and to 5 per cent in 1984-85. I hope the honourable member for Hume does not get the facts askew over the next couple of years. I assure him and his colleagues that they will be sitting on that side of the House for a long time to come if today's effort is to be the standard of their operation. During the gimmickry that went on late last year the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, decided that, not having any wage policy whatsoever, he would have to think up something to save the bacon. So he thought of the wage freeze. However, he said it could not simply be called a freeze; it would be better to call it a wage pause as it sounded a little better and did not give the impression that he was ripping off the Australian people. But the pause was not the only matter of concern; the Prime Minister had no policy for the period following the pause. The Fraser Government never talked about what would happen when we came out of the pause. The Opposition does not talk about it now because honourable members opposite have never had a policy for coming out of the pause. Mr Fraser thought that a quick gimmick backed up by a public relations exercise would hoodwink members of the public and that before they realised what was happening the Government would dash off to the polls and win another election. It thought ' Blow the Australian people and the economy; we won't worry about little things like that. We will run to the polls, win another election and Bob's your uncle'. I do not know about 'Bob's your uncle', but Bob is now the Prime Minister and Mr Fraser is no longer a member of the House. That was the cynical approach of the former Government and the Opposition has not done itself any credit whatsoever by raising this sort of MPI. Let me refer to some of the things said today about the Government. The Government has stated, through the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, that a number of policies will be brought forward over the next few months in an attempt to rectify the situation in which we have found ourselves, which was the fault of the Government of the last seven years. I have a copy of the prices and incomes accord. The former Prime Minister had a copy, too, during the election campaign but he ripped out a few pages and so the document did not quite make sense. That document states: The principles of wage fixation should be such as to provide wage justice to employees whilst seeking to ensure that wage increases do not give added impetus to inflation or unemployment. The maintenance of real wages is agreed to be a key objective. It is recognised that in a period of economic crisis as now applying that this will be an objective over time. It is that last sentence that honourable members opposite usually forget to quote. The disgraceful performance this afternoon by the honourable member for Bennelong and the honourable member for Hume in bringing this matter forward for discussion has been put to rest. I am quite sure that honourable members will see this Government bring forward effective and productive policies in the next few months which will fix and eradicate the problems that we have. Over the next few years we will see growth, reduced unemployment and increased employment so that a better life can be had by the vast majority of Australian people. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The discussion is concluded. Mr SPEAKER —Before proceeding to the next business, I direct the attention of the House to the presence in the Gallery of a distinguished predecessor of mine in this chair, the Honourable James Cope, who was a Speaker in the Whitlam Government, and offer him the best wishes of the House. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to add to an answer to a question which I gave to the honourable member for Bass ( Mr Newman) this afternoon. I have informed the Opposition Whip of my intention, and I note that the honourable member is in the chamber. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr SCHOLES —Mr Speaker- Mr Peacock —Just to clarify this, Mr Speaker, is the Minister seeking leave or on what grounds- Mr SPEAKER —No, he has asked for the indulgence of the Chair to add to an answer previously given. That is a custom that has been followed in this House for some time. Mr Peacock —I accept the granting of your indulgence, Mr Speaker. It may well be that we may ask for your indulgence to respond very briefly. Mr SPEAKER —It is not a matter of response. I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the indulgence of the Chair has been granted to add to an answer given. It is not a matter of debate. If the Minister starts introducing debate, I will withdraw my indulgence. Mr SCHOLES —The information I will give is factual and is derived from the Acting Chief of the Air Staff who is, I would hope, an impeccable source. In response to a question earlier today in which the honourable member for Bass asked if there was a flight of an F111 over Tasmania on 24 March, I indicated that it was regular practice for the Royal Australian Air Force to carry out reconnaissance flights and other forms of missions over various parts of Australia. I have obtained from the Acting Chief of the Air Staff the following information: There were three F111 flights on 24 March; two were over Queensland for training purposes. One operated out of East Sale. It was a recategorisation flight for a RAAF instructor, Squadron Leader L. D. Boyd of No. 6 Squadron. It was operated out of Sale. It flew an established training route which was registered and is contained in the Department of Transport manuals dated 6 October 1977. It flew that route exactly. The purpose of the flight was for the recategorisation of the instructor concerned. No photographs were taken. The flight took place at low level because that was the purpose of the training exercise. Mr Peacock —Where did it go? Where is that route? Mr SCHOLES —I table a map of the route. It is a regular military low jet route map of the Department of Transport dated 6 October 1977. Mr Newman —Mr Speaker, you have allowed your indulgence to be extended to the Minister. I request that you do the same for me. Mr SPEAKER —No. I remind the honourable member for Bass of the answer I gave to the Leader of the Opposition. This is not a matter for debate. Indulgence was given for a factual addition to a question that had been asked of the Minister. The Minister confined himself to a factual answer. If the Standing Orders are to be observed, there is no way that I can grant indulgence to the honourable member for Bass. Mr Newman —On a point of order, Mr Speaker- Mr SPEAKER —I will hear the honourable member for Bass on a point of order. Mr Newman —Mr Speaker, you would well understand the enormity of a Minister misleading this House. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bass will resume his seat. Mr Newman —Mr Speaker-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will proceed to the business. Mr Newman —The Minister has-- Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Bass will resume his seat. Mr Newman —Tabled a map which proves that he has mislead the House on-- Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Bass. This behaviour is disgraceful . I call the Clerk. Mr Newman —On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I take exception to that description because the Minister has tabled a document which shows that he has-- Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Bass. Address-in-Reply Ms Fatin, for the Committee appointed to prepare an Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General, presented the proposed Address which was read by the Clerk. Mr SPEAKER —Before I call the honourable member for Canning (Ms Fatin) I remind members of the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech and in these circumstances it is the custom of the House to extend to the honourable member the courtesy of silence during the speech. Ms FATIN(Canning)(8.17) —I move: That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to: MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY: We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. I am deeply honoured to move this motion on behalf of the Government and my party, the Australian Labor Party. I thank my colleagues for the privilege. In opening this debate, Mr Speaker, may I first congratulate you on your appointment to the high office which you now hold. I wish you well in the years ahead. The Governor-General's Speech, to which we are replying today, is the parliamentary expression of the commission given to a government by the people at a general election. It outlines in some detail the legilsation the Government will present to the Parliament and the administrative action it will take to discharge the clear authority given to it by the electorate on 5 March. The debate on the Governor-General's Speech gives members of this House the privilege of speaking on a broad range of issues. It allows me, in my first speech, to identify the subjects to which I have a deep and long-standing commitment. I will first speak about the reasons why I decided 12 years ago to work towards a parliamentary career in this place and what I hope that career will achieve-a career entrusted to me by the electors of Canning in Western Australia who have given me the honour and responsibility of being their representative. After spending my formative years in a struggling rural community, I moved to the city of Perth where careers were limited because of the few opportunities open to young women. I chose to join the nursing profession and I remain today a registered nurse, actively interested in the future of that profession. In the mid-1960s the Vietnam war, which shaped the political consciousness of many Australians, made me decide to become politically involved. That war became very real to me when, as a young wife and mother, I lived in Malaysia and observed at first hand the effects on the men who spent time in Vietnam. On my return to Australia I became active in the moratorium movement and the women's movement, and it was during these years that the inequalities, the violence and injustices in society influenced me enough to think of a political career. I came to believe that my commitment to people could best be fulfilled in a democratically elected house of parliament, a parliament where the government had the commitment and the power to bring about social, economic, political and legal reform. I proudly stand here today as a member of a government which has that commitment, a government of consensus, conciliation and concern, a government which I consider has begun to turn the tide of public thinking about politics and politicians for, in recent years, the esteem of politicians and the esteem of the institution of parliament itself have slipped far in the eyes of many Australians. But I believe the electorate now perceives a change occurring and, many would say, not before time. Mr Speaker, I am addressing you today as the first woman to represent Western Australia in the House of Representatives. As such, I am acutely aware of my responsibilities not only to the electorate of Canning but also to the women of Australia. Since Federation, only nine women have been members of this House and six of those nine are here today, all members of the Government. I look forward to the day when 50 per cent of the population, the women, are far better represented on all sides of this House. The last decade has not been easy for women as they struggled to define and articulate their position in Australian society. There have been many milestones , many firsts, and I am proud to add mine to a growing list. Women have come a long way but can now see more clearly than ever that the road ahead is long and arduous. This Government is acutely sensitive to this situation and, as pointed out in the Governor-General's Speech, a legislative program is planned which reflects this sensitivity. As an example, legislation will shortly be introduced into the Parliament which will deal with discrimination on the basis of sex or marital status. Discrimination exists in almost every facet of women's lives but it is particularly obvious in the area of employment. At the National Economic Summit Conference, in an information paper on the economy prepared by the Office of Status of Women, the following points were made: Women are concentrated in a relatively narrow range of occupations; unemployment levels amongst women have been and continue to be consistently higher than for men; there are far more women than men in part time employment and in less secure jobs; women's responsibility for the care of children and other dependants and the inadequacy of support services such as child care hampers their fuller participation in the labour market; the education system has contributed to occupational segregation; and, job creation and training schemes have discriminated against women in terms of both the quantity and quality of the programs offered. Anti-discrimination legislation will address itself to all these problems. At the same time, the Government will ratify the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, an action which is long overdue. This Convention was first introduced at the United Nations in 1945 and it will be another great landmark for this Government when it oversees Australia's ratification during this term of office. Mr Speaker, we in the Government place great significance on the fact that the agreed communique of the Economic Summit Conference stresses that the basic rights of women should be recognised and protected and that the move towards greater equality and independence for women should be encouraged, for no economic recovery will occur without full participation by women. My personal hope is that at any future conference we will see more than one woman joining in the deliberations and debate which shape our economic future. I know of many women who are more than competent to participate in high level economic debate and I look forward to business, unions and government ensuring that they do so. In Western Australia I represent the outer urban and partly rural electorate of Canning, an electorate of over 2,000 square kilometres and with a total population of 125,000 men, women and children. That I was returned on 5 March with the second highest swing in Australia is, in my view, a clear indication of the mood of the electors and the direction they want their Government and, therefore, their society to follow. In the 12 months from March 1982, unemployment in Australia soared from 6.5 per cent to 10.5 per cent, and these figures were certainly reflected in Canning. Men and women in their thousands were thrown out of work. Many lost more than their jobs. They forfeited their friends and their dignity along with their incomes and personal possessions. The social disruption caused by unemployment is pervading throughout our society. Families are daily being shattered by the tragedy of unemployment and many live in fear of losing their jobs. These are not exaggerated statements. Much of my work since taking office has been in areas of social welfare and social concern. Many people in Canning are finding life almost impossible to cope with as they struggle to adapt to falling and changing living standards. The problem is magnified all over Australia. As the Governor-General's speech indicated, this Government is committed to arresting the serious economic decline in Australia and to placing the economy on a path of sustained, non-inflationary growth. In addition, the Government intends to develop job creation programs which will stop the unemployment spiral . We in Canning desperately need these programs and I already meet regularly with individuals and groups throughout my electorate to discuss ways in which we can create the work which will dignify the lives of the unemployed. I am particularly concerned about the young men and women in Australia, for today's youth are the citizens of the future. Thousands upon thousands of unemployed young men and women are convinced that our society has nothing to offer them. When we stop and listen to these disillusioned young people, we find that a large new subculture of angry, dispirited youth is emerging in Australia. We as a Government, we as a nation, cannot and must not let this critical situation continue. We must develop ways of drawing these young people into our communities as full participating members. If they cannot find jobs we must create them. If traditional jobs no longer exist we must develop and exploit new industries and promote rapidly developing technologies. If we cannot find enough work for our young people we had better quickly realise that to retain our existing work ethic is not only foolish but also dangerous. We must create a situation in which people not in paid work are able to feel that they are contributing to society just as much as an employed person. We need to put our minds to how this can be achieved because if we do not we are allowing a situation to continue to develop which I believe is potentially destructive of our society. As the Governor-General's Speech clearly indicated, this Government is committed to implementing policies which will lay the foundations for a more equitable and compassionate society, a society without exploitation, without discrimination, without victims. Mr Speaker, I have not yet mentioned the gravest crisis which threatens society today. I refer, of course, to the increasing threat of nuclear war and environmental devastation. Powerful men urge the building of brutal and lethal weapons to stock their arsenals of destruction. They justify their actions with the astonishing claim that this will stop war. They are now able to destroy every man, woman and child on this earth dozens of times over and yet they continue building their stockpiles higher and higher. World-wide demonstrations are increasing against this rapidly growing threat, yet governments seem to be unwilling to respond to the demands from their people to stop this madness. Australia may be only a middle level world power but I believe that we are, nonetheless, morally obliged to speak out in every possible forum against nuclear weapons. International commentators suggest that Austraia is a likely target for a first strike nuclear warning. I suggest that this is a threat which we should take seriously and the implications of living and working within a few kilometres of one of Australia's prime nuclear targets are not lost on my electorate. We must recognise the gravity and urgency of the need to halt the arms race and the need to pursue policies of peace. The men and women in Canning, as elsewhere in Australia, have asked through the ballot box for stability and security to be returned to their lives. On the international stage, Australians see fear, violence, deprivation and greed. At home they see long dole queues, angry and bitter youth and falling living standards. They look to this Government, to this Executive, for new, competent, caring leadership. The days of authoritarian, patriarchal government are over. The Australian Labor Party promised reconstruction, reconciliation and recovery. It promised to pursue these ends through consultation and co-operation . On 5 March, the people of Australia overwhelmingly endorsed the new consensus approach. In the few weeks that the Labor Party has been in Government, we have already seen how effectively politicians, business people and unions can work together. But the bad times are by no means over. I believe that we, the Government, must now work to expand the concept of consensus. The only way we will come through the social and economic crisis in Australia is by promoting an atmosphere in which every person is prepared to participate in the process of recovery. We, as the Government, will be asking people to make sacrifices but we intend also to promote understanding and encourage involvement throughout the community. We are looking for an active commitment from all people to bring about an equitable and just society. The challenges facing our nation are monumental. Governments, business and unions cannot be expected to have all the answers. The time has come for a real commitment and experiment in participatory democracy. In conclusion, I wish to express my deep gratitude and thanks to the Australian Labor Party for its confidence in me and its encouragement and help over the past years. The Western Australian branch of the party and hundreds of party members assisted me in winning the seat of Canning. I consider that my success was due, in great part, to the co-operative efforts of many dedicated people. I must thank also the many women throughout Australia who have supported me over the past 10 years and encouraged me to work towards the fulfilment of my wish to enter this Parliament. Their continued support over recent months indicates to me that women want more women in Australian parliaments. The recent State election in Western Australia followed by the Federal election finally put to rest the myth that women cannot win difficult seats in elections. I extend my thanks to all my colleagues here. I look forward to working with them all in a long and productive parliamentary career. Mr SPEAKER —Before calling the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) to second the motion, I remind the House that this will be the honourable member's maiden speech. I trust that the House will extend to him the usual courtesies. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(8.34) —I second the motion. I am honoured to second the motion moved so ably by my colleague the honourable member for Canning (Ms Fatin ). I join with her in congratulating you, Mr Speaker, on your election as Speaker of this House. I am sure that you will perform the duties required of your high office with impartiality, with dignity and with fearless independence. I express my gratitude to my wife and family and to my brother, Richard Anthony Lindsay, for their understanding and assistance during the long campaign to win the seat of Herbert for the Australian Labor Party. I record my appreciation for the assistance given to me over the years by a distinguished Australian historian, Professor Henry Reynolds. I am indebted to my campaign supporters. I am conscious of the inestimable favour the electors of Herbert have conferred upon me. I thank them. I pray I shall be worthy of their trust. Above all, I have been elected to serve Australia, a nation whose people are fiercely proud of what has been achieved and of what can be achieved. It is instructive to recall the words of the eighteenth century English parliamentarian, Charles James Fox. He said: What is the end of all government? Certainly, the happiness of the governed . . . The country, when we came into office, bore not a very auspicious complexion: Yet, sir, I do not despair of seeing it once again resume its consequence in the scale of nations, and make as splendid a figure as ever. To that end, on 5 March the people of Australia elected Bob Hawke and other members of the Australian Labor Party to lead our nation with a government of reform, a revitalised government, a government which offers a renewal of hope, of integrity, of competence and a government of stability. The Federal electorate of Herbert was established in 1901. The first member, Frederick William Bamford, represented the seat as a member of the Australian Labor Party from Federation until the latter part of the First World War. The seat has benefited from 52 years of Australian Labor Party representation. I am the ninth representative. I express appreciation for the work of my predecessors . I look forward to serving my electorate with honesty and vigour for many years . I am honoured to serve as the Federal representative of an electorate which hosts the capital city of north Queensland-Townsville-a city with a population of about 103,000 people. It is a thriving urban centre. Industry, learning, shipping, tourism, transport services and regional administration combine to create a modern and progressive city in the tropics. Townsville is a city of the future. Goods from all over northern and western Queensland are brought to Townsville for despatch to the world. We supply resources such as coal, silver, lead and zinc, refined products such as copper, nickel and cobalt and primary products such as sugar, beef, rice, bananas and dairy products. Townsville's educational facilities rival those of any other Australian region. It hosts a university, a technical college, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, training hospitals and colleges. Townsville now has an international airport through which travel thousands of tourists from all parts of the globe. Qantas Airways Ltd has established direct services to New Zealand, to Europe and to the west coast of the United States of America. North Queensland has gateways by the score to the Great Barrier Reef. Labor's plan to classify the whole reef as a national park will ensure that generations of Australians will share with us the experience of a splendid and magnificent offering of nature. Herbert is an electorate of diverse peoples, economies and environments. The Ingham district which is located to the north of Townsville is home to nearly 16 ,000 people. Victoria Mill, situated some five kilometres from Ingham, is the largest sugar mill in Australia and one of the largest in the world. To the north of Ingham is Cardwell. Further north along Rockingham Bay is Tully, my birthplace. Dunk Island lies eight kilometres off-shore. The electorate extends north through rainforest country to include El Arish, Silkwood, South Johnstone and Mourilyan. All of these communities are engaged in the production of sugar cane on a large scale. The estimated total value of sugar produced in the Herbert electorate in 1981 was about $157m. All of these communities contribute significantly to the national income of Australia. The story of north Queensland's growth and development is both dramatic and fascinating, influenced as it was by early struggles to develop vast tracts of pastoral land, to work the rich goldfields, to establish cane farms, to provide educational facilities and to found permanent communities. To the shores of north Queensland came immigrants from Ireland, Europe, Britain and China. They were men and women who brought new growth to this ancient land. Ministers of religion, religious brothers and nuns toiled ceaselessly in the Queensland outback and tropics, often under conditions of extreme privation, to bring spiritual guidance and support to these pioneering families. Their legacy is rich. Development of north Queensland over the past 120 years has been enormous, but the continuation of this development can be accelerated only by the direct involvement of government. The development will gain force with the aid and encouragement of the Hawke Government, a government which recognises north Queensland for its boundless opportunities. This recognition was asserted in a policy document prepared by the Australian Labor Party-a document which offers well researched, sensible policies for the accelerated development of North Queensland. It is a regional policy designed to contribute to the national benefit. I will now deal with some of these policies. First, I refer to sugar. The Government is committed to give sympathetic consideration to a loan to the Queensland and New South Wales sugar industries. This Government will not grant an export licence for Ord sugar. The Government has promised to work to improve the domestic price formula to allow for international prices and variable costs to be taken into account and is committed to investigate the structural problems relating to the size of sugar farms. Since those policies were formulated, there has been a major cash crisis in the sugar industry. Federal financial assistance to the industry is now urgently required. The current downturn in the sugar industry has been principally brought about by two factors. First, there has been a dramatic decline in the world free market sugar price; and second, there has been a significant reduction in income for the sugar industry. The industry has also suffered major natural disasters. There was widespread flooding in far north Queensland in 1981 which caused heavy cane loss in the Innisfail and Tully districts. In other districts, very low rainfall led to unusually low harvests in the 1982 season. The recent drought has reduced cane production in the Ingham district by some 20 per cent. The sugar industry, therefore, enters the 1983 season in a perilous state. Low production and continuing low prices combine to erode confidence in the long term future of the industry. It is estimated that, for the whole of the 1983 season, the cane growers' cash deficit will be in the region of $100m. Banks in Queensland have indicated that 90 per cent of their cane grower clients are seeking assistance. Clearly, a great number of cane farmers will be denied access to future bank funds. Inevitably, there will be a tightening of credit facilities. Tragically, there will be many bankruptcies. This crisis of confidence will be experienced not only by the cane farmer and the miller but also by the machinery dealer, the small businessman and, most of all, by the employee who sustains the sugar industry. The sugar industry seeks financial assistance from this Government to provide some of the funds necessary to meet the cash deficit of the industry in the first half of the 1983 season. It needs help to ensure that the 1984 season is a reality. It is essential that the Federal Government give financial assistance to the sugar industry to ensure that cane farmers maintain production and that banks maintain confidence in the industry. This aid will ensure the presence of an industry which has served the nation, unassisted, in the past. I now refer to roads. The Bruce Highway plays an essential role in communications and supply. North Queensland has a tropical environment, the heaviest Australian rainfall and major rivers and streams, all of which contribute to a higher than normal cost of road construction and maintenance. The Bruce Highway from Brisbane to Cairns has achieved notoriety with the motoring public of Australia. The population of north Queensland is nearly 500, 000. About the same number of visitors travel to north Queensland each year and 74 per cent of those visitors travel by car. The road is inadequate for present- day traffic volumes. The road surface standard is below that required to achieve national highway objectives for safe, reliable and efficient motoring. Our policy ensures that the upgrading of the Bruce Highway from Brisbane to Cairns will be completed by 1988. Funds from the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program must be spent on this national project. The Government's planned 'Jobs on Local Roads' program will create employment opportunities for some of the Herbert electorate's jobless people. I turn now to the Burdekin Dam. The future expansion of industry and population in the Townsville region cannot take place without an adequate water supply. The recent drought forcefully reminded north Queenslanders that the only secure and adequate water storage for development in the Townsville-Burdekin region is the completion of the Burdekin Dam, construction of which has been promoted by the Australian Labor Party for years. The estimated cost of the dam wall is $127m. It will take six years to build. Already millions of dollars have been spent in providing an access road and other works. Its construction has been economically justified by the Government. Decades of government dithering on this national project are, thankfully, behind us. In March of this year the Queensland Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services announced that tenders for the construction of the dam wall are scheduled to close in August this year, with work to begin in 1984. More than 120,000 people who live in the Townsville- Burdekin region can depend on this Government to complete the Burdekin Dam, which will provide their water needs at least until the year 2020. I now refer to defence. The Third Brigade of the Australian Army is based at Townsville. These fine Australians are a welcome presence. From airfields in the Townsville region allied aircraft took part in the crucial Battle of the Coral Sea and the people of north Queensland will always acknowledge their debt to a great ally, the United States of America. Thousands of kilometres of north Queensland's coastline is uninhabited. This affords an easy access to smugglers, to Asian fishermen keen to trawl our abundant coastal fishing grounds, to illegal immigrants and to potential invaders. North Queenslanders demand, and deserve, protection. The next matter with which I would like to deal is regional health. This Government is committed to the establishment of a post-graduate research institute of tropical medicine at James Cook University. It is an urgent need. The detection and control of tropical diseases are vital community rights. Above all, the role of Aboriginal health and nutrition would be a high priority in the work of the institute. I now refer to Aboriginals. More than 10,000 Townsville citizens are of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent. They have not always shared our traditional Australian mateship. Consultation and self-determination are commitments of this Government so that Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders may determine programs for their needs and priorities. Further policy initiatives provide that sales tax will be removed from the freight element of goods delivered to north Queensland. This will provide substantial relief to our industries, our small businessmen and, ultimately, the whole of the north Queensland community. As a measure of additional stimulus to business confidence and investment, the Hawke Government will provide a new Commonwealth centre at Townsville to house staff of Federal Government departments and agencies servicing north Queensland. The need for this centre is long overdue. Its early completion will enable government administration to provide an even more effective service than before. Mr Speaker, the policies announced in His Excellency's Speech are designed to restore confidence and vigour in all sectors of the Australian economy and to ensure that basic human rights are available to all. No longer must this nation tolerate colonies of unemployment. High unemployment must be banished from our midst. The Government's plan to revitalise the Australian housing industry, to provide low cost rental accommodation, public housing and financial assistance to bridge the deposit gap, will be applauded by the Australian people. Policies designed to modernise the Repatriation Act to include the removal of anomalies in the appeals system will lessen the burden on our veterans. We have long recognised the basic rights of women. We will encourage the move towards greater equality and independence. His Excellency reminded us all that the Hawke Government has 'pledged itself to the pursuit of national reconciliation, national recovery, and national reconstruction'. We must never surrender our duty to honour that pledge. Finally, it is fitting that I conclude this, my maiden speech, with a quotation from the late President John F. Kennedy: Let us go forth to lead this land that we love joining in the prayer of General George Washington in 1783 that God would have you in His holy protection, that He would incline the hearts of the citizens to entertain a brotherly love and affection one for another and finally, that He would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy and to demean ourselves with the characteristics of the divine author of our blessed religion, without a humble imitation of whose example we can never hope to be a happy nation. A guiding principle and prayer of this nation has been, is now and shall ever be . . . In God we trust. Mr SPEAKER —Before I call the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) I remind the House that this is his maiden speech and I trust the same courtesy will be extended to him as was extended to the other speakers making maiden speeches. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(8.51) —Mr Speaker and honourable members, as I rise to speak for the first time in this House I am conscious of the short list of only six members who have represented Gippsland since Federation. I am particularly conscious of the outstanding contribution my immediate predecessor made to the welfare of Gippsland and to this Parliament. The Honourable Peter Nixon served his electorate and this House with complete integrity and dedication. In doing so he won the respect and admiration of not only the people of Gippsland but also of members on both sides of the House. The achievements of the Honourable Peter Nixon will be of lasting benefit to this nation as well as his electorate. Mr Speaker, you would be aware that Gippsland is both a diverse and a rich region which has produced enormous wealth on behalf of Australia. Its industries are numerous, with the major ones being dairy, beef, sheep, coal, oil, gas, timber, fishing and tourism. Gippsland produces 70 per cent of Australia's oil requirement and 75 per cent of its gas. In addition the huge brown coal resources that can be mined by open cut generates at this stage 90 per cent of Victoria's power supply. This growth is directly attributable to the endeavour and skill of the people of Gippsland, a people who have a proud sense of the history of their region and a determination to secure the future for following generations. Gippsland places great faith in its youth. There is a realisation that most young people have a great desire to take their place at the forefront of Gippsland's continued growth. For this reason I, together with other Gippslanders who have employment, am disturbed by the unemployment figures. We simply cannot allow unemployment to sap the confidence and dignity of our youth. It is nonetheless increasingly apparent that the Gippsland community is not adequately compensated for the wealth it produces. In fact its cities, towns and shires are often out of pocket providing an infrastructure for development projects, new citizens and tourists. Greater efforts must be made to lighten the very heavy financial burdens on such responsible authorities. Furthermore, my electorate is concerned that its plans for improving the state of the arts throughout Gippsland receive insufficient assistance. I share with my electorate a great interest in the arts which must be further encouraged amidst the industrial development of Gippsland. I should now like to address myself to what I believe ought to be the principles which guide this nation and what I believe are the great issues which face the people of Gippsland and the people of Australia. I embrace wholeheartedly my party's philosophy, which first and foremost stands for freedom-freedom of the individual to pursue his aims and aspirations, a freedom limited only by the requirements of a society to ensure the maintenance of law and order and the preservation of dignity of the society as a whole. It is a political philosophy which demands respect for institutions, for parliamentary democracy, for the family as the basic unit in society, for the judicial process and the rule of law, for Her Majesty the Queen, the Sovereign of Australia, for the structure of federalist government and the maintenance of States' rights. It is a political philosophy which recognises the importance of these institutions in preserving the fabric of our society. There are some who peddle the myth that this is a dying and reactionary philosophy-that the whole social, political and economic development of society leads inevitably to a Marxist system, that out of the decay of feudalism grew capitalism and then imperialism and out of its decay will come communism. I reject utterly that view of a society's development. History has shown that the political beliefs of societies tend to oscillate. When disillusionment sets in with one system society looks for another. It ultimately settles on that structure which best serves its needs. When the political pendulum stops swinging it rests over democracy and over a philosophy which embraces liberty. I fervently believe that the greatest instinct in man is the desire for freedom . No other cause has been so singularly and vigorously pursued in the history of mankind than the quest for freedom. It is this instinct that destroys the myth that societies progress towards Marxism. I also believe that our philosophy elevates this desire to its right and proper place. Totalitarian ideologies of the far Left and the far Right continually battle against their people's quest for liberty. The Berlin Wall after all was not built to keep Westerners out. People's pursuit of freedom will make parliamentary democracy the end point in political development. I now propose to turn to the major issues facing Australia and outline the principles which I believe ought to guide this great nation in addressing itself to its problems. One of the very great achievements of the previous Government over the past seven years was to bring a sense of realism to the economic problems that we face. There is indeed a consensus in Australia today that the role of government is a limited one. There is indeed a consensus that governments cannot solve all problems. And above all, in terms of economic approach, there is indeed a consensus that governments, like individuals, cannot spend their way out of difficulty. But I think that, so far as the mainstream political parties are concerned, that is where much of the consensus ends. There still remains healthy and vigorous debate about the relationship between the private and public sectors. I want to state without qualification that I believe that the private sector is the backbone of our economy. It is with the fortunes of the private sector that our economic well-being rests. In order to ensure a strong private sector there needs to be a very real restraint on the size of government, on the growth of bureaucracy, on the levels of government expenditure and on the taxation revenue collections of the Government because, as we all know, growth of government is at the cost of growth of the private sector. Taxation, while obviously necessary in a society, must be kept at an absolute minimum. Every extra dollar taken by the Government in taxation is a discretionary dollar lost by the taxpayer. Increased taxation is an effective undermining of the economic freedom of individuals. A dollar spent by a government is a dollar that the taxpayer loses control of. It is for that reason that excessive taxation eats away at incentive. Why should a person work hard to earn an extra few dollars if those few dollars are grabbed by the Government for no noticeable reward. I add that Australia is presently labouring under a taxation system which already acts as a great disincentive to enterprise and hard work. The proportion of direct taxation to indirect taxation is one of the highest in the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. We must look at moving in the future to reduce levels of direct taxation by way of redressing this imbalance, mindful of the need to move slowly so as to avoid the unnecessary inflationary consequences of such a change. We must also look at reducing levels of Government expenditure and cutting back on the size of the Public Service, though I am realistic enough to understand what a difficult task that may be. I believe that one of the sad consequences of the present recession is that Australians have strayed from some fairly basic principles that have helped build this country into the great land that it is today. I speak of the need for an honest day's work for an honest day's pay and of the importance of reward for enterprise, initiative and risk. It saddens me greatly that some of the entrepreneurial spirit which has permeated Australian society since the days of the early settlers seems to be lost. Australians settled this tough continent with little more than a dream in their eyes and determination in their hearts. The spirit of growth, development and enterprise has taken us to where we are today. Unless we rekindle that spirit, unless governments allow the great potential of all Australians to be unleashed, and unless they offer a greater recognition of the role of the entrepreneur we can expect no more than a slow, sluggish crawl along the path to recovery. Of the major economic issues facing Australia, I believe the most important concern wages, unemployment policy, inflation, levels of expenditure and the Budget deficit, and tariff policy. I share the concern of all honourable members for the massive social tragedy that is so blandly represented by unemployment figures. Unemployment, particularly amongst young people, is something which will scar the growth of Australia for many years into the future. It is encumbent upon not only the members of this House, but also all members of the community to direct their energies to achieve the earliest and most effective growth in job opportunities. I am indebted to the Government for providing three models of the options available in dealing with issues of unemployment, inflation and wages in their publication entitled 'Projections of the Australian Economy'. The models, or scenarios, presented to the recent National Economic Summit Conference showed something that we all know, namely, that the creation of real job opportunities and not just artificial short term ones will only come with maximum wage restraint. It is worth while to note that on the Government's own figures, unemployment and inflation will both be best reduced with maximum wage retraint. The difference, according to the Treasurer (Mr Keating), between an increase in wages of about 3 per cent later this year followed by full quarterly wage indexation and a continuation of the wages pause until April 1984 and then half- yearly partial indexation will be up to 100,000 jobs by June 1986. For 100,000 young Australians that will be the difference between a future of hope and a future of utter despair. The entire community-politicians, businessmen, trade unionists, farmers, self-employed, professional groups and public servants-must all answer the call of the unemployed. For their sake and for the sake of our nation's future they must exercise self-discipline in not pursuing wage increases. The Government must also be determined in its resolve to attack inflation with equal if not greater vigour. Inflation is not just an economic statistic. It erodes the savings of families, threatens the security of the investments of the elderly, undermines business confidence, and is a major contributor to high wage demands. It also diminishes the attractiveness of Australia for investors. More importantly, it erodes the living standards of all Australians. One of the most disturbing trends in Australia has been the acceptance by many that large Budget deficits can solve our economic problems. It is true that during periods of economic recession, especially when the money market is highly liquid, the funding of large deficits is not as dangerous to the well-being of the economy as it would be in more prosperous times. I believe that we must be ever vigilant to ensure that the deficit does not go out of control. Projections of likely Budget outcomes do and must compel governments to take the necessary tough decisions about the levels of expenditure. We must never let short-term expediency allow us to impose a lasting debt on future generations. When Australia finally starts on the road to recovery a very large Budget deficit will ensure that we take one step forward and two steps back. The final economic issue I touch on this evening is that of tariff protection. Australia's total trade is equivalent to 30 per cent of its gross domestic product. By international standards that is a very high proportion. It is also a country with a large manufacturing industrial base and for Australia the issue of levels of protection is an absolutely vital one. The complex issues which surround the protection debate have often been canvassed in this House. Suffice to say that there is a widely held view that Australia should look most seriously at seeking reduction in its levels of protection. High levels of protection cause excessive costs to downstream industries, diminishing their internaional competiveness, reducing the ability to grow and provide job opportunities and have a marked inflationary impact. They also greatly weaken Australia's ability to argue for the reduction of overseas trade barriers. They certainly ensure the short-term survival of some industries, most specifically manufacturing industries, though sometimes at the cost of bolstering what may be, in essence, inefficient operations. I believe that Australia must go down the road of reducing levels of protection, though I equally believe that this should not be done with excessive haste or unilaterally. Unilateral reduction in levels of protection would cause enormous harm to manufacturing industry without any real benefit in exchange. The most worthwhile approach is that taken by the previous Government, particularly by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) last year. Australia must continue to seek support for a commitment in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade for multilateral reductions in trade barriers. The importance of this is highlighted particularly in my electorate where the products of dairy farmers face the trade war of the European Economic Community. The dangers of going the other way-as one State Premier suggested, of building a wall around Australia-are all too obvious and all too great. A repeat of the world trade war which occurred during the 1930s would cause irreparable harm to Australia's export markets and the Australian economy. In conclusion, I regard it as a great privilege to have been elected to serve in this Parliament by the people of Gippsland. With this privilege comes a very great responsibility. Throughout my parliamentary career I will endeavour to live up to that responsibility and to serve Gippsland to the fullest extent of my ability. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —I call the honourable member for Grey and remind the House that he will be making a maiden speech. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(9.10) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you and Mr Speaker on your elevation to such high positions in this House. My presence here representing the electors of Grey owes a lot to the valuable help and advice I received from my predecessor and wonderful friend, Laurie Wallis, who retrieved the seat for Labor in 1969 and held it through six elections and 10 difficult years in opposition. I wish him and his wife, Val, a long and happy retirement. I also wish to record my deep gratitude to my wife, Mary, my family and the hundreds of magnificent supporters who worked so hard to have me elected. Also, I thank the electors of Grey for showing confidence in me by giving me the opportunity to represent them. It is a distinct privilege to be able to make my first speech in this House as a member of an incoming Labor Government in which the people of Australia have so positively invested their confidence during what the Governor-General described in his address as 'a time of Australia's gravest financial crisis since the Great Depression fifty years ago'. And it is an honour indeed to serve in that Government under a leader who had already contributed significantly to Australian political, economic and social history a fortnight before this Parliament opened. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) did so by convening, in this chamber, the National Economic Summit Conference which, as the Governor-General has said, successfully laid the foundations for Australia to begin to arrest the serious economic decline and place the economy on a path of sustained, non- inflationary growth. Much has already been said and no doubt much more will be said about the value of the Summit in this regard. But there is another side to its achievements which I find very relevant to the times we live in. This aspect is harder to define than are economic and industrial realities. There are no clear cut hallmarks of proof. But I am quite sure, from my close association with the people of a predominantly working class area, the industrial cities making up the Iron Triangle on South Australia's Spencer Gulf, that the Labor Party's stated goal of bringing Australia together was responsible for this Government being given a strong mandate in human terms, one which was quite separate from the mandate to use its policies to restore this nation to a state of material prosperity. I believe that a significant part of the support that Labor received on 5 March derived from the promise to provide a neutral workshop where enough differences of class and financial interest could be tossed into the melting pot to produce a new sense of national identity, of common purpose. People showed that they were fed up with the divisive and deliberately confrontationist policies of the past seven years. Migrants, perhaps more than most, seemed to foresee in Labor's aims a prospect of feeling more Australian in a united country that knew where it was heading. The concept behind the Summit meeting will not be forgotten. When Australia holds it bicentenary celebrations in 1988 it will be just 87 years since the signing of the Federal Constitution. There may be a portent in the coincidence that when President Abraham Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address in 1863 his first words were: Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Australia still lacks an inspirational parallel to this speech, which has been quoted wherever democracy has been fought for. I believe that the ideals expressed in it are basic to the concept that produced the Summit Conference. Perhaps in our own fourscore and seventh year a Labor Prime Minister will put into words a distinctively Australian ideal. The Governor-General's Speech expressed this Government's intention to preserve a viable and efficient steel industry and to work towards a long term development plan. In my electorate there are more than 30,000 people whose livelihoods are either totally or in some degree dependent on the steel industry . The electorate takes in much of Australia's relatively remote and often relatively neglected areas. It covers 90.4 per cent of South Australia, ranging from the fishing industries of the south west coast, through huge tracts of dry- land farming and grazing land, for many years debilitated by drought, up to the Northern Territory border. It is 89,000 square kilometres larger than New South Wales but its secondary industries are few and therefore all the more urgently in need of consolidation in this era of rapid change and rationalisation. The Iron Triangle cities of Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie owe their industrial basis to what might be called organic rather than planned decentralisation. Whyalla steel originated from iron ore deposits of the nearby Middleback Ranges. Port Augusta was the original heart of Australian National Railways and Port Pirie smelts lead from Broken Hill, just over the border. But the relentlesss process of change, whether national or international in origin, whether recession based or technology based, is now threatening, in the cause of rationalisation-which must be one of the most dehumanised words in the English language-to keep on paring down that collective industrial base at a stage when some expansion is needed just to allow this group of decentralised urban outposts to hold the line. Unemployment is running at well above the national average and, because the options open to the unemployed are fewer than in metropolitan ares, the trauma of insecurity is greater. On this score I would like to quote the Premier of South Australia, Mr John Bannon, who, speaking at the Summit Conference, said: It is important to remind ourselves that the national economy is made up of a number of interdependent regional economies. It should not be forgotten that many millions of Australians choose to live outside the major urban centres of the eastern seaboard. While we share in the national wealth and aspirations, we often share special regional problems which demand special recognition and attention. Mr Bannon went on to quote Australia's wartime Prime Minister, Mr John Curtin, who, speaking at a conference on regional planning in Canberra in 1944, said: From a national point of view we cannot afford to have areas that are vulnerable, undeveloped, or neglected. Some regions have a direct impact upon the strength of our economy as a whole, and in dealing with them it is imperative we have regard to local knowledge and the knowledge of State officers . Both for reasons of defence and development, special attention must be given to certain parts of the Commonwealth to enable us to minister more effectively to the total strength of the nation. I cannot think of any better, immediate example of vulnerable regions than is provided by the cities in which Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd steel making is carried out. Apart from the importance of the industry to the nation, it must be taken into account that each of these branches of the steel industry is the life blood of a separate urban centre rather than forming part of the conglomerate industrial base of a capital city. This means that any reduction in the work force of each branch must have the maximum impact on the general economic and social superstructure of each of these cities. There are no shock absorbers in a one industry town. Any shock wave from loss of jobs in manufacturing is felt immediately in other sectors of the local economy. And the loss of jobs in smaller enterprises outside the main industry but dependent on it can be greater in a regional centre because there are no alternative outlets. The domino effect that followed the loss of the Whyalla shipyard in 1978 gave drastic evidence of this, both in goods producing and service areas. It has been acknowledged that many factors have contributed to the present crisis in the Australian steel industry, both global and national. But one overall lesson does emerge. It is that in the production of basic commodities such as steel there can be no exemptions from the technology race. No country is an island in this respect. Sooner or later the choice becomes one of get with it or get out. The proper role of government protection is to provide a breathing space so that an industry which has fallen behind can reinvest, retool and catch up with world standards of productivity. Protection merely for the sake of maintaining corporate profits without placing any burden on investors leads inevitably to a day of reckoning as the industry discovered in the United States . Any protection given to Australian steel must carry with it an absolute commitment to the necessary reinvestment and the long term security of the industry and its work force. In a highly competitive industry innovation as well as high technology is necessary to ensure survival. BHP has carried out this obligation in the case of two products of its Whyalla works-a particularly rugged type of railway line, at least equal to top world standard, and an ingeniously designed steel sleeper which is now under test both here and overseas. However, the hoped-for minerals boom which would have helped assure a healthy local market for these products did not materialise and Australian sales will now have to depend largely on upgrading and expansion of our national railway system. I am glad to note that the Governor-General's Speech forecasts measures to improve the efficiency of national rail services and to upgrade designated railway routes of national importance. Because South Australia had the foresight some years ago to have its main railways incorporated into the national standard gauge system, its technical capacity, including that of the Port Augusta works, is well geared to contribute to such a project. I hope that the budgetary restraint dictated by this Government's unfortunate economic legacy will not enforce too much delay in such a vital and long overdue national enterprise. It seems to be characteristic of our society that changes foreshadowed in the means of production are ignored for as long as possible by those who should be planning ahead in the hope that they will go away. Then, almost overnight, the inevitable is accepted as imminent, and something like panic sets in. The spectre that now haunts wherever people are employed on routine process work is that of high technology. The vision is of a work force displaced by robots and computers. We are sometimes warned by well-intentioned people that we must ration the onset of such technological change so that social changes required to cope with it can keep pace. This would be ideal but it has never happened yet. In our system of competitive free enterprise, it is the producers who decide the means they will use. They do not have to ask anybody's permission as to when they will exchange workers for automatic machines. Even companies cannot hold up the chain reaction indefinitely. Government protection can only slow it down. Nor can workers' organisations do any better. Ultimately they are faced with a no-win situation. In any company that has been driven to the wall by competitors using labour-saving technology employees face either the prospect of a good many of them losing their jobs if the company decides to increase productivity by automation, or all of them losing their jobs if it does not, and shuts up shop. If workers had any choice in this it would be Hobson's choice. The big danger here is that the most efficient technology, because it is the most expensive, will become concentrated in ever fewer hands. Productivity and worker redundancy will skyrocket at the same time. When that happens either something will already have been done about increasing the purchasing power and safeguarding standards of displaced workers or we will face economic and social upsets that will make today's troubles look like a hypochondriac's headache. I prefer to think that, under Labor, this country will see progressive measures taken to anticipate future developments in industry. We should establish measures such as regional planning to maintain existing industrial centres which are affected by change. This can be achieved by means of decentralisation incentives for craft-based or otherwise labour intensive activities, such as a continuing program, wherever needed, of job creation by public works of real community or national value, and by progress towards a goal of providing opportunity for education of any kind for anyone at any time of life. It is not enough to have such education and training available to those who can afford to buy it or those who are in specially disadvantaged circumstances. If structural unemployment is to become a part of life for the future, alternative scope for self-advancement must be freely accessible to all. In relation to this, I commend the undertaking given in the Governor-General's Speech that encouragement will be given to developments designed to equip young people to engage in innovative enterprises. Attention will be given to possibilities of providing fulfilment in life for some of the people alongside the conventional production system. The kind of lateral thinking that has produced what we now refer to as alternative lifestyles will need not only the stamp of approval but also some real material assistance. Coming from a high unemployment area, I am sure there is endless scope here for gaining a community contribution from lives that would otherwise be largely wasted in frustration. There is also room for government as well as corporate backing in another kind of alternative enterprise; that is, research into alternative energy. For example, Australia used to be a world leader in solar energy innovation. It is not now. The experience of a team of researchers at Sydney University some five years ago gives more than a hint as to why. This team had developed an advanced solar heating technique to a stage where commercial viability was in sight. Then it ran out of funds. In the absence of any Australian interest, it sought and received $5m from Saudi Arabia in return for the marketing rights covering most of the world. When the team had further developed the product to a commercially viable stage, it tried again for manufacturing outlets. Again, it had to look overseas. A Japanese company was licensed to cover the remainder of the world, except Australia. Finally, two Australian companies agreed to collaborate in local production, but only with massive support from the New South Wales Government. That, I understand, is the end of the story so far. Because of the notorious timidity of Australian investors in the area of risk capital, Australia not only has lost an incalculable amount of export revenue but also may never see another home grown invention. It is an old and sad story. I am particularly interested in it because I believe there should be a national research effort-perhaps joint government and corporate-into solar and wind energy, at least. I am even prepared to suggest that the semi-arid zone in the near north of South Australia, with an abundance of sun and wind that would be hard to rival, would be an ideal site. There is Federal assistance for solar energy research through the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council. Last year it made $1.5m available for research into solar energy and related fields. There were enough applications to use 20 times that amount. The Governor-General's Speech predicted a significant Australian contribution to the world communications year of 1983. This is a key subject. There is no field of human endeavour that cannot gain by better communication or lose by the lack of it. We live in an age in which the gathering, processing and distribution of information has become a major industry in itself. The machinery and techniques are there. The trained people are there and all are gaining rapidly in scope and potential. The only flaw so far has been that often the sources of information were restricted, censored beyond usefulness, or completely sealed off to the public at large. Where accurate and complete information is denied there are always misleading rumours, fabrications and floods of trivia to fill the vacuum. The National Economic Summit Conference set a new standard in public access. This is only a start. Broadening of the Freedom of Information Act and rejuvenation of the rundown Australian Broadcasting Commission are just two of the projected measures that must make for a better informed and, therefore, more responsible nation. Only responsible nations can help preserve peace in this world of ours. If it were possible to make the whole truth freely and objectively available to all people all the time, there would be no wars. I commend the Governor-General's Speech to this House as a basis on which sound administration and creative effort can combine to set this nation on a new and constructive course. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(9.28) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on attaining the very high position that you have and also to congratulate Mr Speaker. In the past I have always found both of you to be very fair. I am sure that, if you can handle me, you can handle most people. I wish to congratulate also those honourable members who have made their maiden speeches tonight. I have found them most interesting. I am sure that the new ideas which generated from those speeches will help this Parliament. I found the Governor-General's Speech quite interesting. But when I heard the reference to the environment, I thought it could not go without some major comment. Under the heading 'The Environment' the Governor-General said: My new Government has been elected with a very clear mandate from the people of Australia to protect the Australian environment. My Government is convinced- Government members interjecting- Mr GOODLUCK —I had the good manners to listen to the previous speakers in silence. I thought they would give me the same opportunity, but I can see that we are back to the old fire again. The Governor-General stated: My Government is convinced- Look, I am starting to sound like the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) already. The Governor-General's Speech continued: My Government is convinced that it would be a gross dereliction of its Constitutional responsibility were it to fail to carry out the clear wishes of the overwhelming majority of the Australian people. I turn to my five colleagues. Unfortunately, one of them cannot be with us tonight. I mention the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who is away tonight, and the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr), the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) and the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman). We have created a unique situation. We came back from Tasmania, the five of us, in opposition. That is historic. It is about the first time since Federation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —I ask the honourable member to address his remarks through the Chair. Mr GOODLUCK —I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; I just turned to the right a little. The reason that we came back is that we have not lost sight of the ordinary, average Tasmanian and Australian person. We have kept pace with the average working person. We have not been conned by the likes of Professor Bellamy, the big greenie quango who came from the United Kingdom to stir up the people of Tasmania. We have not been influenced by the likes of Dr Bob Brown or by Dr Norm Sanders. They were in the minority, but they had a tremendous influence on the people of Australia. I am afraid that they conned this Government. They thought, for expedience, that they could get votes by supporting a minority group. They have conned a lot of good people into falling for their ploy of supporting the Tasmanian Wilderness Society. They will regret it. Government members interjecting- Mr GOODLUCK —I have not had an opportunity to debate this matter before, not really. We went on every street corner, into every hall and to the workshops of the workers in Tasmania. We said the same things. We said that we would support the principle of State rights and that we would not allow a government to interfere in the rights of Tasmania. What happened? The people of Tasmania voted overwhelmingly for us. They wiped Labor completely off the map. Government members interjecting- Mr GOODLUCK —Honourable members may laugh, but the five of us came back from Tasmania. We all came back. I hold the blue ribbon Labor seat in Tasmania-and Labor members hate me because of it, too. We all came back to fight for the people of Tasmania. That is why we find this matter a little hypocritical. Incidentally, I should like to congratulate my new leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). I shall give him the support that he richly deserves. I am sure that my colleagues will do that as well. But I issue a note of warning. There is no compromise with us Tasmanians about the Wilderness Society. We have come here with a mandate from the people of Tasmania to defend the rights of Tasmania, and we do not intend to move one inch. That conciliator on the Government front bench-where is he? He is not in the House tonight. We are past the conciliatory terms. We want what the people of Tasmania want: To be left alone. Our Tasmanian Government made a decision, and that is what we want. We shall not move one inch on this subject. That is the reason why we show our passion and get uptight. The Commonwealth Government is not giving us an opportunity to express the views of the Tasmanian people. Labor members are trying to block us at every opportunity. But they will not get away with it. There are many trendies. That is what has happened to the Australian Labor Party . Once upon a time it was a party for the working man, but not any more. Members of the Labor Party went with the greenies in Tasmania. That is what has happened to them. Mr Groom —There are no workers over there. Mr GOODLUCK —The honourable member for Braddon says that there are no workers over there. They are far too educated, I think, and the ordinary average working man in Tasmania will not wear Labor members at all. He will not wear Mr Hawke when he comes to Tasmania, or the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) when he comes to Tasmania-no way. He will not wear him, either because-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I ask him to address his remarks through the Chair, and I say to honourable members that there are far too many interjections. The honourable member is entitled to be heard in silence. Mr GOODLUCK —I always thought that you would be a very fair Deputy Speaker, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is nice to see the member for Denison now present. I should like to read a letter from the former Labor Leader, Mr Hayden. He is not a bad fellow. Actually, I prefer him to their new leader, after listening to him today . Anyway, I come back to Mr Hayden. He wrote a letter on 6 July 1981 to the person who organised the opposition to the greenies in Tasmania. That person did a good job. He is a good union man, a solid Labor man, Mr Kelvin McCoy. He did a good job with Mr John Galvin and the OTD-the Organisation for Tasmanian Development. This is an interesting letter, and it is dated 6 July 1981. Mr Hollis —You said that. Mr GOODLUCK —I am sorry for repeating it. The honourable member will not listen; that is great. Mr Hayden said: I am responding following our meeting at Burnie on Saturday 4 July. Firstly, let me say in spite of the noisy protesting of your colleagues I nonetheless appreciated the genuine and common decency they extended to me when I spoke with them collectively. They were typical Tasmanians. The letter continues: Incidentally, I do not wish to be misunderstood. I have no complaint about the noise of the protestors or the protesting; that is a perfectly legitimate form of expression in a democratic society and a right that I uphold. This is a good letter. It just indicates what Mr Hayden was like. The trouble is that some people go for the glossy today. This is why the Labor Party went for Mr Hawke. He performed better on television and looked more glossy-'this fellow has a bit of depth, with that greying hair.' I shall have to go on television a bit. The letter continues: After seeing you, I did speak at some length with your Premier Doug Lowe about the matters you raised with me. It seemed to me Doug Lowe believed that his approach to the matter of your collective concern was the fairest all round and in the best interests of the State. At that stage it was clear that the State Conference of the Party intended to raise the matter in the afternoon session. However, I had to depart at 2 p.m. by aircraft for Queensland where I had another commitment. I want to repeat again to reassure you, namely, the only commitment the Labor Party has given in the National Parliament in relation to this matter has been that we would support a Parliamentary Inquiry into how best we could help the State Government preserve the South-West, but not as to interfere with the Tasmanian Government's efforts to produce power for its people which may involve some construction in that area. Your concern for the jobs of the people of the West Coast and in Tasmania generally is obviously of the utmost importance. The more fundamental matters of concern are very much a State responsibility and outside of the constitutional authority of the National Government. Premier Doug Lowe understands this too. In all of the circumstances, this is about as far as I can take the matter at this stage. I am afraid that further negotiations will have to proceed with the responsible authority, and that is the Tasmanian Government. This is a very important letter. I seek leave, Mr Deputy Speaker, to incorporate it in Hansard. I see that there is no Minister in the House. Mr John Brown —Yes, there is. Mr GOODLUCK —This letter just indicates why the working men and women of Tasmania have discounted the Labor Party. It symbolises exactly the way that they have been sold down the creek. The Labor Party told the working people of Tasmania that it would not interfere in the affairs of Tasmania, and then suddenly, for expediency, to get a few more votes on the mainland-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but he has asked for leave to incorporate a letter in Hansard. Is leave granted? Leave not granted. Mr GOODLUCK —I can understand that. It is another example of frustrating the Tasmanians. But we shall not be frustrated. We shall fight at every opportunity. Even though I could not get kicked out last week, we shall try again. We shall try to thwart the people who are trying to obstruct every ounce of common decency that the Tasmanians are trying to put forward in this House, which is just to represent the ordinary people of Tasmania, the ordinary working person who should at least have an opportunity of having his views expressed in this House. I now seek leave again to have this letter incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- 6 July 1981 Mr Kelvin McCoy, Tullah, Tas. 7321 Dear Kelvin, I am responding following our meeting at Burnie on Saturday 4 July. Firstly, let me say in spite of the noisy protesting of your colleagues I nonetheless appreciated the genuine and common decency they extended to me when I spoke with them collectively. Incidentally, I do not wish to be misunderstood. I have no complaint about the noise of the protestors or the protesting; that is a perfectly legitimate form of expression in a democratic society and a right that I uphold. After seeing you, I did speak at some length with your Premier Doug Lowe about the matters you raised with me. It seemed to me Doug Lowe believed that his approach to the matter of your collective concern was the fairest all round and in the best interests of the State. At that stage it was clear that the State Conference of the Party intended to raise the matter in the afternoon session. However, I had to depart at 2.00 p.m. by aircraft for Queensland where I had another commitment. I want to repeat again to reassure you, namely, the only commitment the Labor Party has given in the National Parliament in relation to this matter has been that we would support a Parliamentary Inquiry into how best we could help the State Government preserve the South-West, but not as to interfere with the Tasmanian Government's efforts to produce power for its people which may involve some construction in that area. Your concern for the jobs of the people of the West Coast and in Tasmania generally is obviously of the utmost importance. The more fundamental matters of concern are very much a State responsibility and outside of the constitutional authority of the National Government. Premier Doug Lowe understands this too. In all of the circumstances, this is about as far as I can take the matter at this stage. I am afraid that further negotiations will have to proceed with the responsible authority, and that is the Tasmanian Government. Once again, thank you for putting your views to me. May I take this opportunity to convey my best wishes to yourself and your colleagues. With kind regards, Yours sincerely, BILL HAYDEN, M.P. Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. Mr GOODLUCK —I now refer to the famous Tasmanian Wilderness Society, which has influenced the schools. Regrettably, most of the teaching fraternity in Tasmania has been influenced by the Wilderness Society. I am afraid that it has indoctrinated many children in Tasmania, who seem to think that that badge, bearing the words 'No Dams', is everything. It has become more than an issue about a works program, about a dam or about providing power for Tasmania. Mr Burr —It is against progress. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, it is against progress. It has become a cause. I am afraid the Society is generating this cause in the minds of young people. Petitions have even been presented to the famous Mr Cain from primary schools in Victoria saying that construction of the dam and destruction of the wilderness must be stopped. The young people of Australia have been indoctrinated by these people. Mr Groom —There was a float in the Moomba parade. Mr GOODLUCK —The float in the Moomba parade indicates the lengths this group will go to to influence the young people of Australia. It has become more than an issue of a dam; it has become a cause. A few paragraphs from a letter from the Wilderness Society would indicate how well organised it has become and how adept it has become in influencing the Press-the Press which has become so left wing on this issue that it is not funny. I do not care what the Press writes about me but some of the journalists should be ashamed at the way they have distorted the facts about the construction of this dam in Tasmania. They have shown only one side of the story; they have said nothing about the workmen of the Hydro-Electric Commission or what will happen to the contractors who will try to get jobs through the HEC. Mr Hawke said that they will find other employment. Where in Tasmania will they find jobs? What will happen to Tasmania' s future electricity needs if the project is stopped? These matters have not been considered. The dam issue has been seen as an expedient way of gaining votes but it has brought about the loss of seats, and the Government should be ashamed of itself. We need to fight this issue right to the very end. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I call the honourable member for Melbourne and remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(9.43) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I first congratulate you and Mr Speaker on your election to your high offices. My electorate of Melbourne is one with special problems. It is both the centre of the State's business, social and cultural life and a residential area with difficulties imposed on its suburbs because of their proximity to the city's heart. The people of the electorate have asked me, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, to represent their problems, their needs and their aspirations. For that I both thank them and assure them that I will undertake that task with energy and conviction. I take over the seat at a time when the voters of Melbourne have the advantage of a Federal Labor Government following just one year after the election of a State Labor administration. The great humanitarian policies of Labor can now be undertaken without the hindrance of one or other government representing private interests against the public good. The only barrier to our programs is the legacy of mismanagement we have inherited from the conservative and irresponsible regimes of the past. I will say more on that later. Melbourne's inner urban communities have many advantages and many disadvantages emanating from their geography. These suburbs have undergone demographic changes , from small beginnings at Fitzroy, as one of Melbourne's early upper class residential areas, through a much longer period of suburbs of working class cottages and manufacturing industry to the massive changes of post-war immigration and the return of middle and upper income earners in recent years. The middle to upper income earners, moving back to escape the problems of transporting themselves daily from outer suburbia and because of the social and cultural benefits, have much to thank the post-war migrants for. The new migrant communities found that the inner suburbs offered two advantages. The communal living style allowed them to share the problems of the new environment and this style was more akin to the buildings and cities they had either lived in or knew in their countries of birth. The changes they made to the demography and lifestyle of these suburbs led in turn to the suburbs becoming valuable residential prospects for the new generation of affluent Australians 30 and 40 years later. The sad irony is that the increasing resultant costs of inner urban living have forced out of the area many of the working class and migrants who changed the quality of inner urban life. Today we are left with a unique social mix. However , the majority of inner urban dwellers remain working class and migrant families , with a growing proportion of elderly people who have lived in these areas all their lives. We have a higher than average percentage of migrants-in particular, a substantial Greek population in Richmond, an Italian influence in Carlton, a mixture of nationalities in Brunswick and high rise estates in Richmond, Fitzroy , Collingwood, North Melbourne and Kensington, where past conservative governments have thrown the latest arrivals without any communication with, or consideration for the impact on, the local communities. The Vietnamese community is the latest of these arrivals. Before them we had the Latin Americans, the Turkish community and the Arab-speaking refugees and migrants. The question is not that these people ought not to be there but that Federal and State governments ought not to expect the existing community to meet the costs of special services and facilities required. Past conservative, uncaring governments have ignored local government and communities in these exercises. The inner urban community also has a larger than average percentage of welfare recipients and unemployed. This is understandable as the very advantages that the new affluent find in inner urban living also attract the traditional inner urban poor. These people recognise that the public and private welfare network is available to meet their minimal needs, and indeed for many of these people the inner urban suburbs provide the difference between a minimal living and death. Just last week a young girl died in the city square in the metropolitan area of Melbourne. I think that is an indictment on society today. Because of the special needs of all these groups-the aged, working people, welfare recipients, the unemployed, single and homeless people, ethnic communities and Aboriginals-the inner urban areas have suffered under years of anti-Labor, anti-working class government. ALP local government authorities have attempted to offset the imbalance by a network of services and are to be commended for their caring and humanitarian approach. Naturally they have suffered because of the lack of funds, because of the withdrawal of funds and because of the diversion of desperately needed public funds to greedy private interests and big business friends of the former Liberal-National Party Government. Councils are also limited by the levels at which they can rate working class ratepayers. Since 1975 many services have suffered by being abolished altogether or, in most cases, by the real value of grants and subsidies being reduced drastically. Despite the obvious economic problems, it is essential that Labor governments restore these services to a level which allows them to service the community's needs. This matter was covered by the Governor-General when he opened this Parliament. He referred to the Government's deep commitment to eliminate poverty and gross inequality, to raise unemployment benefits for single adults and to undertake initiatives for child care, lone parents, the aged, the widowed, invalids, the disabled and the sick. We must and will co- operate with State governments in providing services and finance and ensuring moneys made available from all levels of government are channelled into the areas of need in the most advantageous manner. These services will be seen as a right and not some charity tossed out by the rich. Let us look at some specific needs. The aged, mentioned specifically by the Governor-General, require services allowing them to operate at home and remain at home for as long as possible. Many of these people have never lived anywhere other than the inner urban areas. When they are forced to leave home alternative accommodation must be nearby. It must be located in the community to which they relate. Local and State government subsidies for basic services must meet the real costs of these services. Health care is a major problem in the Melbourne electorate. Often the inner suburbs are told they are advantaged because most major public hospitals are located there. But the realities of health care are that few beds are available for long term nursing patients or basic day care services. The beds in the inner urban areas serve the whole community. In opening this Parliament, the Government has again committed itself to an Office of Aged Care and to the provision of hostel and community care services. The demolition of the principle of health care as a right by our dreadful, unfeeling predecessors, who served the private profiteers of the health industry , has placed health care beyond the reach of so many people. Thousands of people in my electorate have been unable to seek medical attention for serious illness because they could not afford the high cost. Many others, having sought care, have been unable to afford the medicine prescribed. This suffering and misery is a damning indictment of years of Liberal rule and our Labor policy will alleviate these problems. However, there is a need for expansion of the community health program within the electorate. Most existing centres do not have a doctor which one might consider is a major disadvantage in providing adequate and proper health care. The great advantages of community health care over private health care are the cost advantage of salaried professionals and particularly the more caring approach and the benefits of educational and preventive health programs. The former Medibank system was criticised by the Opposition for its costs but an analysis will show the system did not create the costs; it was its abuse by the private sector. That abuse will be controlled under the new Medicare system. Housing is another key area. In my electorate the proportion of home rental to home ownership is much higher than in the general community. As so many people are either on low incomes or on benefits of one form or another, rental costs on the private market are prohibitive. This is exacerbated by the arrival of the new affluent, causing housing prices to soar and therefore affecting the market rental values for those who simply cannot afford them. The need for funding to ease these housing problems is acute. This is another area where the combined resources and wills of Federal and State Labor administrations is invaluable. This Government, like its Victorian State counterpart, is committed to increase significantly public housing availability and low cost rental accommodation. Another network that has suffered under conservative governments has been the public child care services. Once again, the real value of subsidies has decreased alarmingly and once again the previous Government introduced a user- pays principle to what ought to be a basic right. Under the previous Government' s guidelines, working class families were reduced to sub-poverty incomes by child care costs. Children's services development officers employed by local government have provided invaluable service in this area but their work has continually been under unfair pressure by doubts about funding for their positions and continued battles with bureaucracies and Ministers to maintain funding. In this and many other areas where workers service vital community needs, funding must be provided on a programmatic basis, allowing workers to undertake the jobs they are employed to do and not waste so much of their valuable time fighting for their positions. Transport is another area of concern within the Melbourne electorate. The inner suburbs, as a channel to the city centre, suffer massive social disruption, pollution and safety problems. Again, these have been exacerbated by years of conservative rule. The voices of Labor voters in safe Labor seats are far less influential on the private profiteers of the Liberal Party than are the voices of the motor industry, the rubber industry or the oil industry. New regions of unplanned car suburbs totally or inadequately serviced by public transport, have spawned around Melbourne since the 1940s. Once again, the Federal Government must assist the State Government to tip the balance of transport finance in favour of the public sector. The large ethnic communities of inner Melbourne will benefit from ALP policies which highlight improved community relations, increased funds for teachers of English as a second language and increase support for adult migrant education services. The Labor Government will support democratically elected ethnic community organisations and migrant resource centres. We will restore adequate translation and interpreter services which were decimated by the present Opposition during its time in government. We will attack specific problems of non-English-speaking people in the work place, including industrial health and safety and the gross exploitation of migrant women by bosses. We will accept political refugees without the political discrimination of our predecessors and we will give priority to family reunions. The ALP policy of full consultation with Aboriginals has a special place in my electorate. The questions of land rights, Aboriginal health, housing, education and other areas of interest to the Aboriginal community must be resolved and determined by the Aboriginal people alone. These people have chosen to live within the electorate of Melbourne and I will give them every assistance to receive the opportunities and resources they require. There are a number of other areas on which I will take part in debate during the course of this session and the next one. They include world peace and the dangers of nuclear war, the question of unemployment and of employment creation programs, and the accord between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the ALP. I feel very deeply about the need for a discussion within this Parliament on the future of the youth of this country. As I said earlier, when a young person can die in the city square of an overdose of drugs in broad daylight it tells something about the state of our society. Honourable members opposite, who were led by the Frasers, the Howards and the Anthonys, have a lot to answer for in that regard. I believe we face an exciting period in Australian history. In the past year, at State and finally Federal level, the people of this country have given Labor a mandate to provide socialist solutions to the great problems of society. They have clearly displayed a preference for the public sector over the private sector. Since 1975 they have seen public resources diverted to the rich and powerful national and international friends of the previous Government. They have seen the public sector stifled and shrunk and basic services removed while billions of dollars are handed gratis to industry. They have seen working people taxed more and more heavily with no returns. They have seen the rich and powerful taxed less and less, while receiving the massive handouts of public funding. They have seen this country financially crippled by mismanagement. They have seen the irony of more and more people thrown on to the economic scrap-heap . Their disgust has been expressed at the ballot box. The Australian people have espoused a socialist philosophy as the answer to our economic crisis. They have given this Government the green light to redirect the economy in a proper and responsible manner, to use public funds for the public good, to tell the proponents of private enterprise that if they believe in private enterprise there is something incongruous about their screaming continually for assistance from the public purse. Australian and transnational capital has become notable for its desire to capitalise its profits and socialise its losses, to hoard millions and play dog-eat-dog on the stock exchange, while asking the unemployed, the work force, working people, through their taxes, through the public purse, to carry their losses. The capitalist system-the system championed by the Liberal and National Parties -is immoral and, I believe, corrupt. I believe the Australian people have recognised that. The political guardians of that system, the Liberal and National Parties, thankfully restored to the Opposition benches where they can remain harmless, have done Australians a disservice for which they ought to be publicly tried. The opportunity for that trial may come about during the Bruce by-election and in the by-election for the crazy grazier's electorate of Wannon. Had these people been responsible for the finances of a public company, they would have been charged and gaoled for their blatant and heinous mismanagement of the Australian economy. They are no better, in my view, than corporate criminals and I hope that at least they will exercise the decency to remain silent in their Opposition foxholes while this Government undertakes the dual task of restoring the economy to equilibrium and restoring the public sector to its rightful role as provider for the basic rights and needs of all Australians. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(9.59) —I add my congratulations to the long list of honourable members who have expressed kind regards to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your election to your high office. I look forward to the opportunity of working with you during the term of this Parliament. I would also like to add my congratulations to the five honourable members who have made their maiden speeches before me in this debate. I say to the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), in his absence, that I look forward to working with him for as long as we are both blessed with the privilege of representing our electorates in this place. To the honourable members for Canning (Ms Fatin), Herbert (Mr Lindsay), Grey (Mr O'Neil) and Melbourne (Mr Hand), I extend my congratulations on their contributions this evening. I do not wish them long terms in this place but I do extend the hope that they enjoy the privilege of serving their electorates in this Parliament. I am pleased to note that the honourable member for Melbourne has acknowledged that the policies accepted by the Australian people at the last election were socialist policies, and I congratulate him for his frankness in that regard. I only wish that it were true of his leadership and his Ministry also to acknowledge their socialism. We should all bear it in mind that the speech made by the Governor-General on the occasion of the opening of the thirty-third Parliament was penned by the Government or, more likely, by the Government speech writers and not His Excellency. It is important to remind interested parties of this because the inconsistencies and contradictions in the speech should not be attributed to a pre-eminent jurist of the stature of the Governor-General. I suppose one can say that the Government's program outlined by the Governor-General is consistent in its inconsistency. In preparing a form of words, the authors of the address had the difficult task of marrying four lengthy documented series of undertakings. They had to try not to depart too much from each of the Australian Labor Party's election policies, a prices and incomes accord signed with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the so-called agreement in the form of a communique issued at the conclusion of the so-called National Economic Summit Conference and the Australian Labor Party 's policy platform in its entirety. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is something of a pragmatist and even those who demand strict observance or adherence to ALP policy which theoretically binds the Prime Minister are bound, I suspect, to be disappointed. Whatever is in the Governor-General's Speech which is at odds with policy as determined by the Labor Party's hierarchy may not see the light of day . We already know that policies enunciated by the Prime Minister during the election campaign are not enforceable, nor are many of the more attractive of them likely to be adopted. Other speakers have dwelt and will dwell on that circumstance in the course of this debate and over the life of this Parliament. Two more recent documents of more immediate interest are the prices and incomes accord and the communique. Inconsistencies and contradictions in these two documents are all the more important because of the determination of a powerful section of the ACTU to see provisions in the prices and incomes accord override alleged agreement by big government, big business and big unions following the so-called Economic Summit. It does not take a Rhodes scholar to work out that the wording of the accord and the words of the communique are not complementary in many respects. Important differences between the wording in the accord and in the communique have already led to chinks in the trade union-ALP axis. The accord professed to set out details of policies to be implemented by this Government. Already personal tax reductions promised in the accord have been abandoned. With the abandonment of tax reductions, one could be excused for wondering whether the unions consider themselves released from their explicit and implicit obligations in the terms of the accord. After all, some unions may very well take the view that because the Government has not kept an important- some may say the most important-part of its bargain in relation to tax reductions unionists are not bound to accept their obligations under the accord. Many unionists already realise that this Government has ratted on them by abandoning promised tax reductions. The corporate sector, too, may have already noticed that there are some inconsistencies affecting it. The private sector, the predominant employer and creator of wealth, is only just coming to terms with a Labor Government. The private sector is feeling its way, testing the water so to speak. Many who are not numbered amongst the army of employees relying on the Australian taxpayer for their salary or wage are waiting for the promised sense of direction for the Australian economy. They have heard the words and await the substance. They are not reassured by talk about increased taxation, promises to be forgone and talk of more and more government regulation and controls. They deplore the absence of realis- able goals and the substitution of controls. The private sector of the Australian economy is, at the very best, apprehensive. It craves knowledge of the real intentions of the Government. The private sector awaits evidence of this Government's ability to govern and to deliver on the few remaining promises it has said it will now honour. To illustrate the sort of uncertainty that exists I quote the communique which condescendingly acknowledges that: Government policies in respect of charges and taxation should . . . be aimed at stimulating the private sector, especially in potential growth areas, to enlarge the opportunities for job creation. They are very fine sentiments indeed. But the accord talks also about such things as eliminating corporate tax loopholes, abolishing investment allowances and introducing a resource rental tax. On top of that, company groups will not, after all, be able to consolidate their overall trading results before their tax liabilities are assessed, nor will the promise be kept to remove undistributed profits taxes payable by private companies. So much for any genuine concern on the part of this Government for policies aimed at stimulating the private sector ; so much for genuine commitment to enlarge the opportunities for job creation by stimulating the private sector. The private sector must view with some scepticism a new-found enchantment of the ALP with private enterprise. Let us have a quick look at what it implies it might do in relation to housing. The Government's conversion, or seeming conversion, to support for private home ownership in Australia would be commendable if it were believable. Its new-found friendships with building industry groups is also laudable but will endure only if and when the Government delivers on the expectations it has created and is creating. Nothing gleaned from the Government's rhetoric to date leaves anyone having an understanding of the building and construction industry with grounds for confidence. It is empty rhetoric, for example, to undertake to ensure that adequate funds are available for housing. More than adequate funds are already available. If the Government is talking about funds for public housing it will already know that the previous Government increased funding for the current financial year by a real 15 per cent, to $333m. This year funding for public housing is at record levels as a result of the decisions of the previous Government. To maintain record levels of funding into the next year, the Government must so order its responsibilities. But it is irresponsible to leave anyone under the impression that inordinate funding is not already currently available. If the Government is alluding to ensuring adequate funds are available to the private sector it does not need a series of meetings and months of procrastination to discover that ample funds are available. All that the Ministers responsible for these areas needed to do to establish that fact was to pick up a phone and ring half a dozen responsible people from banks and building societies around the country. In speaking to building industry groups, the Government claims a unique initiative. Let me tell the Government that for each year I have been in this place those groups have initiated numerous submissions and discussions with the previous Government. Written evidence in the form of submissions of those initiatives would reach half way up the wall in my office if they were stacked on the flat. So, when this Government claims something new and something wonderful by way of consultation with the building and housing industry, it does so out of a total lack of experience and knowledge. As with so much of its claimed achievement to date in relation to the economy, its only claim to fame in connection with housing is that various Ministers have had a series of meetings and that those meetings will continue. Empty words and endless meetings are no substitute for action. If the Government is convinced it has the answers it should announce and implement them immediately. It should not need two more weeks to present its mini-Budget after seven years of waiting to implement its housing policies. One thing is clear: Those who may have been consoled by the repetitious use of the soothing words like 'reconciliation', 'recovery', 'reconstruction', ' consensus' and 'consultation' are bound to be disappointed. A great deal has been said already about the absence of adequate representation at the much- vaunted Summit Conference. We are already aware that consumers and small businesses were seriously under-represented and that the only alternative Government was not even invited to have representatives present. The implications of those omissions for claimed consensus are apparent to even the most naive. It seems that with the passage of time the only durable agreement reached was an agreement to issue a communique. The effectiveness of that document lasted less than 48 hours. His Excellency's Speech is dotted with words like 'review' or derivations of the word along with 'inquiry' and 'considering the establishment' of something or other. In other words, in many areas in which the public may have expected the Government to act, its action consists of reviewing, considering or inquiring. Its Ministry being comprised of men who have been in this Parliament for many years, one would have thought the Government would have known where it was going and what it intended to do. That was certainly the impression given to the electorate during the election campaign. It seems that the Australian public can expect more inquiries, procrastination and deferment of decision-making at a time when economic and social factors warrant immediate, although maybe politically unpopular, decisions. We are told by this Government in the Governor-General's Speech that there is an undertaking to develop a strong, competitive manufacturing industry. But the Government will not reduce existing protection. How will our manufacturing industry ever become competitive if it is not confronted with competition from imported goods? On the one hand, we will apparently have a strong, competitive industry and, on the other hand, we will finance and featherbed expansion of the Australian shipping industry. We are promised a strong, competitive manufacturing industry at the same time as preserving a viable and efficient steel industry. The Government will encourage competition while it promises to review-there is that word again-temporary assistance and anti-dumping measures. We are told that this Government will do all these things for Australian industries. In the area of trade, it expects to be able to ensure that markets for Australian exports are made secure. Those promised acts are plainly not compatible even to the economically illiterate. The Governor-General's Speech acknowledges that better industrial relations are essential in the achievement of national economic recovery. That is something of an understatement because any industrial relations will be better than those experienced over the last 10 years or so-at least I and a great majority of the Australian people hope so although I do not think many of us are particularly confident. In calling for better industrial relations the Government said it will also strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of the Public Service. Despite that so-called objective, this Government intends to repeal legislation which it claims restricts the freedom of Commonwealth employees to exercise what is euphemistically said to be 'their basic industrial rights'. That action will once again enshrine the ludicrous situation whereby the taxpayers of Australia will be required to pay salaries of public servants who may attend their work places in times of industrial turmoil but not work. Public servants will be free once again to be paid while taking industrial action such as sit-ins which, in other days, would be regarded as unpaid strike action. It seems that, although this Government promised to give the highest priority to measures to create jobs and restore economic growth, it is far from confident of its ability to do so. It gives a clue to its lack of confidence in its plans to see more young people complete their secondary educations and go on to tertiary education regardless of ability thereby effectively passing problems which flow from poor economic performance on to the education system in general and teachers, educators and taxpayers in particular. If that were not enough, this Government intends to examine co-operatively-whatever that may mean-the possibility of providing fulfilment in life for some of our people alongside the conventional production system. Without being too critical, that seems to be saying with buzz words that Australian taxpayers will finance people into alternative unproductive lifestyles. If it does mean that the Government may care to make it clearer than do the form of words it inflicted on the Governor- General. There are a number of things in the Governor-General's Speech which should be canvassed. Among them is the proposed creation of even more statutory authorities-more qangos-signalling the relentless march towards corporate government which is to be centered in Canberra. Another cause for concern is the move away from Parliament as the supreme debating chamber and decision-maker towards so-called consultative councils, committees and groups, not elected by or representative of the Australian people. If we take the example of that now infamous communique on which the Prime Minister relies for back-tracking on election promises, we can reasonably anticipate the political justification to be given for future double-takes. No tame-cat council or body can be allowed to become an acceptable vehicle for extra-parliamentary decision-making. If that is what is meant by parliamentary reform mentioned in the Governor-General's Speech , the Government is on notice that its actions will not go unnoticed or unopposed by either the Opposition parties or the Australian public. The Government has properly identified the restoration of economic growth as its number one priority. That should be enough to keep the Government busy. I recommend it gets on with that job and stops chasing every rabbit down every burrow. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I call the honourable member for Sydney and remind the House that the honourable member is making his maiden speech. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(10.19) —I would like to begin by joining the other maiden speakers and other speakers in congratulating you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker on your elevation to high offices. The Address-in-Reply debate is traditionally a debate in which honourable members have the opportunity of presenting their viewpoints on some subject or subjects which they regard as being of particular significance. I begin by expressing a few thoughts about my electorate of Sydney which, as I am sure most honourable members are aware, is one of the safest Labor seats in Australia. In fact, it is the second safest. In the last election, the Australian Labor Party was returned with a 74.6 per cent two-party preferred vote. I regard that as predominantly reflecting the social composition of that electorate. It is a traditional inner city working class electorate though, like other inner city working class electorates, it has undergone some substantial social change in recent times. In that respect, it is rather similar to the electorate of my colleague, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand). For one thing, there has been a substantial influx of people of non-Australian origin. There has also been a significant influx of people of middle and upper-middle class origin. In fact, if one looks at the electorate one finds there are some streets which contain some of the most expensive real estate in Sydney-for example, Louisa Road, Balmain. By contrast, Marrickville in the south of the electorate is a working-class area with a high composition of people of Greek, Yugoslav and Portuguese descent . So it is a very heterogeneous electorate in social, cultural and ethnic terms. The electorate, of course, also retains a fairly substantial component of its former traditional residents. But interestingly enough, despite the much referred to trendification of the area, it still remains overwhelmingly a Labor area. Even in the subdivisions which are most significantly affected by the middle class influx which has been referred to, the Labor Party's two-party preferred vote has in fact undergone only a fairly small decline. That says something about the type of people, commonly referred to as middle class, who have moved into these areas. They are frequently people in the lower white collar bracket-people such as school teachers and social workers, people who work in occupations which have been traditionally regarded as white collar but have become increasingly proletarianised, if I can use that term, in recent years. Their basic position as sellers of their labour power, deriving their income from that activity, is starting to show in an increased propensity to industrial action. So I would expect that, contrary to some projections that have been made, the electorate of Sydney will remain a Labor electorate for some considerable time. At this point I would like to pay tribute to the work of the party membership in the electorate. We have an extremely large party membership. I happen to believe that, notwithstanding the fact that it is a safe Labor electorate by virtue of its social composition, the consolidation of the Labor vote that has taken place over many decades and the future consolidation of the Labor vote are largely dependent on the activities of unpaid party workers in that electorate. I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation of their activity. It is gratifying to be elected to parliament at the same time as a Labor government which in Australian terms is historically a fairly rare event, unfortunately, at the Federal level at least. I can recall that in the aftermath of the 1977 Federal election, which was a disastrous outcome for the Labor Party , various commentators and various pop-sociologists were predicting the demise of the Labor Party as a significant political force. People like David Kemp, the Liberal Party's leading ideologist at the time, were saying that the Labor Party had become irrelevant because it was a class-based party, that unless the Labor Party were to abandon its position of being the representative of working people in this country, unless it switched its position, it had no political future. People were saying that the Labor Party would have to look at examining public opinion polls to see which particular value preference was prevailing in the community at any given point in time to make sure it appealed to some substantial section. Presumably, extensive opinion polling would be used to find out what the current values of the community were. In fact, the Labor Party has not pursued this course; it has not done what David Kemp recommended. It explicitly reaffirmed its commitment to the socialist objective at the special national conference in 1981. Despite that we have seen in the last couple of years the strengthening of Labor's position to a degree where it would be difficult to find an historical parallel, with control of both the Federal Government and four mainland State governments. It is a statement of the obvious that this Government is coming to power in a period of extreme difficulty, with severe recessionary conditions and a rate of unemployment unparalleled at least since the Depression years, the deterioration of Australia's industrial base and the decline in industrial investment. All of these things are readily apparent and undoubtedly are a real problem for any government coming to power at this time. There is a certain parallel between what we are facing now and what the Whitlam Government faced. The Whitlam Government came to power at a very inopportune time. The world recession was hitting, back in 1974-75, at the end of the post- World War II boom which produced unprecedented rises in real living standards. That boom period came to an end and Labor was unfortunate enough to have been elected to power then. The conservative forces were very successful in sheeting home the blame for difficulties which Australia experienced at that time to policies of the Whitlam Labor Government. The present Government likewise finds itself in a period of depressed economic conditions, of severe stagflation, in respect of which conventional economic remedies have shown themselves to be ineffectual. We have had a protracted period of that now. However, this Government has been elected, with a fairly widespread community understanding that it is not possible to turn the situation around dramatically in the short term, and that is undoubtedly an advantage which the Whitlam Government did not enjoy. There is no doubt that this Government is operating under incredible difficulties. It faces a public sector financing problem of unprecedented magnitude, even going back to the Depression years, not just in terms of the magnitude of the deficit that it is currently experiencing, which is predominantly the result of depressed economic conditions, but also in terms of the burden of refinancing a substantial amount of maturing debt incurred to finance earlier deficits. That adds up to an enormously difficult public sector financing problem. It would be dishonest to assert that that does not place significant contraints on the Government. What we have seen is the election of a Labor government in an historical period , if we take a global view, when electorates throughout virtually the entire Western advanced industrialised world have been exhibiting unprecedented volatility. In the late 1970s until around 1980 we saw the election of some governments of the radical Right. I am referring to the Reagan Administration in the United States of America and the Thatcher Government in Britain. There was a widespread view expressed that electorates were responding to the difficult economic circumstances of the 1970s by making a decisive switch to the Right. That impression was shattered a couple of years later with the election of socialist governments-left of centre governments-in France, Greece, Sweden, Spain and more recently Portugal. The interpretation that some commentators have put on this whole situation is that the electorate has become more volatile, more prone to throw out whatever government happens to be in power at a particular point in time, whether it be a government of the Left or the Right. Arguably, Australia could be included in that category. Some commentators have constructed what they term a misery index which is the arithemetic sum of the unemployment and inflation rates. They have suggested that any government which is presiding over a figure of 20 for the arithmetic sum of the unemployment and inflation rates is in pretty severe difficulties. Virtually no government in the Western world which has had to face an election under those circumstances has been able to survive. One could argue that this current election is a continuation of that trend. But coupled with the increased volatility of the electorate, the searching around for new political solutions, we have also seen a search for different economic approaches. As I have said, conventional economic approaches based on Keynesianism, which has been the predominant view of economics throughout the Western world since the Second World War, have been found wanting. We have been faced with the apparent ineffectiveness of traditional Keynesian remedies of demand management and so on, to maintain full employment; and also the undermining of the traditional view that there existed a trade-off between inflation and unemployment, that one could reduce unemployment at some cost in inflation and the fact that that trade-off no longer seems to apply. These sorts of considerations have resulted in a look for new economical alternatives. Likewise, as there has been a resurgence of the Right in the strictly political sphere, so in the area of economic theory the Right has experienced a resurgence with the emergence of monetarism and so-called supply-side economics and a reaffirmation of the virtue of unfettered market forces and allowing the economy to be run by the free operation of those forces. These approaches, though all emanating from the political Right, are logically distinct and sometimes lead to contradictory economic prescriptions, as shown by clashes between the supply- siders and monetarists over the burgeoning United States budget deficit. These sorts of views have re-emerged and have formed the ideological rationale for an enormous assault- Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Holding-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Mr Sinclair-I wish to say that, whilst the Opposition has not resisted this procedure in this instance as we would interrupt an honourable member's maiden speech, we hope that on future occasions the adjournment debate can be kept at its normal length. Address-in-Reply Debate resumed. Mr BALDWIN —We saw a re-emergence of a rightist ideology in the economic sphere and that provided the rationale for the programs of savage cuts in the public sector and in the social wage in a number of countries in the Western world in recent times, for example, in Britain, the United States of America and here. That has clearly acted to exacerbate the already substantial existing pattern of inequality, a pattern that, notwithstanding Australia's egalitarian pretensions, is a very significant factor here. If people have any doubts on that score I would like to refer them to an article by Phillip Rascall, an academic at the Kuring-Gai College of Advanced Education, who published in 1978 in the Journal of Australian Political Economy an analysis of wealth distribution in Australia, which established that the top 5 per cent of people in Australia possessed more wealth than the bottom 90 per cent. He made reference to the enormous lack of data in Australia on this whole question at the moment. That is something that ought to be remedied. There is no doubt that Australia is a very unequal society, notwithstanding its egalitarian pretensions. I think it would be true to say that the conservative economic doctrines I have referred to-that is to say monetarism, supply-side economics-the idea that if tax rates for individuals and business are cut there will be an increased incentive to work, to save and to invest and that that will generate an economic resurgence and an increase in tax revenue that would compensate for the cuts in the original tax rates-and the anti-public sector sentiment, have had a pretty good field trial in a number of Western countries in recent years. In Britain, under the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, we have seen a rise in bankruptcies and unemployment and a decline in Britain's industrial position going on apace. We have seen in effect the beginnings of the progressive deindustrialisation of that country and the destruction of the real capacity of that economy to produce goods and services. The policies of monetarism applied in the British context have done, I would suggest, irreparable damage to that economy. Likewise, in the United States we have seen for a period a reasonably doctrinaire application of monetarism. In October 1979 the Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve Board-Volcker-announced that in future instead of targeting interest rates, that body would be seeking to achieve certain set targets for the rate of growth of monetary aggregates. That became the doctrine of the Federal Reserve Board, which has a degree of autonomy in the operations of the United States economy not possessed by any comparable body here. We certainly do not see the sort of commentary in the Australian Press on the rate of growth of the monetary aggregates that is seen in the United States Press. As a result one of the key propositions of monetarism-the idea that the rate at which money circulates in the economy is essentially constant-was fairly decisively refuted by what happened last year. The United States economy went into recession largely because of the fact that, in setting the monetary targets , there was a failure to anticipate a reduction in the velocity of circulation of money. Hence the setting of the monetary targets had a far greater depressive effect on the United States economy than was originally anticipated. There is no doubt that that was a major factor in the recession which occurred in the United States thereafter and which is still continuing to afflict that economy. The demise of monetarism has become very apparent in the present year. Earlier this year-a couple of months ago-Volcker, the original architect of the monetarist policies, was forced to acknowledge that henceforth they would not be paying such close attention to the rate of growth of the money supply. In fact he has allowed the money supply to blow out beyond any previously set targets. As a consequence there has been a fall in interest rates which has generated secondary effects. It has produced stock market boom which is partly a mere technical adjustment of people's portfolios as a consequence of the fall. We have also seen a resurgence in certain sectors of the United States economy, particularly in housing, in automobiles sales and in the consumer area where there is some consumer credit involved. We have seen a partial and rather narrowly based recovery in the United States economy which can be causally linked to the abandonment of monetarist policies. That abandonment was explicitly affirmed by the chief architect, Volcker, a couple of months ago. I think we can say that, if an assessment of monetarist policies is being based on the United States experience, it should be noted that in that country those policies have been shown to be well and truly bankrupt. The application of those policies, of course, has had significant ramifications for our position. It has both directly and indirectly depressed the demand for Australian goods and commodities-indirectly via its effect on the Japanese economy. Our current problems are obviously in significant part a consequence of that whole thing. We are now seeing headlines in the financial and economic journals typified by one that appeared in the Australian Financial Review on 24 February of this year -'America Dumping Milton'. One can find a number of articles with similar headings and similar themes. I think we have seen a pretty good field trial for the doctrines of conservative economics. If we work on the premise that the orginal adoption of those conservative economic policies was a response to the apparent failure of conventional policies in the 1970s I hope that we will see a progressive and growing rejection of those sorts of policies that have such calamitous effects for ordinary people. I hope we will see those doctrines consigned to the ash heap of history. I now turn to Australia. In one sense I think we are fortunate in that the former conservative Government was in some respects rather less doctrinaire than Thatcher and Reagan in its pursuit of economic doctrine. Various interpretations could be placed on that. I would attribute it to political opportunism. I think we have been very fortunate that we have not seen the doctrinaire application of those policies to quite the same extent. We have seen some spectacular examples of the way the conservatives were prepared to toss their own ideology out of the window if it suited them. One would think that on protection policy the conservatives would have adopted a fairly uncompromising stance on free market liberalism but political expediency overrode it. Likewise, in the attitude towards fiscal policies, electoral considerations were quite sufficient to override any monetarist concerns about the size of last year's projected Budget deficit. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. 'Four Corners' Television Program-Company Takeovers-Premier of New South Wales- Australian Constitutional Convention Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.49) —The recent showing of the program Four Corners has raised allegations of the gravest nature involving the Premier of New South Wales, a former Chief Stipendiary Magistrate and a very recently retired President of the New South Wales Rugby Football League. These allegations, until they are resolved one way or the other, present a clear and present danger to the administration of justice in New South Wales and a clear and present danger to the respect the public of Australia has in the administration of justice. The issues that are raised by that program are of national importance, not simply State importance. Mr Holding —I raise a point of order. Mr Speaker, I want you to be satisfied on this matter. As I understand it, the Premier of New South Wales has publicly given notice of his intention to issue legal proceedings. Mr Sinclair —There is a difference between 'issuing' and 'being issued'. Mr Holding —I agree with that, but I am not in a position to be aware as to whether they have been issued. I want to make certain that this House is not abusing long-standing precedents as to matters which are sub judice. I raise that matter for your attention, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The ruling on the matter of sub judice in civil cases is that such matters are sub judice not from the time the writ is issued but from the time the matter is before the court. I call the honourable member for North Sydney. Mr SPENDER —As I say, these issues are of national importance because they involve two persons in very high positions in New South Wales and they involve the administration of justice in that State, the most populous one in the country and the one from which many of the lawyers who have gone to the High Court of Australia and to other high courts have come. If contempt for the administration of justice in New South Wales arises as a result of a failure to investigate these allegations, it can only be expected to spread to other States . The questions that arise from the program Four Corners are ones that cannot be ventilated in the New South Wales Parliament for the very good reason that that Parliament sits very infrequently. Therefore, they need to be ventilated here. The questions are these: First, in August 1977 did the Premier of New South Wales give instructions to the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate that Kevin Humphreys was not to be committed on charges of fraud? If he did give those instructions, why-- Mr Holding —The Premier denies that. Do you accept his denial? Mr SPENDER —I will come to that in a minute. If one goes to page 19 of the transcript of the Four Corners program one sees-- Dr Theophanous —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This matter is the subject of judicial hearing on 13 May and therefore-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! That point of order has already been raised and a ruling has been given. It is not before the court. Mr SPENDER —Secondly, did the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate give riding instructions to the magistrate hearing the case that he was not to commit Mr Humphreys? If so, why? Thirdly, were those instructions followed? Fourthly-this is a very much larger question-if this did take place, and I make no comment one way or the other about it, what implications arise for the administration of justice in New South Wales? What has been the answer of Premier Wran? Premier Wran has done this: First of all he has said that he is innocent. If that is so, there is all the more reason to have a judicial inquiry. Secondly, he has appointed his Attorney-General to examine matters. How in God's name can his own Attorney-General, a subordinate officer, examine in a way which would satisfy the New South Wales public? Thirdly, he has issued a defamation writ and that raises issues utterly different from those that need to be investigated. The issues which have been raised by that program, whether true or false, need to be resolved. The allegations need to be examined and they can be examined properly only by a royal commission of the highest order. If the Premier of New South Wales wants to dispel the allegations that have been made that is the route he should take. This is a matter that should not be allowed to rest until he adopts that course of action. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.44) —I take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on attaining your office of high distinction. In a recently published article an economist writing about a possible revival in economic activity in the United States of America pointed to the fact that the spate of company takeover bids in the American corporate scene did not represent increased production. Companies become larger and more powerful as they swallow up their business competitors, but they do not provide employment. On the contrary, as the recently attempted takeover bid for an Australian company graphically illustrated, takeovers result in a loss of jobs. This takeover involved a $48.4m bid by Life Savers (Australasia) Ltd for Allen' s Confectionery Ltd and a rival joint bid by a transnational corporation, Cadbury Schweppes Australia Ltd, Nelson Tobacco Co. Ltd, Rowntree Hoadley Ltd, another transnational corporation, was also involved in the takeover battle. A particularly unsavoury aspect of this takeover battle was the legal action by rival joint takeover contenders Cadbury Schweppes and Nelson Tobacco to prevent an industrial agreement between Allen's Confectionery and the Federated Confectioners Association of Australia from being certified by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This legal action had been taken because the industrial agreement provided safeguards against the compulsory redundancy and retrenchment of workers of Allen's Confectionery. What has happened to the pious statements made by representatives of big business at the recent National Economic Summit Conference? At that time the representatives of big business expressed their full agreement with the policies of the new Federal Labor Government which will provide thousands of jobs over the next three years. Now these very same people, these leaders of big business, are involved in a takeover bid which, if it had been successful, would have meant the loss of many hundreds of jobs for the employees of Allen's Confectionery. Lifesavers then attempted to withdraw its takeover bid because of the industrial agreement. It must be asked why this battle for control of Allen' s Confectionery was occurring. It was occurring because Allens is the only national wholesale distributor of confectionery and is an important avenue of distribution to many rival outlets. The attempt to swallow Allens is not because there is an intention to manufacture more confectionery and provide more jobs, but simply because the companies concerned need the Allens distribution network. What has happened to the expressed views on job creation by big business leaders ? It is even more reprehensible that the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures and the Confederation of Australian Industry were also attempting to appear before the Arbitration Commission because they are opposed to the industrial agreement. It is commendable that the Federal Government has decided that the proposal by Cadbury Schweppes and Nelson Tobacco to acquire all the issued shares of Allen's Confectionery is inconsistent with the foreign investment policies of the Government. The takeover has accordingly been prohibited. However, the point I am making in this speech tonight still applies. It can be argued-indeed it has been argued by financial commentators-that the purchase of Allens by a larger corporation would result in an increase in economic benefits. I ask: To whom would an increase in economic benefits accrue? Who would benefit from this-the shareholders, the businesses concerned, the workers in the enterprises or Australia as a whole? There is no doubt that there will be benefits for the shareholders of Allen's Confectionery but it is by no means certain that there will be improved economic benefits for Australia as a whole. One thing of which there is no doubt, however, for the workers of Allen's Confectionery is that there would be a loss of jobs. There would be no economic benefits in their case , merely a loss of earning power as the redundant workers are forced to take unemployment benefit. I come back to the point that I made at the beginning of this speech. Company takeover bids do not represent increased production. At the present time the media and members of the Opposition are attempting to lay blame on the trade unions for not abiding by the prices and incomes accord and the consensus of the National Economic Summit Conference. Such allegations are false. But why are the business practices of the captains of industry who attended the Summit Conference being ignored by the critics? It is sheer hypocrisy for business leaders to agree on the one hand that job creation is the most important of national aims whilst at the same time involving themselves in business takeovers which result in the wholesale sacking of workers. The behaviour of Life Savers and Cadbury Schweppes in attempting to frustrate an industrial agreement which would have saved jobs is disgraceful and makes a mockery of their agreement with the aims of the Summit. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(10.49) —It was entirely proper of my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) to raise the matters that he did a moment ago. Dr Theophanous —Disgraceful! Mr HOWARD —The matters that were raised by the honourable member for North Sydney are not disgraceful. What the honourable member for North Sydney is doing is casting no allegations, spreading no aspersions, spreading no smear. The honourable member for North Sydney is simply putting the basic proposition that was constantly put when we were in government by the party of which the Premier of New South Wales is the national president, namely, that whenever an allegation of substance is made against a Minister of the Crown, the appropriate thing to do is to have some kind of independent inquiry. That is the clamour that came from the Australian Labor Party when it sat on this side of the House. Time after time, when an allegation as was made against a Minister of the Fraser Government the then Opposition would say: 'You must have a judicial inquiry; the Minister must stand down'. All I can say is that if the standards applied by the Fraser Government were applied now an independent judicial inquiry would be conducted and the Minister of the Crown involved would stand aside until the results of that inquiry were known. I invite the attention of the Premier of New South Wales and indeed of the members of the Labor Party in this House, to the practice followed by former governments of Labor Party persuasion in that State when allegations of this kind were made. I well recall an occasion when allegations were made against a former Housing Minister in the Cahill Labor Government of New South Wales. Properly and appropriately the Minister stood aside. The Premier of the day, Joe Cahill, announced an inquiry. The inquiry was held and the Minister was totally exonerated and restored with honour to the Ministry of New South Wales. The honourable member for North Sydney was attempting properly to raise this matter of national significance. Nobody denies for a moment the national pretentions of the National President of the Australian Labor Party, the Premier of New South Wales. Nobody for a moment denies that he is a national figure. These were not raised lightly. Obviously, they were raised as a result of very detailed and painstaking research. I have no idea whether the allegations are correct. If they are, they go to the very core of the administration of justice and the good government of the State of New South Wales. Can anybody seriously suggest that it is not a serious matter for an independent national broadcaster- the Australian Broadcasting Commission, hardly a handmaiden of the Liberal Party of Australia-to make an allegation that the Premier of New South Wales telephoned a stipendiary magistrate and said: 'I want somebody discharged; I do not want somebody committed for trial'. Mr Young —That is not what they said. Mr HOWARD —Is that not an allegation? Mr Young —That is not what they said. Mr HOWARD —Is the honourable member for Port Adelaide seriously suggesting that if that allegation had been made when he was in opposition and the person involved had been a Liberal Premier of a State he and his colleagues would not have acted similarly? Honourable members can imagine the hullabaloo that would have occurred. One can imagine the calls for a judicial inquiry that would occur . I make no allegations against the Premier of New South Wales. I merely draw the attention of this House, as has the honourable member for North Sydney, to the fact that these allegations of substance have been made by a reputable independent broadcaster, the integrity of which is frequently defended, as properly it should be, by members of the Australian Labor Party. The only way in which this matter can be satisfactorily resolved is by the setting up of an independent judicial inquiry. Mr Wran as a Queen's Counsel knows as does my colleague from North Sydney that defamation proceedings are manifestly inadequate to resolve this serious matter. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(10.54) —We have just seen another disgraceful episode in the continuing movement to extremism on the part of the Liberal-National parties since they have lost government and gone into opposition. The accusations that have been made will be dealt with by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who is at the table, but I point out that members of the Opposition are the last people who should come to this chamber and talk to us about democratic institutions and propriety. These are the people who, last week at the Constitutional Convention, absolutely overturned all of the basic conventions of democracy. They went to the Convention and broke the rules, as they had in 1975. They stacked the delegations from Tasmania and Queensland so that we had a situation whereby, instead of a balanced Convention, we had a completely unbalanced one. We were led to understand that some of their number, especially members of the Federal Opposition, were reasonable; that, notwithstanding the stacked numbers, they would support the propositions to which they had agreed in the standing committee, of the Convention, which met on many occasions. Instead they did the biggest about turn that we have seen for a long time in politics. They abandoned positions that they had agreed to take. In particular, Senator Durack abandoned policies to which he had agreed and which, in fact, he had put forward. Let us look at the kinds of things that they rejected. The first was the fundamental principle of one-vote one-value proposed for incorporation in the Constitution by the Premier of Western Australia. They rejected that fundamental, democratic principle. These are the people who come here and try to preach to us today. Also, they rejected agreement on the family law issue, which Senator Durack himself had worked on and about which he had said on many occasions there was need for uniformity. Again they went back on understandings that had been reached. The only exercise that we saw them perform was a blatantly political exercise in the debate concerning the external powers granted in the Constitution. The Leader of the Federal Opposition (Mr Peacock) went back on a position that he had adopted when his party was in government and began to put himself forward as a champion of States' rights. It was not an issue which involved States' rights but one where it was politically convenient for him to take such a stand. He decided that was the approach that should be taken at that particular Convention. The kinds of absurdities in which these people engaged, the kinds of political manipulation to which they allowed themselves to be subjected by the Premier of Queensland and the Premier of Tasmania can easily be illustrated. In the debate on the powers of the Governor-General I moved an amendment to adjourn the discussion. The right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair ), representing the Federal Opposition, said that he and his colleagues would support the adjournment of the discussion and its being referred back to the committee. That was on the Wednesday. By the Friday what had happened? Members of the Federal Opposition had changed their position. Someone had twisted their arm and, to a man, they voted to retain the issue within the Convention rather than refer it to the committee for further discussion and decision. That provides an example of the kind of behaviour that was experienced, although those who attended the Convention were supposed to be discussing matters at the highest level of politics. The finest aspects of politics are those which involve Constitutional issues. We should have all attended as people committed to the democratic system and seeking to work out the best ways to progress. Instead, we had a convention that cost the Australian people hundreds of thousands of dollars but merely resulted in people going back on understandings and produced a worse position than had been achieved at the previous Convention. These people went back on things that they had accepted in principle at the previous Convention. These are the people who pretend to lecture tous about principle and democratic practice. If they continue this rightwards lurch towards extreme reaction it suits us because the Australian people will not have a bar of them and they will remain in opposition for many years to come. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The question is that the House do now adjourn. Mr Holding —I require that the debate be extended. Mr SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(11 p.m.) —I rise to point out to the House the seriousness of what has occurred here tonight. What were we told by the gentlemen opposite, these men of principle who so recently were rejected wholesale by the Australian electorate and consigned to the political garbage can from which they clearly have not yet emerged? I ask the House to contemplate quietly what has occurred. An allegation was made on a television program not that the Premier of New South Wales had suborned the course of justice but that he had made a phone call. That was the height of the allegation-no more or less than that. Mr Lusher —Rubbish. Mr HOLDING —The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and the former Treasurer (Mr Howard) were so moved, these men of principle and justice-- Mr Lusher —Rubbish! Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hume will cease interjecting. Mr HOLDING —The honourable gentleman is a member of the Sydney Bar. Let me say this of the honourable gentleman: If he was so concerned and worried about the justice or the lack of justice in his own home State-- Mr Lusher —He would have called for an inquiry. Mr HOLDING —No. If he had had any political courage, he would have made the allegation publicly that he wanted to make in the Parliament tonight. I ask the House this: Why do this eminent Queen's Counsel and this discarded Treasurer who happened to hide from the people of Australia a $9 billion deficit and who wants to lecture us about political morality-this silvertail Queen's Counsel and this negligent Treasurer-now feel so concerned? They could have called a Press conference. They could have gone on television themselves. They could have demanded an interview. But, no; what do they do? They wait until they are covered by parliamentary privilege. They come into this House and even then they do not have the guts to get up and say: 'We believe it is true' or 'We do not believe it is true' or 'We would not want to say it outside'. But, my word, they are prepared to come in here and use the prerogatives and the privileges of this Parliament to repeat the allegation while saying: 'We are not really saying we believe it'. That is what occurred. Mr Steele Hall —Do you know the result of this? Mr HOLDING —What I know is that there are standards of ethical behaviour that ought to apply in this Parliament. The honourable gentleman laughs because he knows he is guilty. He knows that the Premier of New South Wales has denied this allegation, has issued a writ and has sought to have this matter determined by the courts. That is an honourable course. The reason why the honourable gentlemen opposite did not want to say a single word outside this Parliament was they knew that if they wanted to repeat the allegation or make the kind of insinuation that they were prepared to make in here they too could have become involved in the legal process. What we have is one of the squalid political exercises which time after time take place in all parliamentary institutions and do not do the perpetrators of such exercises any credit and certainly do the parliamentary institution no credit. They come into the Parliament and, like Pontius Pilate, say: 'We do not know whether it is true or false. We are not prepared to say it ourselves because we are men of principle'. We just want to use the coward's castle of parliamentary privilege to repeat an allegation that we do not have the guts to make outside'. That is what occurred. If every time an allegation-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 2.15 p.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11.5 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Young to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1906. Mr John Brown to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the payment of bounty on the production of certain room air conditioners. Mr John Brown to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the payment of bounty on the production of certain steel products. Mr Duffy to present a Bill for an Act relating to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and for other purposes. Mr Duffy to present a Bill for an Act to enact certain transitional provisions and make certain amendments in consequence of the enactment of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983. Mr Young to move- That the following amendments to the standing orders be adopted: Committee of PrivilegesStanding order 26 be amended to read- 26. A Committee of Privileges, to consist of the Leader of the House or his nominee, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or his nominee and 9 other Members, shall be appointed at the commencement of each Parliament to inquire into and report upon complaints of breach of privilege which may be referred to it by the House under standing order 95 or by the Speaker under standing order 97A; when considering any complaint referred to it, the committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records. Privilege matter raised when House not sitting New standing order 97A be inserted- 97A. During a period when the House is not sitting and is not expected to meet for a further period of at least 2 weeks, a Member may bring to the attention of the Speaker a matter of privilege which has arisen since the House last met and which he proposes should be referred to the Committee of Privileges. If the Speaker is satisfied that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made out and the matter is one upon which urgent action should be taken, he shall refer it forthwith to the Committee of Privileges. Provided that any referral by the Speaker in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this standing order shall be reported to the House by the Speaker at its next sitting whereupon the Member who raised the matter shall be required to move forthwith, without notice, that such referral be endorsed by the House; if the motion is negatived, the Committee of Privileges shall take no further action in respect of the matter. Mr Young to move- That, unless otherwise ordered, the following amendments to the standing orders be adopted for the remainder of this session- Days and hours of meeting Standing order 40 be amended to read- 40. Unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the despatch of business on each Tuesday at 2.15 p.m., and on each Wednesday and Thursday at 10 a.m. Adjournment and next meeting Standing order 48A be amended to read- 48A. At 10.30 p.m. on each Wednesday and Thursday and at 6 p.m. on each Tuesday the Speaker shall propose the question-That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate; if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress and upon such report being made the Speaker shall forthwith propose the question-That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate. No amendment may be moved to this question: Provided that- (a) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced; (b) if, on the question-That the House do now adjourn-being proposed, a Minister requires the question to be put forthwith without debate, the Speaker shall forthwith put the question; (c) a motion for the adjournment of the House may be moved by a Minister at an earlier hour; (d) any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of the adjournment shall be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting, and (e) if the question-That the House do now adjourn-is negatived, the House or committee shall resume the proceedings at the point at which they had been interrupted: Provided further that, if at 11 p.m. on a Wednesday or Thursday or at 6.30 p.m. on a Tuesday the question before the House is-That the House do now adjourn-the Speaker shall interrupt the debate, at which time- (f) a Minister may require that the debate be extended until 11.10 p.m. or 6.40 p.m., as the case may be, to enable Ministers to speak in reply to matters raised in the preceding adjournment debate; at 11.10 p.m. or 6.40 p.m., as the case may be, or upon the earlier cession of the debate, the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting, or (g) if no action is taken by a Minister under paragraph (f), the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting. Routine of business Standing order 101 be amended to read- 101. The House shall proceed each day with its ordinary business in the following routine: 1. Presentation of petitions. 2. Giving notices. 3. Questions without notice. 4. Presentation of papers. 5. Ministerial statements, by leave. 6. Matter of public importance. 7. Notices and orders of the day: Provided that on a Wednesday and Thursday '6. Matter of public importance.' and '7. Notices and orders of the day.' shall precede '3. Questions without notice.' which shall be called on at or about 12 noon. Question time New standing order 101A be inserted- 101A. At 12 noon on each Wednesday and Thursday the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House and call on questions without notice; if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress and upon such report being made the Speaker shall forthwith call on questions without notice: Provided that- (a) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced, and (b) subject to the exception in standing order 106, the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. Precedence for government and general business Standing order 104 be amended to read- 104. Unless otherwise ordered, government business shall, on each day of sitting, have precedence of all other business, except that on the sitting Thursday alternate to the sitting Thursday to which standing order 106 applies, general business shall have precedence of government business until 12 noon. 'Grievance' debate Standing order 106 be amended to read- 106. Notwithstanding standing order 105, the first order of the day, government business, on each alternate sitting Thursday commencing with the first sitting Thursday after the Address in Reply to the Governor-General's Speech has been adopted shall be a question to be proposed by the Speaker 'That grievances be noted' to which question any Member may address the House or move any amendment. If consideration of this question has not been concluded at 12 noon, the debate thereon shall be interrupted and the Speaker shall put the question. Discussion of matter of public importance Standing order 107 be amended by omitting 'one hour' and substituting '2 hours' . Mr Young to move- (1) That a standing committee be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to the circumstances of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people and the effect of policies and programs on them as are referred to it by- (a) resolution of the house, or (b) the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. (2) That the committee recognise the responsibility of the States and the Northern Territory in these matters and seek their co-operation in all relevant aspects. (3) That the committee consist of 8 members, 5 members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 members to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, and 1 member to be nominated by the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip. (4) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (5) That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (6) That the committee elect a Government Member as its chairman. (7) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (8) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to inquire into. (9) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub- committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (10) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (11) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee, but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (12) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (13) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (14) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives. (15) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (16) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (17) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (18) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Standing Committees on Aboriginal Affairs appointed during previous Parliaments. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. Mr Young to move- (1) That a standing committee be appointed to inquire into and report on- (a) environmental aspects of legislative and administrative measures which ought to be taken in order to ensure the wise and effective management of the Australian environment and of Australia's natural resources, and (b) such other matters relating to the environment and conservation and the management of Australia's natural resources as are referred to it by- (i) resolution of the House; or (ii) the Minister responsible for those matters. (2) That the committee recognise the responsibility of the States and the Northern Territory in these matters and seek their co-operation in all relevant aspects. (3) That the committee consist of 8 members, 5 members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 members to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, and 1 member to be nominated by the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip. (4) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (5) That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (6) That the committee elect a Government Member as its chairman. (7) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (8) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to inquire into. (9) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub- committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (10) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (11) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee, but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (12) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (13) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (14) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House of Representatives. (15) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (16) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (17) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (18) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Standing Committees on Environment and Conservation appointed during previous Parliaments. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. Mr Young-To move- (1) That a standing committee be appointed to inquire into and report on- (a) the main causes of the present high level of the road toll in Australia; (b) the most effective means of achieving greater road safety in Australia; (c) the particular aspects of the problem to which those concerned with road safety could most advantageously direct their efforts, and (d) the economic cost to the community of road accidents in Australia in terms of- (i) material damage; (ii) loss of manhours and earning capacity, and (iii) cost of treatment of accident victims. (2) That the committee recognise the responsibility of the States and the Northern Territory in these matters and seek their co-operation in all relevant aspects. (3) That the committee consist of 8 members, 5 members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 members to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, and 1 member to be nominated by the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip. (4) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (5) That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (6) That the committee elect a Government Member as its chairman. (7) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (8) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to inquire into. (9) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub- committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (10) That a quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub- committee. (11) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee, but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (12) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (13) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (14) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the House. (15) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (16) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (17) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (18) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Select Committee on Road Safety appointed during the 28th Parliament and the Standing Committees on Road Safety appointed during previous Parliaments. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. Mr Young to move- (1) That a standing committee be appointed to- (a) consider any papers on public expenditure presented to the House and such of the estimates as it sees fit to examine; (b) consider how, if at all, policies implied in the figures of expenditure and in the estimates may be carried out more economically; (c) examine the relationship between the costs and benefits of implementing government programs, and (d) inquire into and report on any question in connection with public expenditure which is referred to it by resolution of the House. (2) That the committee consist of 12 members, 6 members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 3 members to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 2 members to be nominated by the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, and the chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts or his nominee who is a Member of the House of Representatives. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government Member as its chairman. (6) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (7) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (8) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub- committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (9) That the quorum of a sub-committee be 2 members. (10) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee, but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (11) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (12) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (13) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House. (14) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (15) That 5 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (16) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (17) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (18) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Standing Committees on Expenditure appointed during previous Parliaments. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. Mr Young to move- (1) That a joint committee be appointed to inquire into and report on- (a) all proposals for modification or variations of the plan of layout of the City of Canberra and its environs published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 19 November 1925, as previously modified or varied, which are referred to the committee by the Minister for Territories and Local Government, and (b) such matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory as may be referred to it by- (i) resolution of either House of the Parliament, or (ii) the Minister for Territories and Local Government. (2) That the committee consist of 10 members, 4 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member to be nominated by the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4)That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government Member as its chairman. (6) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (7) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to inquire into. (8) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the sub- committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at the meeting. (9) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub -committee. (10) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (11) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (12) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (13) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment. (14) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (15) That the committee in its inquiries take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (16) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (17) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on the Australian Capital Territory appointed during previous Parliaments. (18) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (19) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr Young to move- (1) That a joint committee be appointed to consider and report on- (a) foreign affairs and defence generally; and (b) such matters as may be referred to the committee by- (i) the Minister for Foreign Affairs; (ii) the Minister for Defence; or (iii) resolution of either House of the Parliament. (2) That the committee consist of 8 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 4 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 4 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (6) That the chairman of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee to be the deputy chairman of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee. (7) That the committee have power to appoint not more than 3 sub-committees consisting of a minimum of 3 of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matters which the committee is empowered to consider. (8) That, in addition to the members appointed pursuant to paragraph (7), the chairman and deputy chairman of the committee be ex-officio members of each sub- committee appointed. (9) That the members of a sub-committee elect one of the members of the sub- committee to be the chairman of that sub-committee. (10) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (11) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to meet and transact business in public or private session and notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament. (12) That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report. (13) That 7 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee and 3 members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee. (14) That in the event of an equality of voting, the chairman, or the deputy chairman when acting as chairman, have a casting vote. (15) That the committee have power to consider and make use of the minutes of evidence and records of Joint Committees on Foreign Affairs and Defence, appointed in previous Parliaments, relating to any matter on which those committees had not completed consideration. (16) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (17) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered, with the approval of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee. (18) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (20) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr Young to move- (1) That a joint standing committee be appointed to act for and represent the Parliament, as the client for the new Parliament House, in all matters concerned with the planning, design and construction of the new Parliament House and all matters incidental thereto. (2) That the committee consider and approve the developed design for the building, which, in conjunction with the revised brief for Parliament House, dated August 1980, shall be used as the basis for the design and construction of the new Parliament House, unless both Houses resolve to vary any section of the brief or have any section reconsidered by the committee. (3) That the committee determine user requirements for approved non-building items and consider other issues relevant to ensuring that the requirements of Parliament are fully met when transferring to the new building. (4) That the committee also consider and report on matters coming within the terms of section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 as may be referred to it by- (a) the Minister responsible for administering the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957, or (b) resolution of either House of the Parliament. (5) That the committee consist of- (a) the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives ; (b) the Minister responsible for administering the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979; (c) 6 Members of the House of Representatives, 3 to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip and 3 to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, and (d) 6 Senators, 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate , and 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (6) That the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be joint chairmen of the committee. (7) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (8) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (9) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to appoint the chairman of each sub-committee, and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter that the committee is empowered to inquire into. (10) That the committee or a sub-committee so appointed have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to sit during any adjournment of the Parliament. (11) That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report. (12) That 7 members of the committee, one of whom is the President or the Speaker, constitute a quorum of the committee and a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee. (13) That in matters of procedure, each of the chairmen whether or not occupying the Chair, have a deliberate vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, the chairman occupying the Chair have a casting vote. (14) That in matters other than those of procedure, each of the chairmen, whether or not occupying the Chair, have a deliberative vote only. (15) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Standing Committees on the New Parliament House appointed during previous Parliaments. (16) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it or any information obtained in the course of its inquiries or any document presented to it. (17) That the committee be authorised to provide, on behalf of the Parliament, all necessary information concerning the functional requirements for the new Parliament House and matters incidental thereto direct to the Parliament House Construction Authority as the authority responsible to Parliament to undertake or arrange for the planning, design and construction of the new Parliament House . (18) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (19) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr Young to move- (1) That a joint select committee be appointed to review, and report whether any changes are desirable in respect of- (a) the law and practice of parliamentary privilege as they affect the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the Members and the committees of each House; (b) the procedures by which cases of alleged breaches of parliamentary privilege may be raised, investigated and determined, and (c) the penalties that may be imposed for breach of parliamentary privilege. (2) That the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That, in addition to electing a chairman, the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (5) That 5 members of the committee consitute a quorum of the committee. (6) That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to move from place to place. (7) That the committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege appointed during the previous Parliament. (8) That the committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (9) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (10) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (11) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr Young to move- (1) That a joint select committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon all aspects of the conduct of elections for the Parliament of the Commonwealth and matters related thereto, including- (a) public funding and disclosure of funds; (b) franchise and registration of voters; (c) voting systems; (d) polling procedures; (e) legislation governing, and the operation of, the Australian Electoral Office; (f) ballot paper format, and (g) electoral distribution, procedures and systems. (2) That the committee consist of 9 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the committee elect a Government Member as its chairman. (5) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (6) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to inquire into. (7) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the sub- committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (8) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub -committee. (9) That members of the committee, not being members of the sub-committee, may participate at the discretion of the chairman of that sub-committee in the proceedings of that sub-committee, but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (10) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (11) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (12) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time. (13) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (14) That the committee report by 31 August 1983. (15) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (16) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr Young to move- That, in relation to the proceedings on any Sales Tax Bills, so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent- (a) the presentation and the first readings of the Bills together; (b) one motion being moved and one question being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings, the committee's report stage, and the third readings, of all the Bills together, and (c) the consideration of all the bills as a whole together in a committee of the whole. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 3 May 1983: Canberra College of Advanced Education Act-Statutes- No. 49-Staff Superannuation Amendment 1982. No. 50-Courses and Awards Amendment 1983. No. 51-Facilities Amendment 1983. Census and Statistics Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 18, 19. Customs Tariff Act-Orders- Developing Country-No. 10 (1982). Forum Island Country-No. 4 (1982). Separate Articles Direction No. 1 (1982). Defence Act-Determinations-1983- No. 1-Recreation Leave Bonus. No. 2-Gratuity for Members of the Emergency Reserve. No. 3-Settling In and Settling Out Allowance. No. 4-High Electricity Charges Allowance. No. 5-Settling In and Settling Out Allowance. No. 6-Hard Lying Allowance and others. Lands Acquisition Act-Statements (2) of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1). Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal- Determination-1983/1-Holders of public office on the Review of Commonwealth Administration and other bodies. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedule to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States of Queensland and Western Australia, dated 18 April 1983. The following paper was tabled: Mr Scholes-Military low jet routes-Map, dated 6 October 1977.