Wednesday, 11 May 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Minister: Discrimination against Women 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 your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann,Mr Braithwaite,Mr Cadman,Mr Cowan,Mr Drummond,Mr Lusher,Mr Millar and Mr Newman. 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 United States, 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 Leo McLeay and Dr Theophanous. To the Honourable 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 RAAF 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. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the nation showeth that we protest strongly against the destruction of kangaroos and the commercial use of their remains. The practices associated with keeping wounded animals alive for days in order to keep their flesh fresh and the inhumane way in which they are killed to keep their skins unmarked have encouraged unspeakably cruel actions. This throws the shadows of shame over the whole nation and gives Australia a poor reputation in the eyes of the world. Your petitioners therefore pray that the commercial exploitation of kangaroo by-products be banned. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Charles. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the recent reduction in Federal Government funding to the States for the provision of public health care have caused, and will increasingly continue to cause, severe hardships to medical staff, nurses and other health workers of the Public Health System in New South Wales. That the aforementioned reductions in fundings are severely jeopardizing the safety of patients through reductions in medical, nursing and general hospital staff. That the resulting staff reductions and increased workloads thereby imposed on remaining staff are producing severe stress and deteriorating morale among staff at all levels. That the concept of the user pays and the phasing out of the universal health scheme are a grave injustice to low and middle income earners. and respectively calls for: Reintroduction of the universal health scheme, and urgent review and reassessment of funding to the states for health care with a view to relieving the deficiencies in the provision of health care services currently existing. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Coleman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. Noting that the 1982 national Budget includes increased taxes on beer and spirits, we draw attention to the fact that wines have a higher alcoholic content than beer and that wine consumption must be a significant factor in the mounting problems arising from the use of alcoholic beverages; we request that all alcoholic wines be taxed to a degree comparable to the taxes on other alcoholic beverages. 2. Whereas non-alcoholic wines do not cause social problems we request that no tax on these drinks be imposed. 3. That government imposts on all alcoholic beverages be adjusted annually so that the real price of the beverages remain constant. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Newman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the citizens of New South Wales repectfully showeth: 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 glamourous 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 Carlton and Mr Gorman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Mackay respectfully showeth: that the intention of Telecom Australia to close the Mackay Directory Assistance Centre will: downgrade telephone services to Mackay and district; deprive customers of a personalized reliable telephone service; reduce job opportunities in the area; increase the likelihood of the eventual closure of the exchange. We the undersigned believe that Telecom Australia has a social responsiblity to provide a sound, reliable, personalized telephone system. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will call on the Government to intervene to stop Telecom's proposed closure of the Mackay Directory Assistance Centre. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. 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- 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. 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 quote. This statement has not been refuted. 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. Petitions received. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House reprimands the Minister for Defence for his failure to- (1) publicly reveal under what section of Commonwealth law the Royal Australian Air Force spy flights over Tasmania on 7 and 8 April 1983 were authorised; (2) reveal whether the cost of the said flights would be met by the Department of Defence or the Attorney-General's Department; and (3) indicate whether a full public apology, by the Hawke Government to the State of Tasmania, would be forthcoming. Mr GROOM(Braddon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) is of the opinion that, in a free society, there are grave dangers in accepting the notion that a person is guilty merely because of an association; (2) notes that there are many provisions of the Crimes Act which apply to espionage, associated with known spies and similar conduct, and (3) calls on the Government, if there is evidence of criminal activity, to prosecute the person in a court of law rather than encourage rumour-mongering by Government Ministers and officials. AUSTRALIA'S DEFENCE CAPABILITY Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The threat to Australia's defence capability through the actions of the Labor Government. 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 SINCLAIR(New England)(10.5) —There is no more fundamental area of concern I would hope for all members of this place than concern for the nation's defence. Yet it is in this area, perhaps more than any other, that already there are signs of the Government's withdrawing from undertakings given during the election. There are certain indications that there are problems in the system and that the rapport that supposedly came out of the National Economic Summit that has been categorised as a consensus within the nation does not exist within the Australian Labor Party itself. There are three particular areas that I want to address. The first is the not unnatural concern that I think we all have about national security. This emanated from an article that was released in the National Times of 6 to 12 May which is presently the subject of litigation. However, the fact that there was reference in the article to a possible agent or mole in Australia's intelligence services cannot be taken lightly by any Australian. We then, of course, have had a series of revelations from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) which equally concern us about the nation's security. It is amazing that one of the front benchers of the Labor Party found it necessary to rise in Labor Caucus apparently and, if I may quote from this morning's Australian, 'told fellow MP's he had been approached following a Press report which claimed ASIO had kept a close watch on ''one of the most important and influential figures in the party over the past two decades'' .' The article stated that that gentleman 'asked whether he was the person referred to in the report'. What an indictment of a party, that one of the front bench members of the Government felt that he might well be one of those who might be subject to Australian Security Intelligence Organisation scrutiny. We then had, of course, the questions in this place yesterday. We had allegations in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald that a senior Labor man was a potential security risk and a friend of the expelled Soviet diplomat, Valeriy Ivanov. We were told this morning that the Federal Government has examined the prospects of charging a senior ALP figure whom ASIO has told the Government is a potential security risk. I do not propose to go down that track further. But I do think it is critical that this Parliament be told who that person is and if somebody is to be charged, with what that person is going to be charged. If there are allegations against any individual, that person ought not be maligned under the cover of parliamentary privilege in this place, as our friend John Reid was once maligned by the former Leader of the Opposition. If individuals are to have allegations made against them, these allegations should not be made in an improper way. If there is a suspicion, an innuendo, about Labor's competence in the field of governing this country it certainly cannot be at the risk of the nation's security. The second area of concern is in the field of foreign affairs. What an indictment of the party it is that the former Leader of the Opposition and the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), at the beginning of his term as Foreign Minister, found it necessary to go to Indonesia and Papua New Guinea not because it was essential that he went there but to explain his party's left wing policy with respect first to the recognition of East Timor and the continuation of defence co-operation aid to Indonesia; and, secondly, on the subject of aid to Vietnam. I find it incredible that even as late as yesterday we had a newspaper report that the left wing of the Labor Party has said that the Australian Government has contravened its foreign policy platform by allowing a Royal Australian Navy attack class patrol boat to be handed over to Indonesia. The report continued: 'Labor's policy platform says there will be no military aid to Indonesia while they continue to occupy East Timor', he said. It is quite critical that the Labor Party determines whether it is the left wing of the party or whether it is the Government that is going to determine its foreign policy. From this side of the House we have done a great deal to encourage closer relations with Indonesia and with the members of the Association of South East Asian Nations. We find it incredible that the visit of the Foreign Minister should not have been made as a matter of getting to know you but to explain discrepancies in his party's policy, to explain that in the circumstances of the implementation of the policy of his party there would be a very grave disparity between the acceptability of Australia to Indonesia under a Labor government from that which existed under our regime. The other question, that of aid to Vietnam, is equally important. The fact that one of the leading figures in the anti-Vietnamese coalition of the Government of Kampuchea, Mr Son Sann, is in Australia is not without note. It is important that we keep Australia's position with respect to United Nations resolution 37 of last year certain for this Parliament. We need to make sure that we do not antagonise the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations in the way that seems likely under the Labor Government. Indeed, only this morning a statement that apparently emanated from Thailand would suggest that there are problems in Australia's preparedness to continue aid to Vietnam. These are matters that cannot be ignored. So in the foreign affairs field we are running into the position where the Labor Government is already embarrassing the countries of our region and antagonising those on whom we must rely in the event of a development to the threat to Australia. It is prejudicing the continuation of defence co-operation aid to countries in the region and is creating a circumstance in which there must be hesitancy amongst those who are our closest geographic neighbours as to our future intentions. Let us get down now to defence policy itself. There we have an incredible series of difficulties. There are two particular areas on which I want to speak this morning. The first is with respect to the Royal Australian Navy. The second is with respect to the Royal Australian Air Force flights over South West Tasmania. But let no one think that that is where the sad and sorry record ends, for it is an extensive and appalling one for a government so young in office. If we look first at the Navy, we all remember that immediately after the Government 's election the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes), in what I believe was his first news release, made the statement that the Cabinet had decided not to acquire an aircraft carrier to replace HMAS Melbourne. It needs to be recognised that that was apparently a decision taken by the Government without Cabinet submission; it was taken off the top of the Minister's head and without advice from the Department. Even if it was with advice from the Department it certainly was not with advice as to the character of what alternative naval capabilities would be required if a carrier was not purchased for the fleet. It needs to be recognised that there are two particular areas where the requirement for the fleet remains constant. One is to have, in some form, integral air support. The other is the need for an anti-submarine war capability. Before the former Government went out of office it had sent back to the Navy a request that it advise the Government on an alternative structure of the fleet if a carrier were not to be acquired. It needs to be accepted that the cost of a Navy without a carrier could well be greater than the cost of a Navy with a carrier. We all recall that in the days when a carrier capability was first acquired the decision was taken to set aside the then larger vessels that were part of the fleet. We moved down to frigates and destroyers, ships of a lesser capability, supporting the naval air arm capability. If we examine the statement by the Minister with respect to the aircraft carrier we see that two elements are involved. The first is that the Minister simply does not go into the question of air support at all. It might well be that that can be maintained from forward air bases-if our friends, geographically in our region, will still be talking to us under a Labor regime. Secondly, in an incredibly naive comment, the Minister said: Australian shipping has not been threatened by submarine attack since World War II and, on present indications this is still most improbable. So he has gone down the track and said: 'Yes, we are going to acquire helicopter capability'. The former Government had already set that in train, but acquiring the medium helicopter for the fleet does present problems in the immediate short term. It will be two or three years, perhaps four, before that carrier capability can be acquired. There is little doubt that in that period we need to turn to an ASW capability for the fleet, but the Government has done nothing about that. The second important part of the aircraft carrier decision followed a few weeks later when we were told by the Minister that the Federal Government has scrapped the fixed wing component of the Fleet Air Arm. That decision was described by the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Pacific Fleet, Admiral Sylvester Foley, as regrettable. He said: From the operational viewpoint, your Government's decision is regrettable. First it was the (decision not to replace the) Melbourne and now it is the air arm. According to a newspaper report, he believed the overall effect of the change of the defences of this country and of the Indian Ocean and Pacific regions would have to be analysed closely. The important aspects of that decision are twofold. First, we need to turn to undertakings given by the present Prime Minister in the presentation of the Labor Party's North Queensland policy. Honourable members will recall that on 24 February last, he said: Again I draw attention to our commitment- That is, the Labor Party's commitment- for the establishment of a coastal surveillance force drawn from the place where they should be drawn-the Air Force and the Navy and not from Air Charter companies. We will ask the Royal Australian Navy to retain its fixed-wing capability- That was said by the Prime Minister on 24 February 1983. He continued: . . . and to station immediately three Tracker Aircraft at either Townsville or Cairns for coastal patrols, in addition to those aircraft already patrolling on Government contracts. Yet on 3 May 1983, barely three months later, the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) announced: Flying by fixed-wing aircraft of the Royal Australian Navy will be phased out- There is one of the already broken promises of the Labor Government in this very short period of its office. The Minister for Defence also stated: The 19 S2 Tracker anti-submarine warfare aircraft will be withdrawn by June 30, 1984, subject to Government consideration of their use for civil coastal surveillance tasks. We then have the problem of the alternatives. Quite obviously, when Mr Hawke made his original statement he made no assessment of the cost of the alternative aircraft. It is quite demonstrable that using the RAN aircraft will be significantly more expensive. They have an operational cost of about $1,850 an hour. Frank Cranston, in an article in the Canberra Times on 8 March, stated: A Shrike Commander operated by a civilian contractor costs a standing charge of $1,426 a day plus $145 per flying hour, the flying time taking the cost close to $2,000 a day. That is in contrast to $1,850 an hour to operate the Tracker aircraft. The important part of that switch is not just the cost; it is the fact that we are then told that 349 jobs face the axe at the Nowra naval air base. The problem is that the Minister has not provided for an increase in the number of personnel in the Army and the Air Force. Although, as is proper, he is offering those who are going to be withdrawn from the Fleet Air Arm an opportunity to join the other two Services, as I understand it, at this time there is to be no increase in the complement of personnel in either the Air Force or the Army. Therefore, there will be no possibility for those Services to accommodate those who might wish to transfer. The next field I will cover is the conflict over the Tasmanian dams issue. The only thing I want to say about that is that it is absolutely imperative that the people of Australia recognise that while the Minister has said he authorised the flights in the ordinary course of co-operation with the civilian elements of the Government, no approval was given by the Tasmanian Government. No effort was made to contact the Tasmanian Government before those flights took place. If we read the record tabled in the Senate by Senator Evans, we will see that the attempt originally was to be without the knowledge of the Tasmanian people. I believe that those flights may well have been against the powers of the Minister . He acknowledges-as indeed does the Chief of Defence Force Staff-that the flights were made without reference to the Chief of Defence Force Staff or to the Chief of the Air Staff. The Minister has acted without reference to his senior advisers in areas of very critical importance to the function of this nation's defence forces. There is no basis upon which the Minister should have acted in that way. There is a series of questions which he has as yet failed to answer. Why was the Tasmanian Government not advised? Why were not either other Government aircraft or civilian aircraft used? No answers have been given to those questions. Finally, we have the problem of future Budget allocations. The Minister has already indicated that the operational activities of the Australian defence forces will be severely curtailed as a result of very stringent financial constraints about to be imposed by the Government. On each of these counts, the Government has failed to sustain the defence effort of Australia. The Minister, I believe, needs to answer to this country and to the members of the defence forces as to his future intentions. We cannot run into a situation in which the capability of Australia's defence forces are prejudiced because of the ineptitude of the Minister, his failure to consult with his senior defence advisers or by the failure of the Labor Government to allocate sufficient funds to maintain the defence forces in the state in which they should be. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence)(10.20) —When I read that this matter of public importance was to be brought on I understood that the Opposition was going to bring forward a debate on defence policy and the activities of this Government. I think the last quotation by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) is probably indicative of the level of debate which took place. The quotation to which he referred was in fact from Frank Cranston, not the Minister. It is included in an article in such a way as to appear to come from the Minister but if the shadow Minister and former Minister for Defence, the right honourable member for New England, had read it he would have realised that it is a quotation from the author of the article. The Opposition spokesman started his remarks by making a fairly wide-ranging attack on the Government for a number of national security matters which are under consideration at the moment, including by the High Court. Mr Anthony —And general incompetence. Mr SCHOLES —I think 'general incompetence' is probably a good remark from the Leader of the National Party because honourable members opposite were in office when this happened. If there is a mole in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation it is related to a report which was made to the former Prime Minister shortly after the defeat of the Whitlam Government. I remind the Leader of the National Party that he was then a Minister of the Government. If there is incompetence it is his incompetence and the incompetence of his Government. It is not my province to debate matters relating to more recent ASIO activities but some of the things I have seen have the same substance, I would think, as the Hitler diaries. On the specific matters raised it is my understanding that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has been fully briefed and is fully aware of all the circumstances surrounding them. I think it ill becomes the Opposition to try to suggest otherwise. Mr Peacock —Are you telling me they are forgeries now, like the Hitler diaries? Mr SCHOLES —I did not say that at all. I said the Leader of the Opposition was fully briefed on certain matters. Mr Peacock —You said earlier they were akin to the Hitler diaries. Mr SCHOLES —I said that some of the matters which I have seen have the substance of the Hitler diaries. Mr Peacock —Which ones? Mr SCHOLES —It is not my intention nor has it been my intention to comment on which. The Leader of the Opposition can make his own decisions. He is to be briefed, as is everyone else. Mr Peacock —Tell me which are the forgeries. Mr SCHOLES —The Leader of the Opposition seems to want to make all sorts of strange speeches in opposition that he was not prepared to make when he was in government. He does know what the facts are. He is constrained from telling his colleagues. Nevertheless, the Opposition is aware and will be kept fully aware of the situation. The second matter raised concerned foreign policy which does not fall within my area and I do not intend to deal with it. I wish to make one point to the House. It is easy to make a case if one makes it on projections on decisions which are to be made rather than on decisions which are made. That is the basis of most of the foreign policy criticisms which came forward in this debate. The most significant matter raised concerns the Fleet Air Arm and the decision of the Government not to proceed with the acquisition program for a carrier which did not exist anyhow. The facts of this matter are that advice had been prepared by the defence forces relating to the future acquisition of a carrier. The former Minister for Defence is aware that in November last year the Defence Structure Committee provided him with a brief on which he prepared and presented to Cabinet a submission relating to the future of a carrier acquisition. That brief-the Royal Australian Navy dissented as I would expect-recommended that the Goverment not proceed to the procurement of a carrier. The defence advisers to the Government have also indicated that, consequent on that decision, it is proper to proceed to dismantle those sections of our defence forces which are dependent for their operations on the acquisition of a carrier, namely, the fixed wing operations. The former Minister has made great play about those. I quote from the minute: If practical, the earlier phased out or transfer of assets will be achieved- That is the transfer of those assets to other sections of the Defence Force. The minute continues: subject to satisfactory arrangements for transfer and redeployment of personnel involved, the use of tracker aircraft for surveillance tasks- That is a separate submission- and proving an alternative towing low level high target for which four Skyhawks are indeed to be retained beyond June 1983. Each of those qualifications as well as the specific qualifications about coastal surveillance are taken into account in respect of the decision to phase out fixed wing aircraft. I also draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that the Minister assisting the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Aviation, (Mr Beazley) has been asked by myself and the Minister for Transport ( Mr Peter Morris) to carry out a full review of coastal surveillance activities and to bring back a recommendation-this is a matter of some urgency because the previous Government kept deferring decisions on the use of charter aircraft and extended contracts to a stage where new contracting has to be considered-to the Parliament on all aspects to improve coastal surveillance, such as its adequacy and changes as are necessary to ensure an adequate coastal surveillance operation to protect Australia's coastline. Mr Peacock —Is this really a serious exposition of defence policy? Mr SCHOLES —That was raised by the honourable member's colleague, the honourable member for New England. If he was talking about defence, I suggest the honourable member for Kooyong ask him what he was talking about. He raised the matter. I think a number of things should be said about fixed wing aircraft. Mr Shipton —What about your promise? Mr SCHOLES —Our promise was not to acquire a carrier, and that decision was made nearly two years ago. I inform this House that, at the time of this Government taking office, there was no carrier capacity within the Royal Australian Navy-a fact which seems to have been conveniently forgotten by former Ministers. There was no operational capacity for fixed wing naval aircraft to operate in the manner in which the former Minister says was essential to the operations of our fleet. HMAS Melbourne was tied up 18 months before we came to office and there were no plans in hand-nor would I have said that the Minister would have even suggested there were-to reintroduce HMAS Melbourne into service. If the former Government was concerned about the acquisition of a carrier and the timing of the decision not to go ahead with one, it should have been concerned about that over the last five years. It knew throughout that period that HMAS Melbourne was nearing the end of its life and decisions had to be made. But the former Government put off the decision because it was too hard and it was not prepared to face up to the political responsibilities to taking it. That is why the submission made by the former Minister to the Cabinet had not been dealt with four months after it had gone to Cabinet. I will tell honourable members why that is so. It is because the processes of government of this country were paralysed by a sore back and no other Minister had the guts to proceed with affairs of this nature. That is why the decision was not taken. The crocodile tears we see in this House tonight do not match the facts. The former Minister has said that we had to have fixed wing operational aircraft. The reason why the decision was not made was that no one in the Cabinet had the guts to go ahead without the presence of the former Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser. This was his decision on HMS Invincible: It will be used as a helicopter carrier and there shouldn't be any expectations in present circumstances that we go beyond that. We bought the carrier- Mr Lusher —Which carrier? Mr SCHOLES —Oh, God! If the honourable member had ears, he would know. If he is that dumb, why does he not just shut up and mind his own business? I said- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SCHOLES —I said- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hume will remain silent. The Minister will address the Chair. Mr SCHOLES —If the honourable member would like to wake up and listen he will hear what I am saying. The former Prime Minister had this to say: It will be used as a helicopter carrier and there shouldn't be any expectations in present circumstances that we'd go beyond that. We bought the carrier for its contribution to anti-submarine warfare, not for its capacity to have short takeoff and landing aircraft. He was talking about the Invincible, as I said before. I wonder what that means. Firstly, we have a complaint in this House that we do not have a carrier capacity, a complaint from members of a government which tied up the carrier that we had 18 months ago and a government which clearly stated its intention not to have fixed-wing capacity for the Royal Australian Navy. That was a clear statement of government intent. Hypocrisy is the only word that can be used to describe that. There are a number of other aspects to defence policy. The present Government took office two months ago. It has made one major decision with relevance to the motion. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SCHOLES —If honourable members do not understand that we are talking about a motion, they ought to go out. That decision is that we will endorse the decision recommended to Cabinet by the former Minister. So the former Minister complains in this House that we agree with him and that what he said was an irresponsible act in respect of defence policy. If we are not to have a carrier capacity, it is necessary that a full examination take place of Australia's maritime capabilities, of the capabilities required for providing an adequate defence within the framework of our national capacities. I do not see any evidence, in any of the figures, that the previous Government placed that at a very high order. I know what that Government said. I also know what it did. The average increase in defence expenditure under the previous Government was 1.5 per cent a year in real terms. Its stated policy, throughout its whole term of office, was for 7 per cent. It never achieved that. In order to maintain the 1.5 per cent, it ran down stocks, ran down equipments and deferred programs which were essential and have now reached critical stages. The stocks available to support the defence forces of this country now, which have been utilised as Budget substitutes by using fixed assets to supplement Budget considerations, are at dangerously low levels and it will take some time for them to be built up again because of forward commitments. In respect to this motion, the Opposition has not come forward to criticise defence. It has used the motion as an opportunity to run a few hares, out of which it thinks it can get some political mileage. It has shown that since it went into opposition last, it has not changed one little bit. It has no consideration for the national interest and no consideration for putting facts before the Parliament. It is back at its old trick of accusing an incoming government of doing what it planned to do itself. The facts stay; they are there . The former Prime Minister indicated that his Government had no intention of acquiring fixed wing capacities for the Navy. The problem is that Opposition members did not have the guts to tell people when there was an election coming. The facts are that the former Government had no intention of acquiring a carrier for the Navy and Cabinet submissions were before the Government on that matter. It did not tell anyone about that matter because it did not want to tell anyone about that matter. One of the other matters which concerns me is the degree to which people have been misled by statements by the former Government. It was, unfortunately, a practice to tell people that things would be done or had been done when they had not been done, and not the least of those matters was in respect of funds which would be made available. The former Government has run down the defence forces of Australia. It has-if the former Minister considers it such-neglected its responsibilities to national security, in that the former Minister says that the disclosures which have now become apparent constitute a danger to Australia in respect of the Australian Intelligence Security Organisation and other security organisations. The former Government had those reports in its possession for the last seven years and did nothing at all about them. If Opposition members are concerned about the national security of this nation, they ought to get a mirror and look at themselves to find out where the blame lies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.35) —Firstly, let me make one or two observations about the speech of the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes). I point out that it is morning, and not night time. Secondly, he talked about one decision every two months. I ask him whether this is what we can expect from him in the remaining months that the Labor Government may be in office-one decision every two months. Thirdly, I think it is a valid observation that the next speaker from the Government side of the House, a former Minister for Defence, is looking increasingly good to take over the Defence portfolio. What we are seeing here will be a repeat performance of the defence policies of this country in the years 1972 to 1975. During those years, I was a serving soldier in the regular Australian Army. During those years I saw the destruction of the armed forces of this country. One of the reasons I am here now and, I may tell the House, one of the reasons that my colleague, the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) is here, is that when I left the Services and when he left them we determined to do something about the Labor policy for the defence of this country. The first thing I did when I left the Services was join the Liberal Party so that I could do something about getting the Australian Labor Party out. During those years we saw a run-down in the defence forces of this country-and I saw it because I was part of them. What we are seeing now will be a repeat of those disastrous years because, if for no other reason, the Government has a budgetary problem. The first thing that will be affected will be the defence forces of this country. Mr Scott —Tell us about it. Tell us about your seven years. Mr WHITE —I would like to say a word or two about the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. I do not plan to apportion any blame in this matter but I will ask the Government what it intends to do about the leaks that are occurring. No country can afford to have the sorts of leaks that we are seeing throughout the media day by day. This situation has set back our national security God knows how many years. Will other countries trust us? The obvious answer is of course no. I urge the Government to repair the damages as soon as possible. As it is, it will take years to build up trust that others have in this country. Mr Scholes —What was the date of the leaks? You seem to know the date. Mr WHITE —I am not apportioning blame. As I said, I am asking the Government to fix this matter quickly. Let me turn to the Fleet Air Arm. For something like 50 years we have painfully built up our Fleet Air Arm so that it is the equal of any other force in the world. At one savage blow it is to be disbanded and destroyed. Does the Minister or do honourable members opposite really think that we can turn the tap on and off when we are talking about training personnel in the defence forces? If they do, they are very stupid. What is happening now is that 50 years of expertise is about to be disbanded. To say glibly that the people displaced can go to the Australian Army, the Royal Australian Navy or the Royal Australian Air Force is a lot of nonsense. They are specialists in fleet operations. What will they do if they choose to go to the other Services? Their expertise will be lost forever. On 4 May, in this House, the Minister said: We have also given the local community a guarantee that the Albatross base will continue to operate at a level comparable with that which now exists. There are over 2,000 people at HMAS Albatross. How in God's name will he maintain that level when we have no Fleet Air Arm? What is to happen to the helicopters, and the A4s, probably one of the most effective ground attack aircraft that we have? Also, I understand that the Trackers are to be sold. All this is happening at a time when our coastal surveillance system badly needs updating. This country cannot continue to hire civilian aircraft to guard its northern approaches. Anybody who has been in those areas recently will know that the fishermen and graziers around the northern coast of Australia set their watches when the civilian aircraft goes over. They know that the aircraft will be there at a certain time, and so do the smugglers and other people bringing stuff into Australia illegally. So why do we not use these Navy aircraft productively instead of selling them? Let me say a few words about the aircraft carrier. The first point to be made is that the Australian Government had undertaken to purchase a carrier, the Invincible. Although it may have been designated originally for helicopter operations, there was no reason why in the long term it could not have been used for fixed wing operations. What concerns me most of all about the decision not to purchase a carrier is that we are going back to a fortress Australia syndrome or attitude which is not in the best interests of this country. We should consider the attitudes of all our friends and neighbours. The Americans are increasingly looking to Australia to partake more in the defence of this part of the world. Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Vanuatu are among some 36 countries and territories in our part of the world looking to Australia for help and guidance. So what do we do? We are the only maritime country in the world that is not expanding its seaborne operations capability. We decide that we will not get a carrier and, what is more, we will disband the Fleet Air Arm which means that presumably we will not have a carrier while this Government is in office. We are not just saying we are delaying the decision; we are taking the Fleet Air Arm out as well so that as far as this Government is concerned there will never be a carrier for Australia. It is not just the protection of our sea lanes about which we should be concerned, important though that is. It is important that we demonstrate to our friends and our allies in this part of the world that we have a viable defence capacity should they ever request our assistance. I hope we are not in the business of just looking after Australia. It would be a disaster in the long run if we did not have the capacity to help our friends should they request it and were it in our interests to do so. What sort of friends would we be if Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu or any other neighbouring country requested our assistance and we did not have the capacity to help them? Honourable members should consider that. The conclusion to be drawn is that it will be much more expensive for this country, in the long term, not to have a carrier than to have one. The Government talks glibly about the cost of a carrier and the cost of maintaining the Fleet Air Arm. The Fleet Air Arm is being disbanded. It will take years and years to build it up again, the same as it would after the destruction of any other fighting body of men. It takes a long time to produce trained personnel- the pilots and the expertise associated with running what is probably the most tricky operation of the lot, fleet operations. At a time when our friends and neighbours are looking to us for help, we are restricting our capacity to give it. The fact is that the weakness we are displaying will encourage enemies to take overseas adventures as has happened throughout history. The first responsibility of any government is to protect its territories and its national interest. On that basis, the decisions taken by the present Government indicate that it has failed this country. Mr MORRISON(St George)(10.45) —There has been a grave error in the drafting of this matter of public importance. It should read: The threat to Australia's defence capability through the negligence, incompetence and broken promises of seven years of the Fraser Government. The right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) walked into this House like Hamlet clutching poor old Yorick and talked about the problems in the system. In Hamlet terms, the problem in the system is that there is something wrong in the state of Denmark. What is wrong in this state of 'Denmark' happens to be the incompetence and the ineptitude of the seven years of the Fraser Government For the benefit of the newer members of this House I will go through the historical record. In 1976 the Fraser Government brought in a White Paper. It was a pretty good White Paper as my dear friend, the honourable member for Moreton (Sir James Killen) will recall, because it was based fundamentally on the program of the Labor Government. At that time the Fraser Government said that it would pursue a policy of a real 5 per cent increase in the defence vote. The Government had it easy. It inherited a going proposition from the Whitlam Labor Government and in fact for five of its seven years it continued to parade in borrowed clothes. I will go through the procurement program, and I invite the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) to go through it. I refer to the Rapiers, the guided missile frigates, the Leopard tanks and the Orion aircraft which were all put in place by the previous Labor Government. So for the first five years the Fraser Government had it easy. It had a program which it had only to implement because it was in place when it took over. The present Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) has no such luxury. But, having said that it would carry out this program, another broken promise set in. On 24 October 1978, after the great statement of 1976, the honourable member for Moreton-I do not blame him; he was under a very difficult leader-came into this House, after all the great promises of the White Paper, and said: Outlay this year . . . will not be large enough for us to achieve in the time we originally contemplated all of the objectives and projects of the Defence White Paper of 1976. That was a dismal confession of failure. But it does not end there. Having failed dismally in its first effort, in February 1980 it came in with a whole series of new propositions. This time it was not going to go for a real increase of 5 per cent which it had failed to do in the 1976 White Paper but proudly announced that the increase would be 7 per cent. But again the honourable member for Moreton had to come into this House on 29 April 1982 and say: Consequently some planned objectives for the development of the Defence Force will not be achieved as early as originally intended. The Fraser Government's programs of 1976, 1978 and 1980 were failures. In the seven years of the Liberal Government the defence policy of this country was a shambles. The Fraser Government could not maintain a sustained defence effort. The first time it promised 5 per cent and delivered 3 per cent. The second time it promised 7 per cent, but the historic average over the seven years of the Liberal Government was less than 3 per cent. This is the heritage that falls to the Labor Government at this time. The situation is very critical. As the right honourable member for New England said, there are problems in the system. There are problems in the system of the Force structure; there are problems in the system of financial planning. These continuous deferments are building up. Next year and the year after there will be a crunch point in the financial arrangements for the defence forces. Nobody knows it better than my good friend, the honourable member for Moreton. I have been through the five-year rolling programs. I have noted the tremendous impact that will occur when the purchase fo the FA18s comes in. The price of these aircraft has now reached $40m a copy. When one multiplies that by the number involved, one will see the critical financial situation that this Government has to meet because of the ineptitude and crass bad planning of the former Government. For the benefit of newer members of the Parliament, let me recall the sorts of hypocrisies which were indulged in by the honourable gentlemen opposite. In the period from 1972 to 1975, we brought about a total restructuring of the defence forces. There was from the other side at that time carping criticism about the reorganisation, but I am delighted to say-I compliment the honourable member for Moreton on it-that some time later-in fact on 25 March 1980-the honourable member for Moreton had the decency to come into this House and say: The defence administration in Australia was subjected in the 1970s to the most profound reorganisation in its history. I want it to be entirely clear that on the whole the Government is satisfied with the results. I compliment the former Minister for Defence on that unsolicited tribute to the Labor Government from 1972-75. The honourable member for McPherson claimed that there was disruption in the defence forces in that period. I ask the honourable member to examine the record, a record of very tight financial controls to ensure that the five-year rolling program which we bequeathed to the previous Government in 1975 was workable and that the Force structure was solidly planned . That was the heritage we gave to the previous Government. This enabled that Government, when it came to power, to carry through the program which we had set up. But the great misfortune for us and for Australia was that the previous Government did not do it in full competence. So, as the right honourable member for New England pointed out, there are problems in the system. But these problems are of that Government's making and it becomes the very difficult task of this Government to try to rectify the mistakes which the former Government made. As I pointed out at the beginning of my speech-I believe it should be recorded in Hansard-this matter of public importance should read: The threat to Australia's defence capability has arisen through the negligence, incompetence and broken promises of seven years of the Fraser Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Em- ployment and Industrial Relations)(10.55) — I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill implements two important aspects of the Government's industrial relations policy which was so soundly endorsed by Australians at the last election. Our policy in this area is designed to improve industrial relations in this country, something which is essential if the process of Australia's economic recovery is not to be impeded. The proposals before the House will contribute to the achievement of that objective. I draw the attention of honourable members to the background of the first area of government policy dealt with in the Bill, namely, the abolition of the Industrial Relations Bureau and the re-establishment of the Arbitration Inspectorate. The Bureau was established by the Fraser Government in 1977. It was ill-conceived and it was not wanted by employers or the union movement. From the outset, both groups have sought its abolition. The Bureau was presented by the Fraser Government as the 'third arm' of the conciliation and arbitration machinery, to complement the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Federal Court. It was described as being an independent body with the role of securing the observance of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the regulations and awards. It took over the labour inspection role of the Arbitration Inspectorate, and was also given responsibility for enforcing a battery of new provisions which intruded the Bureau into the internal affairs of registered organisations and applied new sanctions to employers and unions. The Fraser Government believed that industrial relations could be controlled by legislative prescriptions, without proper consideration of the reality of industrial relations in Australia. The Industrial Relations Bureau was perceived as the machinery for implementing the Government's approach to industrial relations. Such an approach has never worked and will never do so. It is not an approach that will be taken by the Hawke Government which is committed to working with the union movement and employers and their associations to achieve better industrial relations in the interests of all Australians. Moreover, the Government believes, and both the union movement and employers agree, that labour inspection will be more appropriately carried out if it is vested once again in an adequately resourced Arbitration Inspectorate which is ultimately responsible to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and within his Department. This is how the Inspectorate operated before the regrettable creation of the Bureau. The Bill restores this position, reflecting what was in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act before provision was made for the Bureau. There are some minor alterations to enhance the administration of the Inspectorate. I should stress, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the proposed legislation will not give the Inspectorate the intrusive role that the Bureau had in respect of the internal affairs of registered organisations. It will, as it did previously, be required to secure the observance of the Act, the regulations and of awards. Its principal function will be to ensure that awards of the Commission are being observed. I point out to honourable members that, again as was the case previously, the powers and duties of inspectors will be as determined by the Minister. They will be open to public scrutiny by publication in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. I turn now to the second policy area covered by the Bill. This concerns the facilitation of amalgamations under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act of registered organisations of employers and employees. It is widely recognised that there are too many unions in Australia. This has produced many problems in Australian industrial relations. For example, there are difficulties in dispute resolution where many unions are often involved; demarcation disputes present their own particular problems. The National Labour Consultative Council considered this problem over a number of years and in 1980 put forward proposals to encourage amalgamations of registered organisations. These recommendations were designed to facilitate amalgamations in the public interest where registered organisations could establish a community of interest between their industrial interests. Criteria were agreed upon for such a community of interest to be established before a Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and, in such a case, the minimum voting requirements under the Act for amalgamation ballots were to be reduced. These proposals were accepted by the Fraser Government and indeed endorsed by the then Prime Minister in his election speech in 1980. However the then Government abandoned them in favour of unworkable proposals for industry unions which the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation last year concluded would increase industrial disputation. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill proposes the introduction of the 1980 NLCC recommendations, with some alterations which have been developed in a review of those recommendations by the Government in consultation with the NLCC to make them more effective. The NLCC has agreed that its earlier proposed community of interest criteria be widened to encourage desirable amalgamations, such as between the unions in the textile, clothing and footwear industries whose attempts to amalgamate have been frustrated by the existing provisions and may have continued to be frustrated if the community of interest provisions had not been widened beyond those originally proposed by the NLCC. The Bill will also facilitate amalgamations which involve more than two organisations, whether such amalgamations are under the existing provisions, which continue to operate, or under the proposed community of interest provisions. Honourable members will note that all amalgamations will also benefit from a further provision of the Bill to bring voting rolls in amalgamation ballots more up to date. These provisions also reflect the NLCC recommendations. It is important to note that there has been full consultation with the NLCC on all the provisions of the Bill and they are agreed with by the Council. I now wish to outline these provisions in greater detail. In relation to the abolition of the Bureau, the Bill repeals Part VIA of the Act, which provides for the establishment and general powers of the Bureau and removes its specific rights and responsibilities. For the purposes of securing the observance of the Act, the regulations and awards, the Bill provides for the appointment of inspectors within the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations broadly along the same lines as applied to the former inspectorate. As I have said, certain changes will be made to the former arrangements to enhance the administration of the inspectorate. In particular, appointments to the position of inspector are only to be under the Public Service Act and the power of the Minister to appoint inspectors to carry out their functions under the Act will be capable of delegation to a senior officer of my department. Inspectors will again be given powers to enter buildings, interview persons and inspect documents for the purpose of ascertaining whether awards and the requirements of the Act and regulations are being observed. However, the former power to require the production of documents is to be made more effective to allow inspectors to require employers, by notice in writing, to produce documents at the premises of the inspector. This power would be exercisable only where there was a failure by the employer to produce that material at his or his agent's premises at all or within a reasonable time. Where breaches of Federal awards are detected, inspectors will be able, if it is necessary to do so, to bring proceedings before a court for a penalty under the Act. I again emphasize that, as previously, the powers and duties of inspectors will be as laid down by the Minister. As was previously the case, the Bill will allow for arrangements to be made for State and Federal labour inspectors to operate within the respective jurisdictions on a reciprocal basis. There are some provisions of the Act in respect of which the Government believes that the role of the Bureau would more properly be exercised by the Industrial Registrar. Accordingly, upon the abolition of the Bureau, its responsibilities for investigations of deficiencies in the accounts and financial statements of registered organisations will be taken over by the Industrial Registrar. He will also take the place of the Bureau as one of the parties able to apply to the Federal Court for a declaration as to whether a person is eligible to be appointed or elected to an office in an organisation or to continue to hold such an office. The Industrial Registrar will also assume the sole responsibility for the conduct of investigations into irregularities alleged in applications for inquiries into elections in organisations, a role which he had prior to the creation of the Bureau. The Bill also contains transitional provisions to enable proceedings under the Act in a court at the time of the abolition of the Bureau to be proceeded with at the discretion of the Minister. I turn now to provisions of the Bill dealing with the amalgamation of registered organisations. Honourable members will be aware that the existing legislation requires that, for an amalgamation to be successful, each organisation must achieve a return of ballot papers in the amalgamation ballot from at least 50 per cent of members eligible to vote and, of those voting formally, more than half must vote in favour of the amalgamation. The Bill provides for an easing of these requirements in relation to organisations which can establish a community of interest in respect of their industrial interests. Organisations which apply to the Industrial Registrar to amalgamate will be able, at the same time, to apply to a full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for a declaration that the proposed amalgamation is in the public interest and in the industrial interests of those organisations. The Commission is to be empowered to make that declaration where it is satisfied that the amalgamation would further the objects of the Act and that there is a community of interest between the organisations in respect of their industrial interests. The Bill sets out a number of criteria under which the Commission can determine whether a community of interest exists. Organisations will be required to meet only one of those criteria. For employee organisations those criteria are that a substantial number of the members of each of the organisations are either: Eligible to become members of the other organisations or each of the other organisations; Engaged in the same work, aspects of the same work or in similar work; Bound by the same awards; Employed in the same or related work by employers engaged in the same industry; or Engaged in work, or in industries, in respect of which there is a community of interest. Similar criteria will apply to employer organisations. Where organisations obtain a declaration from the Commission, they will be required in an amalgamation ballot to achieve a return of ballot papers from only 25 per cent of members eligible to vote-rather than 50 per cent as previously-and a simple majority of valid votes would be sufficient to approve the amalgamation. The Bill contains two other initiatives which will apply to amalgamations whether under the existing amalgamation provisions or the provisions for community of interest amalgamations. First, in an amalgamation involving more than two organisations, provision is made for the applicants to provide for alternative schemes of amalgamation. If in a ballot one or more of the organisations fails to secure the necessary support for the amalgamation, the amalgamation may still proceed in respect of those organisations the members of which voted in favour of an alternative scheme of amalgamations. Under the existing legislation those organisations would be forced to repeat the entire amalgamation process. The second initiative relates to the persons who are eligible to participate in an amalgamation ballot. Significant difficulties are faced by organisations in achieving a successful amalgamation because of the existing requirements in this area. Under the Act at present, the roll of voters consists of persons who were financial members of the organisation at any time within the 12 months before the day on which the Registrar gave his approval for the amalgamation to be submitted to ballot. Moreover, the ballot may not be conducted for several months after that date. Consequently, the roll may not accurately reflect the actual membership of the organisation. In order to overcome this problem, the Bill provides that the roll of voters will comprise those persons who, one month before the opening date of the ballot, were eligible under the rules of the organisation to vote in an amalgamation ballot, or where the rules do not so provide, persons who were eligible under the rules to vote in a rank and file election for an office within the organisation. The Government believes, and is supported in its belief by both employer and trade union bodies, that these initiatives, together with the community of interest provisions, will do much to facilitate amalgamations which are both in the interests of the organisations themselves and the community generally. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(11.8) — I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The major purpose of this Bill is to amend the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act 1981 to rectify technical deficiencies which have recently come to light. At the same time, the opportunity is being taken to include in the tax sharing base some newly imposed Commonwealth taxes. In 1981, an understanding was reached with the States that, following a transitional year, their tax sharing grants would be calculated by reference to a 'total' tax base rather than the personal income tax base used in previous arrangements. That, and other understandings between the Premiers and the previous Government, formed the basis of the tax sharing Act. Apart from the provision for certain taxes-or parts thereof-to be declared by the Treasurer to be a special surcharge and thereby be excluded from the tax pool, the Act did appear at the time to cover all major Commonwealth taxation collections. Moreover, to date, determinations of taxation receipts required under the Act have been made in accordance with the understanding with the States. Under section 27 of the Act, a determination once made is presumed conclusively correct. I record these facts simply for the information of honourable members present and to assure them that, to date, determinations of tax collections under the Act have been made in accordance with the spirit of the understanding with the States. Recently, however, questions have arisen as to whether, stricly interpreted, the definition of income tax in the Act is in fact as broad as intended. Advice from Attorney-General's Department has confirmed the doubt that exists regarding this definition. The definition of income tax in the Act is derived by reference to section 6 (I) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, a section which deals with assessed income tax only. Collections of pay-as-you- earn instalments, company tax instalments or provisional tax instalments collected by the Commonwealth are not assessed, within the meaning of the Act at the time of collection. Late payment penalties would also not strictly be included under the present definition. It is estimated that around $600m of the net income tax collections in 1981-82 would represent tax not subsequently falling within the definition of the Act. Because of the lag between personal income tax collections and the issue of related assessments, the determination which would have been made in that year, had the strict interpretation of the Act been adopted, would have been substantially below the determination actually made. Although previous determinations were consistent with the intention of the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act, the Government now proposes to make the necessary amendments to bring it into line with those intentions. As I have already indicated, in addition to amending the definition of income tax included in the tax sharing base, the present Bill also deals with newly introduced Commonwealth taxes. In recent times the Commonwealth has enacted two pieces of legislation, namely the Bank Account Debits Tax Administration Act 1982 and the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act 1982, which should, as part of the understanding reached with the States in 1981, be added to the list of taxes forming the tax base for the purposes of the tax sharing Act. Finally, I note that the amendments set out in the Bill also make allowance for the deduction from the tax sharing base of any payments which could be made by the Commonwealth under the proposed legislation for the payment of interest on tax overpayments. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is one of a package of Bills, the main purpose of which is to introduce a new system for granting tariff concessions. The new system, to be known as the commercial tariff concession system, is a modification of and replaces the existing commercial by-law system. By-laws have been an integral part of the customs tariff since Federation. Presently, under Part XVI of the Customs Act and particularly section 273, a concessional rate of duty can be applied to imported goods which comply with criteria prescribed in a by-law tariff item. In other words, the existing by-law system provides the legal means of removing duties, other than duties of a revenue nature, which serve no protective purpose. The sole and long-standing criterion for concessional by-law entry is where suitably equivalent goods are not reasonably available from local production. Considerable difficulty has emerged with this criterion on economic, administrative and legal grounds and as a result the commercial by-law system was referred to the Industries Assistance Commission in April 1981 for review. This in fact was the first complete review of the by-law system. The Industries Assistance Commission reported to the Government of the day on 2 July 1982 and the new commercial tariff concession system encompassed in this legislation is largely based on the Commission's recommendations. The Commission found that the commercial by-law system provides flexibility in tariff administration and has widespread support in the business community. Many production activities depend to some extent on the by-law entry of inputs and there could be serious disruption if the by-law system was terminated quickly without a prior comprehensive review of all assistance provided by the tariff. While one commissioner recommended ultimate abandonment of the by-law system, the majority concluded that the present system should be maintained in an improved form. The Government has accepted this majority view. In broad terms the Government has adopted a new criterion which will provide that commercial tariff concessions will be issued where the Minister is satisfied that no goods serving similar functions are produced or are capable of being produced in the normal course of business in Australia. The key words in this criterion are 'serving similar functions' and new section 269B (4) provides an interpretation of them. The test will be the degree of cross-elasticity of demand between the imported and Australian produced goods. In practical terms, this means that these tariff concessions will be decided by determining the effect that a reduced rate of duty will have on competition or potential competition between the local and imported goods. This will be based on a practical and realistic assessment of the market situation. The onus will be on the applicant for a tariff concession to identify the goods involved, the market for the goods and the degree of competition or potential competition between the imported goods and Australian-made goods. Notwithstanding this criterion being met, the proposed new section 269E provides that the Minister may refuse to grant a concession if he considers that such a concession would have a substantially adverse effect on the market available to goods produced in Australia or if it would not be in the national interest. The Bill also provides in section 269D that concessional entry will not apply in respect of certain classes or kinds of goods. The classes or kinds of goods envisaged are those where there exists a wide and comprehensive range of both Australian-made and imported goods which, notwithstanding differences in construction, quality, price, et cetera, basically compete with each other in the market place. Included in this category are foodstuffs, motor vehicles, footwear and jewellery. These exclusions will be prescribed in an 'Exclusions Schedule' in the Customs regulations. Comparing the new criterion with the existing one, the proposed new criterion conforms more closely with established industry assistance objectives and should reduce disagreement and legal disputation over fine technical points in respect of particular goods. It should result in a more predictable administration for users of the system. The new criterion reflects to a large extent the way in which the current by-law system has in fact been administered in recent years using the Minister's discretionary power under the existing legislation. Other aspects of the system proposed in this legislation include the requirement for advertising applications for new concessions in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. This will make for better public scrutiny of the system, particularly by local manufacturers whose views will be taken into account prior to a decision being made on an application. The effective date of new concessions is proposed to be a date no earlier than the date of receipt by the Department of Industry and Commerce of the application or a notice of intention to lodge an application. In the case of revocation of an existing concession, the Bill provides that concessional entry will be accorded to goods that are in transit to Australia at the date of revocation. There are two other aspects on which I would like to comment. The first relates to end-use security and shortfall concessions and the other relates to the review of existing by-law concessions. The new system does not provide for concessions involving end-use under security provisions or situations involving shortfalls in supply. This is the only area of potential significant loss of concessional entry following the adoption of the new criterion. The reasons for the exclusion of these special concessions are contained in the Industries Assistance Commission report. In respect of concessions for particular end-uses, the Commission found that these have created a number of problems in principle, in their economic effect and in administration. To illustrate these problems, if it is necessary to restrict the availability of a concession to a particular use, there must be locally produced goods available. End-use concessions also lead to different rates of duty being paid on the same product by different importers depending on the use to which it is put. Demand can be influenced as a result. The validity of entry under such a concession must depend on there being safeguards to ensure that the imports are used only in the specified end-use. It is a fact of life that this has created considerable administrative difficulties as these conditions are often costly and nigh on impossible to control. This also raises the question of the potential for erosion of the protection already accorded to local industry. Existing end-use by-laws will be phased out over the next two years and any future proposals for arrangements of this kind will be considered for reference to the Industries Assistance Commission as special by-laws outside the tariff concession system. In respect of concessions to cover shortfalls, that is, where local industry is unable to maintain normal output, the Commission did not see these concessions as appropriate within the new concession system. Existing arrangements will, however, remain until they are reviewed by the Commission. Future applications for such shortfall concessions, and any cases involving extraordinary demands, will be considered for reference to the Commission. Any resulting concession of this kind will likewise be introduced as a by-law outside the new system. This leads me to the second matter, the review of existing by-laws and the granting of tariff concessions. I have already mentioned the position in relation to end-use and shortfall by-laws. Other existing commercial by-laws will be reviewed and new concessions issued where the new criterion is satisfied . This will be done gradually over a two-year period to accord importing and manufacturing interests a reasonable time in which to consider the implications of any changes for their business and minimise any disruption likely to occur. Decisions taken under the new tariff concession system will be reviewable by the existing internal review system within the Department of Industry and Commerce. The legislation makes provision for applicants who wish to make further requests for review to seek a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission. Also, operation of the new system will be subject to review under the provisions of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Subject to the passage of this legislation through the Parliament, an extensive program is proposed to acquaint fully importing and manufacturing interests with the new system. Consequential amendments have been made to the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975. The Bill also includes two other matters which are quite separate from the tariff concession provisions. Clause 3 of the Bill provides that Papua New Guinea content is to be included in determining whether goods are to be regarded as the manufacture of a forum island country, a declared preference country or a developing country. This amendment is in accordance with an agreement reached with the Government of Papua New Guinea. Clause 4 removes the requirement that goods eligible for tender quota must be imported and entered for home consumption within the same quota period. The intention of the existing legislation was to prevent goods being held back from entry to take advantage of a lower rate of duty which might apply in a later quota period. Experience shows that this fear has little basis. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.23) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is a minor amendment being made as a consequence of amendments to the Customs Act 1901. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.24) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is a minor amendment being made as a consequence of amendments to the Customs Act 1901. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Bill presented by Dr Blewett, and read a first time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(11.25) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will, among other things, honour an important election commitment to abolish the declaration that pensioners and concessional beneficiaries must sign when they receive pharmaceutical benefits. As honouring this promise involves legislative change, the Government is taking one of the first opportunities in the new Parliament to honour its election pledge. Honourable members will recall that the previous Government introduced from 1 January of this year an arrangement under which a pharmaceutical chemist could not supply a benefit item to a pensioner free of charge or to a concessional beneficiary at the reduced contribution rate, unless the patient completed a complex declaration as to this entitlement. The declaration was printed on the reverse of the prescription form thereby requiring two signatures for each prescription, once on the declaration and once for the receipt of the benefit. In practice many patients, particularly the aged, the infirm, migrants and the disabled, were unable to complete the declaration form without help. There was widespread opposition to the arrangement. Its abolition will be welcomed generally. I draw honourable members' attention to clause 6 of the Bill, which would establish a far simpler mechanism for pensioners and concessional beneficiaries to claim their entitlement. Under the proposed scheme a pharmacist would be authorised to supply the benefit if the prescription form contains certain basic information about the patient's entitlement. The information needed will be set out in regulations and will be easily available from the benefit cards issued to all persons entitled to free or concessional pharmaceutical benefits. A medical or dental practitioner, the patient or any person on behalf of the patient, or the pharmacist supplying the benefit, will all be allowed to enter the entitlement information on the front of the prescription form. There will no longer be a need for persons to sign twice in order to obtain supply of the benefit and the patient contribution concession. It is expected that the problems being experienced by patients and pharmacists with the present complex arrangements will disappear. The new prescription form will simplify the present complex declaration form in four ways. First, all the required information will be provided on one side of the form. There will be no requirements on the reverse side of the form. Second, the information for beneficiary status will be simplified, making it easier for beneficiaries and pharmacists, yet still meeting the necessary demands for effective departmental monitoring. Third, a single signature will indicate both receipt of the prescription and claim to free or concessional entitlement. Fourth, doctors and, if need be, pharmacists will be encouraged to assist beneficiaries in completing the form. However, I would make it clear that responsibility for the accuracy of an entitlement claim rests, as it rightly should, with the beneficiary. To discourage fraud, clause 9 of the Bill amends section 103 of the Act, the offence provision, expressly to cover the new procedure and my Department will continue to monitor closely the supply of benefits, and will examine improved monitoring devices to eradicate fraud in the pharmacy area. The opportunity has also been taken in this Bill to amend the National Health Act to ensure effective continuation of established policies and practices in the Commonwealth control of nursing homes fees. I draw honourable members' attention to clause 3 of the Bill. The Federal Government's annual contribution to accommodation and home care programs for the aged can be expected to pass the $1,000m mark in the next budget. Of this amount, it is estimated that expenditure subsidising the provision of care in nursing homes will account for $865m. The recurrent funding of nursing home beds considerably overshadows all Federal capital expenditure on accommodation for the aged, recurrent funding for hostels and all expenditure on domiciliary care, and it is rising substantially. While the expenditure on the nursing homes programs continues to escalate significantly there are growing criticisms of the present arrangements. The aged , their families and taxpayers are increasingly questioning the inadequacies, expense and the mismatch of services which comprise Australia's present arrangements for care of the aged. Care of the aged is now an important community and political concern. The report released last year by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on expenditure entitled 'In a Home or at Home: Accommodation and Home Care for the Aged' is a significant document which identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the present arrangements. The report shows Australia as having a complex, fragmented and expensive system of aged care. A major emphasis of the report is on the preponderance of institutional care over domiciliary and community care and on the need to redress this imbalance. At the same time the report provides clear recommendations aimed at rationalising and improving the present arrangements. The Government endorses the thrust of this report. As a nation we go on spending very considerable amounts on institutional care of the aged whilst severely restricting funding to those who would prefer to remain at home or in the community. The Government intends to develop a Community Care Program to provide support for the elderly who wish to remain in their own homes. Under this program there will be a comprehensive range of domiciliary and community services provided across Australia. On the residential side our task will be to moderate growth in the nursing home sector, while continuing to pursue more equitable geographic distribution of nursing home beds, and to increase the availability of hostel accommodation. It is our view that neither per capita nursing home benefits funding nor deficit funding are ideal methods for securing the proper national development of nursing homes in the context of a total care policy for the aged. Existing nursing home benefits and deficit funding arrangements will be replaced by program grants paid to nursing homes. These program grants will be based on standard costs for the services delivered less the income received by the homes through standard patient contributions. The program grant system will take some time to develop. In the meantime the existing funding arrangements for nursing homes will be maintained. The principal purpose of clause 3 of the Bill is to ensure protection for patients against excessive fee increases and at the same time to ensure appropriate control of expenditure on benefits under the current nursing home benefits arrangements pending the introduction of the Government's Residential Care Program. Expenditure on the Nursing Homes Benefits Program is determined by the number of approved beds and the level of benefit. The benefit level in each State is related to the levels of nursing home fees in that State which in turn are determined by my Department having regard to costs necessarily incurred by nursing home proprietors. The existing legislation on the control of fees simply provides that in determining fees the permanent head shall 'have regard to costs necessarily incurred in providing nursing home care in the nursing home'. Two recent Federal Court judgments have shown that this legislation is not able to support the policies and practices followed over many years in the administration of fees control-policies and practices which have been followed by both Labor and Liberal-National Party governments. These judgments have serious implications for the overall cost of the Nursing Homes Benefits Program. The practical effect of the judgments is that the continued application of the policies and practices currently used in the determination of fees for nursing homes would result in many determinations being set aside, if challenged, as being made contrary to law. Costs which previously were not allowed for the purpose of setting fees now have to be given consideration possibly resulting in significant fee increases contrary to Government policy. This would lead to higher benefits and therefore increased Government expenditure. Within the protected environment of the nursing home industry, there is very little incentive to constrain costs given the cost-based nature of fees determination and the high occupancy rates resulting from Government controls on new beds. Limited costs validations undertaken by my Department have revealed cases where costs have been artificially increased as a means of increasing profits. A recent consultancy survey undertaken with the co-operation of the industry revealed considerable variations in costs and profits between like homes. Legal opinion has been given to the effect that, in the light of the recent Federal Court judgments, the legislation greatly circumscribes the use of policy guidelines. Consequently, very great burdens will be placed upon delegates of the permanent head whose task it is to determine fees. The judgments interpret the legislation as requiring the permanent head and his delegates to regard all costs necessarily incurred as fundamental matters for consideration, with each fee being determined on the basis of the merits of each individual case. The considerable difficulties involved in maintaining consistent administration Australia-wide will be much exacerbated. Successive governments have acted on the basis that Parliament, in passing the fees control legislation, did not intend to limit significantly central control and accountability, particularly given that the legislation makes detailed provision for appeals against, and reviews of, delegates' determinations. There are indications that the effect of the Federal Court judgments could be an eventual increase in government expenditure on benefits of the possible order of $50m per annum. In a program which is expected to cost more than $600m for benefits alone in 1983-84, it is imperative that consistent and effective controls be exercised on costs which may have an inflationary effect on approved fees. The effect of clause 3 will be to allow the effective continuation of established policies and practices pending the introduction of the Government's residential care program. The Bill provides that the Minister for Health may formulate principles in accordance with which the permanent head or his delegate is required to determine a scale of fees. It is intended that the principles will reflect established policy. The Bill provides for scrutiny of the principles by Parliament. In formulating these principles, regard is to be had to the factors set down in the proposed sub-section 40AA (7B). These factors will permit delegates to take account of the lack of normal market constraints on the nursing home industry. Clause 4 of the Bill is designed to ensure that the Minister is not, of necessity, constrained by principles authorised by clause 3 which are intended to limit the discretion of a large number of delegates of the permanent head throughout the country. Thus, on appeal, the Minister may, in considering the merits of a case, decide that rigid application of the principle is inappropriate. This change puts beyond legal doubt a practice which has been followed by successive Ministers of governments of all complexions. In summary, the proposed changes will ensure that the Government is able to continue the application of policies and practices in nursing homes fees control , established and supported by successive governments, pending the introduction of the present Government's residential care program. I now turn to clause 5 of the Bill which relates to the domiciliary nursing care benefit. Honourable members will be aware that this benefit is paid to persons who care for persons, generally relatives, in their own homes rather than having them admitted to nursing homes. To attract this benefit, persons are medically assessed by their own doctor and by a Commonwealth medical officer as requiring continuing nursing care to an extent that admission requirements to a nursing home would be satisfied. Other eligibility criteria for the benefit include that the person providing care and the patient must be domiciled in the same residence and regular nursing attention must be provided by a registered nurse. Where a person ceases to provide domiciliary nursing care to a patient, section 58J of the National Health Act provides that the permanent head of my Department or his delegate shall revoke approval of the benefit. At present, this provision restricts the delegation of the power of revocation to a departmental medical practitioner. This restriction results in unnecessary diversion of medical staff resources in that revocation of an approval often results from non-medical considerations such as a change in residential arrangement or, indeed, the death of a patient. It is this unnecessary restriction in section 58J which is removed by the amendment in clause 5. Of course, a delegate would have available, if required in the process of exercising the delegation to revoke an approval, the advice of medical practitioners and other professional personnel. The amendment does not remove the inherent requirement in the domiciliary nursing care arrangements that a decision, requiring medical judgment, which may result in the revocation of an approval for the benefit, can be made only by a medical practitioner. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Governor-General, in his speech to the Parliament on 21 April 1983, stated that the Broadcasting and Television Act would be amended to: remove the ban on political news and comment applying to radio and television stations in the three days before Federal and State elections. I am pleased to introduce this Bill, which amends the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, and honours the Government's commitment to remove the election blackout. The only election matter which remains subject to restrictions is paid advertisements. The Bill also seeks to reduce the administrative burden on the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. We are well aware of the controversy which is caused by the blackout each time an election is held. The momentum that has built up over the years for removal of this provision could not and should not be ignored, because the blackout is simply not supported by most Australians. Amongst members of parliament it is rejected not only by members of this side of the House, but also by a number of members opposite and by the Australian Democrats. It is opposed by the broadcasting industry; it is opposed by the print media; and it is opposed by most public interest groups associated with the media. Not to put too fine a point on it, the present provisions are an infringement of our civil liberties which should not be tolerated by a democratic society. In fact, the Human Rights Commission, prior to the last election, had already initiated an inquiry into section 116 of the Broadcasting and Television Act, the section which contains the blackout provisions, on the grounds that it violated internationally accepted political rights. The Government believes that Australians are entitled to receive news and comment on the issues of the day at all times. They are certainly entitled to such news and comment in the process of an election when they are exercising their democratic right to choose a government. Even if it were possible to justify this abrogation of free speech-of the rights of free men and women to decide for themselves-there would be no logic in denying such information to the public via the electronic media, while simultaneously allowing the print media to report it in full. Radio and television broadcasters, who have been asking successive governments to lift the blackout year after year, are entitled to describe this as discrimination. The Government accepts their argument and has moved to end this discrimination. The Bill provides that the blackout, from midnight of the Wednesday immediately preceding the election to the close of polls on the following Saturday, will apply in future to paid election advertisements only. All other election matter, including news, current affairs and political commentary, is a legitimate part of the public debate and should not be suppressed. Of course all parties would oppose a broadcaster favouring one party over another, either in its news and current affairs or in its provision of free time . The right to broadcast carries with it a corresponding responsibility to act with impartiality in matters of public interest. The coverage of elections- indeed of all political matter-should be handled by broadcasters in the most sensitive manner, so that neither listeners and viewers, nor we politicians are prompted to cry 'foul' and seek to impose restrictions on all because of the sins of the few. The Bill therefore seeks to extend the existing obligation for broadcasters to afford reasonable opportunity for the broadcasting or televising of election matter to all political parties contesting the election which were represented in the last preceding parliament, so that it covers the whole election period, that is, in future this responsibility will exist from the issue of writs to the close of polls. The Government also intends to examine the general question of fairness in the presentation of public issues by the electronic media. I am currently considering draft terms of reference for an inquiry by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal which will allow a full and free public debate on this issue. The Broadcasting and Television Act currently requires the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to notify any broadcaster who is exempted from the blackout on broadcasting election matter. When a Federal by-election is held, the Tribunal therefore is required to notify the majority of radio and television stations, that is, those not received in the electorate concerned. The blackout now will apply only to election advertisements, but it also seeks to assist the Tribunal by substituting a duty to advise only those stations which are subject to restrictions. In the example just mentioned, the Tribunal would need to notify only a few stations. The stations notified, of course, are required to comply with the notice. It should be noted that since the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Special Broadcasting Service are prohibited from playing any advertisements, they will no longer be subject to any election blackout. The Bill defines election advertisements as advertisements which contain election matter and for which payment, whether by money or other consideration, is made directly or indirectly to the licensee of the radio or television station concerned; that is to say, advertisements broadcast on commercial stations and sponsorships broadcast on public broadcasting stations will not be able to contain election matter in the three days before an election. The Bill before the House is slight in form but highly significant, because it introduces a reform which has been delayed for too long. There is a need for other laws reforming the way elections are conducted in Australia, but this reform is unarguably justified. The Government believes that Australia is a democratic society with a mature electorate and responsible broadcasters providing that electorate with the information it needs to make more balanced judgments on public issues. The electorate's need for accurate and informed comment is never more urgent than in the process leading up to the choice of governments. It is high time that we in the Parliament recognised this and repudiated the paternalism embodied in the present legislation. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Uren, and read a first time. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government)(11.48) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the winding up of the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission, and the termination of the Christmas Island Agreement with New Zealand. As indicated in the Schedule to the Bill, both the Australian and New Zealand governments have agreed to these changes being made. Honourable members will recall that in June 1981 the Christmas Island Agreement Act was amended to enable an Australian government company-the Phosphate Mining Co. of Christmas Island Ltd-to replace the British Phosphate Commissioners as the managing agents of the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission. As was indicated in the second reading speech on that legislation, those amendments were of an interim kind, and a completely new Christmas Island Agreement was to be negotiated with New Zealand. The legislation now before the House takes that process further. Article I in the Schedule provides that the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission shall cease to function as soon as practicable, following which the Christmas Island Agreement will terminate, in accordance with Article IV. As to Article II, the intention is that the assets of the Commission on the island-the phosphate rock, buildings, plant et cetera-will pass to the Phosphate Mining Co. of Christmas Island Ltd, which will then mine the phosphate deposits in its own right rather than as managing agents. Agreement is close to being reached with New Zealand on arrangements which will operate in future between the two countries in respect of island phosphate. This agreement will be embodied in an exchange of notes, which will begin to operate when the legislation before the House comes into force. Just as the 1981 legislation affecting the Christmas Island Agreement paved the way for the British phosphate commissioners to be wound up, so does this legislation spell the end of the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission. The Commission was established in 1949 by the Australian and New Zealand governments after they had on 31 December 1948 purchased the assets on the island of the Christmas Island Phosphate Co. Ltd. That company had been mining phosphate on the island since the 1890s. The purchase price at that time was #stg2,690,000. The original 1949 Agreement was revised in 1958 when Christmas Island became an Australian Territory. The Commission has always been an unusual organisation. There are three part time commissioners, but no employees, the Commission having always had managing agents-for 32 years the British phosphate commissioners and since July 1981 the Phosphate Mining Co. of Christmas Island Ltd. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the present commissioners-Mr M. C. Timbs, A.O., the Australian commissioner; Mr W. D. M. Bremner, C.M.G., the New Zealand commissioner; and Mr W. B. Marston, O.B.E., the joint commissioner. It is a measure of the relationship between Australia and New Zealand that a body under the authority of both of them could for 25 years be responsible for conducting a mining operation on a Territory under the authority of one of them. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Debate resumed from 4 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —Mr Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 1982-83 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1982-83, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these three measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(11.53) —The proposals brought forward in the Appropriation Bills are purely for the funding of programs that were approved in the last Budget and , as such, I do not propose to comment on the great number of items that are raised in them. Rather, I thought that today I would spend a little time looking at the economic scene in Australia and would join the debate on the wages case. The release yesterday of the balance of payments figures reflects very much the standard and situation of the economy. Indeed, the overall position that emerged from those figures certainly pointed out to me, and I am sure to those who take an interest in the economic debate, that while for the first time for some considerable period, an overall surplus was run on the balance of trade, the overall balance of payments showed a deficit of some size. As a consequence, one has to look at what contributed to that and reflect on what is happening in the Australian economy. There is no doubt that the level of exports was affected by such things as the drought and poor commodity prices. At the same time imports, which are vital in the composition of Australia's trade-ours is a small domestic market of 15 million, but imports represent a very significant item in the balance of payments-were down in some very sizable quantities. It is recorded that fuels fell by 21 per cent, textiles and fabrics by some 18 per cent, while metals and manufactures fell by some 16 per cent. This shows that the overall level of economic activity has fallen considerably. In order to compensate for that downturn at this time, we need to look to the performance of the capital account. In the March quarter it showed that we have not attracted the level of funds which is necessary in terms of monetary policy and interest rates and which is also very material in the investment process of this nation. If we look further into that account we will see that off-shore investors have been most reluctant to come back to the Australian scene. I can understand that at the present moment because the Government simply has not given them the confidence that they look for. It has not attempted to allay the fears that were certainly around in the Whitlam years. It has not attempted to encourage the off-shore investors to come here with confidence. They still fear a confiscatory element that surrounds the socialist policy. Although I can understand that the Government is certainly pressed in areas of finance and has problems with the Budget, I point to the fact that the current balance of payments figures clearly show that the amount of money that will be necessary in the next two to three years certainly will not be found. On top of that, a continuation of large deficits of the order of $10 billion will put increasing pressure on the capital market in Australia. This will force interest rates higher rather than bring about the lower rates to which we would all aspire. After 1 July 1983 the public debt requirement from Australian capital markets will be over $17,000m, a very sizable amount. These figures will not be achieved unless some confidence is brought back to foreign investors. Therefore, I think it is most important that we look to the question of the balance of payments. I am today very indebted to the Australian Financial Review for its analysis of this matter and I recommend it to all honourable members. The newspaper, carrying a large one-page advertisement pointing out the virtues of the National Economic Summit Conference, also brought to my attention the fact that at the Summit the Government was told by business interests and people involved in unions and government that to lower unemployment and inflation and to get economic growth going will certainly require massive wage restraint. Mr Speaker, it might now be an appropriate time to adjourn the debate. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 12 midday and in accordance with the Sessional Order , the debate is interrupted. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Mr GOODLUCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the Government giving consideration to the call from the honourable member for Fraser for the abolition of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and its replacement with a different type of intelligence organisation? Mr HAWKE —No. Mr SNOW —I ask the Prime Minister about claims by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and others that documents tabled at the National Economic Summit Conference show that Australia's employment prospects would be best served by a wages policy based on what was termed scenario C which entailed an extension of the wages pause until the end of the year. Would the overall economic interest of the country be best served by the adoption of scenario C as the basis of the Government's wages policy? Mr HAWKE —Let me refer again to the clear position that I put yesterday in this House as to the wages policy of this Government. The policy of this Government in respect of wages is clearly based upon the necessity to return to a system of centralised wage fixation, a position which, as I reminded the House yesterday, was overwhelmingly endorsed by the National Economic Summit Conference. Bearing that in mind, it is the clear position of this Government that at best only a minimal wage rise in the latter part of this year would be appropriate, that any such rise, if it is to eventuate, should be determined by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the context of a national wage case and that that should be the essential basis of any wage increase this year. I repeat the words that I used yesterday: This policy of the Government which has been endorsed so widely is a policy which is coherent, equitable and workable. The honourable member referred to the question of scenario C which was in issue , to some extent, at the National Economic Summit Conference. Let me remind the House that scenario C would have entailed no wage increase until April of 1984. I suggest to the House that one does not need to be especially brilliant to appreciate that such a result is simply not achievable. If one really believes that it is achievable one only has to think about it to know that we would only move to a situation where there would be a complete collapse of any possibility of having any sort of rational wage fixation at all. Let me refer to what was said in respect of scenario C, in terms of its reality and realism, in an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday. In relation to scenario C which is touted about in some fashion by some members of the Opposition, the editorial stated: And the sad fact is that Scenario C lacks credibility. The superior employment outcome it promises is based on the assumption that the wage freeze can be prolonged, all catch-up can be avoided, and a system of partial wage indexation can be held together until the end of 1985-86. With the clamour for 'sectional claims' and the talk of spurious 'special or extraordinary circumstances' already upon us, does anyone seriously imagine that such idyllic wage-fixing arrangements are possible? Scenario C purports to produce a profits share of national income greater than Australia has previously experienced. Does anyone seriously imagine that wage-earners could be induced to accept protracted partial indexation while profits rose to unknown heights? To embark on Scenario C would be to guarantee a wage explosion. It concluded in this respect by saying: The interests of the unemployed will best be served by a wages policy based on realism, not idealism. Employers will best contribute to the restoration of economic stability not by hankering after the impossible, but by uniting with the Government and union moderates to ensure that an achievable degree of wage restraint is actually achieved. This is a sufficiently daunting task. That is a clear endorsement of the realism of the position adopted by the Government in this matter, as distinct from the policy advocated by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition which has been tried and which resulted in a massive wage explosion and an explosion in the level of unemployment in this country. Sir JAMES KILLEN —I ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees that, in the defence of liberty and reputation, an individual is entitled to know the details of any charge made against him. If so, will the Government make a specific charge against Mr David Combe? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to my friend, the honourable member for Moreton, for his question and the spirit in which it is asked. I want to indicate to the House, and I am sure that the honourable member will appreciate and accept what I now have to say, that precisely in terms of our appreciation of the significance of the issue raised by the honourable member and because of the publicity which has emerged and which is not of our seeking in respect of the person concerned, I have people currently-right now, in that sense-working on this issue. I am not therefore in a position to give an answer to the honourable member now or at this stage in Question Time. I say this to the honourable member and with respect through you, Mr Speaker, to the House: At the earliest possible time later this day I will be making a detailed statement in regard to this matter, which I am sure will meet the requirements of the honourable member. Mr Sinclair —In the House? Mr HAWKE —Yes, in the House. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Can the Minister for Health advise the House whether in vitro fertilisation is currently covered under health benefit arrangements or will be covered under future health benefit arrangements envisaged for Medicare? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for Stirling for his question. No, in vitro fertilisation is not covered under the present medical benefits schedule; nor in the first instance, I am afraid, will it be covered under the schedule covered by Medicare because it is our intention simply to apply the Medicare scheme to the existing range of medical benefits. I inform honourable members of that fact so that there may be no rumours on that topic. However, I do recognise the problems caused for individuals in relation to this exemption. The Government will be looking at those problems. Once Medicare is in place, this issue and a number of others will be examined. Mr DAVID COMBE Mr EWEN CAMERON —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In coming to his decision to bar a former friend and colleague from access to Ministers as a lobbyist, was the Prime Minister acting on information supplied by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation? Mr HAWKE —I have made the assumption in the period I have been in this House that all members have the capacity to understand the Queen's English, put simply and straightforwardly. I would have thought that the answer I gave a moment ago to the honourable member for Moreton would have been capable of being understood by every member in the House, including the one who has just asked this question . Mr JACOBI —I ask the Minister for Science and Technology whether it is a fact that science and technology will play a very critical role in this country's economic recovery. To this end, will he take steps to hold a conference of scientists, technologists and industrialists to evaluate their needs and to enable the Government to put in place policies that give both encouragement and support to all three groups? Mr BARRY JONES —I am indebted to the honourable member for Hawker for his question. Science and technology is the greatest single factor in promoting high growth rates in modern economies. One of the major reasons for Australia's failure in the last seven years has been the sabotage by the people opposite of Australia's intellectual and research and development base. They failed to grasp the fundamental shift in the economy away from the resources based industries to high tech, brain based, high skilled industries. New high tech industries, such as microelectronics applications, are not just valuable in themselves; they provide essential forward and backward linkages with our existing industrial structures which must update and diversify if they are to meet murderous competition overseas. To illustrate this point, I advise the House that a chart prepared by my Department-which I would be glad to table, or to incorporate in Hansard if you, Mr Speaker, would agree-indicates that, of 24 nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Australia ranks twenty-third, and a poor twenty-third at that, on two indices: The value of high technology exports, and the ratio of imports over exports. To maintain this position would be a recipe for disaster. My Department and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation can be two powerful engines to assist national recovery, working closely with my colleague the Minister for Industry and Commerce and with other departments. I have instructed my Department and CSIRO to work closely in providing advice and assistance to existing industries and to assist in the development of new ones. We are engaged in a continuous educational process, and the conference on sunrise industries at the Regent Hotel in Sydney on 31 May and 1 June is only one example of this. Another example is the meeting in Perth on 9 and 10 June of Commonwealth and State Ministers of industry and technology to discuss a range of related issues-the first such meeting. I shall also give serious consideration to holding a conference with representatives of industry, the professions, the universities and CSIRO to see how we can lift the national performance. Mr SPEAKER —I assume that the Minister has tabled the document. It is not in a form suitable for incorporation in Hansard. Mr BARRY JONES —Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr FISHER —My question is directed to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Is the Government going to increase the number of sports at the Australian Institute of Sport by the inclusion of cycling and rowing, as announced by the previous Government? Also, is the Government going to decentralise hockey to Western Australia as part of the operations of the Australian Institute of Sport? If not, why not? Mr JOHN BROWN —I thank the honourable member for his question because it gives me an opportunity to make a few observations on these comments. It is true that the previous Government, just prior to the election, made an announcement-I think it was made without too much knowledge aforethought, a sort of ad hoc announcement- about introducing two new sports to the Australian Institute of Sport and the decentralisation of hockey to Perth. The incoming Government favours the movement of hockey to Perth, not the least of the reasons being that the new member for Perth, my colleague Dr Ric Charlesworth, is the captain of the Australian hockey team-I might say, the world champion Australian hockey team. Obviously we would be very delighted to have hockey stationed in Perth, where there is a facility available to cater properly for all the training and all the necessary side issues. Mr McVeigh —Provided by us. Mr JOHN BROWN —Provided by the taxpayers of Australia, as a contribution to Western Australia for its centenary. There is competition available in Perth, at world standard, for the Australian hockey experts who will be stationed there. As far as extra sports for the AIS at present are concerned, we do not favour the movement into the AIS at present of cycling and rowing, for the very good reason that the AIS is in its infancy-I might say, a very buoyant and properous infancy-and we think the AIS should consolidate the sports that are already there. There is need for accommodation to be provided at the AIS site for the athletes of varying ages who are now spread all around Canberra at campuses of universities and of colleges of advanced education, in private homes or in hostels. There is a need for them to be stationed on the campus. We think the better thing for the AIS to do at this stage is to consolidate what it has, to provide accommodation to make the system work more effectively and to look to the future for the inclusion of two new sports. We are in favour of expanding the number of sports at the AIS, and I would think cycling and rowing would be very high on our priority list. Mr REEVES —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. There have been reports that the Government is making efforts to reduce expenditure. Are these reports accurate? Why is this necessary now? Mr HAWKE —One can understand the discomfiture of people on the other side of the House when a penetrating question like that is addressed to me. During the election campaign the then Government led the people of Australia to believe that in the financial year 1983-84 we would be confronted as a nation with a deficit in the vincinity of $6 billion. I do not want to spend a great deal of time on the deception involved in that assertion at the time by our opponents because I think it is pretty indelibly etched on the minds of all Australians. But I do remind the House, in the context of the answer to this question, that as early as January there were indications publicly that the then Treasurer and the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition had reason to believe that the deficit for 1983-84 would be of the order of double the $4 billion that he knew it would be in 1982-83. Certain it is that on the Monday before the election he knew that the deficit would in fact be of the order of $9 billion and in discussions between him and the then Prime Minister the continued delusion was practised on the people of Australia in that election context. We, when we came to office, were shocked to find that in fact what we were confronted with was a deficit in the order of $9.6 billion for 1983-84, not the $6 billion which quite deceptively and dishonestly the now Opposition had been touting around the country at that time. Of course, it was quite clear that that deception was part of a deliberate political tactic because, in the desperate attempt to retain office, what the previous Government had done in the Budget of 1982 was to make certain handouts and certain concessions, the full impact of which would in fact be hitting the Government in 1983-84. For example, the personal income tax cuts granted in the last Budget obviously will have their main effect in 1983-84. The accelerated depreciation for company purposes has a huge effect on the Budget for 1983-84. In these circumstances we as a Government are not in any sense arguing that some of the concessions that were given at the time do not of themselves have some merit. We are not arguing that what was done at that time should simply be withdrawn because those things were part of a deliberate and massive deception, politically, upon the people of Australia. But the fact is that the vandalism of the previous Government on the finances of this country has imposed an obligation upon this Government. We will receive, in 1983-84, the impact of the vandalism and the dishonesty of the previous Government; but fortunately, intervening in that process, we also received, on 5 March, the mandate of the Australian people to direct our attention to that vandalism. In that sense, I have confidence in saying to this House that we will direct our attention to that vandalism and that deception that was practised on the people, and the actions which my Government will take, both in the May statement and in the Budget, will be directed to correcting that vandalism and setting this country on the path to sustainable economic recovery. Mr PEACOCK —I refer to the Prime Minister's answer to the question asked by the honourable member for Franklin, to which a blunt no was given and indicate to the Prime Minister that a similar question was asked of his Attorney-General in another place, to which that gentleman replied that the accountability of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation is a matter of active review and, to continue his words, will be the subject of an early review. Will the Prime Minister now outline the nature and timing of this review indicated by his Attorney-General? Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the Opposition, in his desperation, should not allow his memory to stray so much as to forget what the question was that was addressed to me by the honourable member to whom he refers, the honourable member for Franklin. That question was put to me in terms of whether we had directed our attention to the suggestion that was made-as reported by the honourable member for Fry. I said no. Mr McVeigh —You are going to fry him. Mr HAWKE —I see; I mean the honourable member for Fraser. This is not a cook-up. Mr Speaker, I apologise to you and to the House for that slip-up. I wanted to indicate to the honourable member who asked the question and to the House that we had not directed our attention to that suggestion. Of course, in the context of our own election promise about the necessity for judicial audits of the security organisations-a commitment which I might say has been heightened by some recent events-at the appropriate time in the near future I will be making a detailed statement to the House as to our intention to ensure what has always been the intention of the Australian Labor Party and of this Government; that is , that the security of this country shall have the highest priority, and that in that context of ensuring that we take actions to maintain the security of this country we shall at the same time have the appropriate and necessary concern for the rights and civil liberties of Australian citizens. Mr SIMMONS —Can the Minister for Finance inform the House whether school parents and citizens associations and mothers clubs that are engaged primarily in raising funds for additional school equipment are exempt from the provisions of the bank account debits tax introduced by the Fraser Government which came into force on 1 April this year? Mr DAWKINS —The Bank Account Debits Tax Bill was one of those pieces of Budget legislation which the former Government actually got around to putting through Parliament before the dissolution of the Parliament. It is for a very good reason that the tax has become known by its acronym. The Commissioner of Taxation informed me soon after the election that the administration of this tax was causing very substantial difficulties because of the drafting of the legislation. Whilst there are exemptions for benevolent institutions, religious institutions, schools and universities, some substantial problems arise. In the first instance, a religious institution which is primarily involved in commercial activities is, in the Commissioner's view, exempt from the provisions of this tax. However, a parents and citizens association which is primarily involved in raising money for a school is not exempt from the provisions of this tax. But if the tuck shop account run by a parents and citizens association is a school account then of course that account is exempt from the provisions of this law. We are confronted with this administrative nightmare presented to us by our predecessors. We are in the process of trying to untangle the mess. At the time it was announced that this tax would proceed I indicated that there would be a review of the operation of the tax within six months to see whether the system of exemptions could be clarified. That review has already commenced and I indicate to parents and citizens bodies, which have been inundating the offices of honourable members, certainly those on this side of the House, that I am having examined ways in which exemptions might be provided for them. I indicate that under the provisions of the tax as introduced by the former Government, parents and citizens bodies are not exempted. That is causing considerable distress to organisations which are primarily involved in charitable purposes of a very honourable kind. Mr O'KEEFE —I ask the Minister for Housing and Construction: Is it a fact that a drastic shortage of housing exists in Australia? Is it further a fact that the Government has promised increased funding to assist in overcoming this shortage? Can the Minister say when government funds will be made available which will considerably assist housing and the employment situation? Mr HURFORD —First of all I want to say how privileged I am to receive a question from one of that exclusive group, the back bench of the coalition parties. Even with the honourable member for Higgins and the honourable member for Murray having removed themselves from the front bench to the back bench, it is still much more exclusive to be on the back bench. It is a great privilege for me to receive a Dorothy Dix question from the honourable member for Paterson. Yes, it is true that there is an enormous shortage of housing in this country because of the terrible situation left to this Government by its predecessor. There is a shortage of something like 80,000 dwellings in comparision with the needs in this country. That does not take into consideration the increase that is required each year for new people coming into the category of those wanting homes, or indeed, the increase that is required because of the phasing out of old homes. It is an indictment of the seven years of monetarism that the situation has deteriorated to such a terrible extent. The honourable member asked me what this Government is doing about it. One would not need to be an obsessive reader of the newspapers to know that this Government is getting on with its program to fulfil its promises in that area. I draw the attention of the honourable member not only to what took place at the National Economic Summit Conference but also to the answer I gave in this House as to what took place in a mini-housing summit on 28 April arising out of the Economic Summit. Government members interjecting- Mr HURFORD —All these interjections and noises do not make up for the fact that it is an indictment of those sitting on the Opposition benches that they left this country in such a situation. I ask the honourable member to be patient another week or so until the May statement. An enormous amount of work is going on to make sure that that will comprise a comprehensive package which not only will ensure that there is an increase in housing commencements in this country- which have fallen to the abysmally low figure in the current year of 106,000, or 107,000 if we are lucky-but also will show that we are in the business of creating jobs through housing construction. Mr BILNEY —Will the Prime Minister inform the House of the Government's view of the most recent developments in the Lebanon? Mr HAWKE —I appreciate and recall the fact that, where I have previously had cause to direct the attention of the House to the position of the Government in this matter, it was obvious that what I had to say received the support of the Leader of the Opposition and I believe of the Opposition as a whole. I take this opportunity of recording again our appreciation of that. In the brief comments that I will make in respect of the honourable member for Kingston's question I believe that that same position will exist. The Government welcomes the indications that have now been made public of the agreement between Israel and Lebanon in respect of the possible withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon. As a government we give credit to the obvious hard and effective work that has been done in this respect by Secretary of State George Schultz. Obviously, we have some concern at the apparent rejection by the Government of Syria of the draft agreement and we hope that continuing work in that area will bring about a change in that attitude. The basic point of concern which we must repeat is that the continuing division of the country of Lebanon is something which is tragic and which all nations of good will should work towards bringing to an end. That capacity to eliminate the tragedy which is Lebanon can be achieved only in circumstances where all foreign forces-the forces of Israel, Syria and the Palestine Liberation Organisation-are withdrawn from Lebanon. In this context, we are concerned at the indications of some growth in tension between Syria and Israel. We hope that the good offices of those concerned in working in this area will be directed towards lessening such tension which could, if it grows, have such tragic consequences. I complete my observations to the honourable member and the House by saying that these matters of which we speak are further proof of the fact that we can have peace in this area and an ending to the tragedy in Lebanon in particular only when arrangements are arrived at which guarantee the integrity and the security of all states in the area. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. It relates to the answer which he has just given concerning the withdrawal of all foreign forces from the Lebanon. Given the fact that Kampuchea is occupied by a foreign force, namely, Vietnam, and that in this country and in this capital right now is a representative of a group and a leader and former Prime Minister of Kampuchea, namely, Mr Son Sann, and that under any reading of public international law on the question of recognition there can be discussion between individuals, regimes and states without recognition being connoted if a government indicates that there is no recognition, why will the Government not discuss matters with Mr Son Sann? Mr HAWKE —I deplore the attempt by the Leader of the Opposition regarding a matter about which I know he is deeply concerned-that is, the achievement of peace in the region of Indo-China-to make some capital out of a suggestion that we are not acting in a way calculated to help to achieve that objective by not meeting with Mr Son Sann. Let me make it quite clear what the position of the Government is in this regard. It is a position which I might say has been very effectively conveyed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, who has, in his brief occupancy of that position, displayed a determination to work as hard as he possibly can on behalf of this Government to achieve positive results in this area. Let me quickly say to the Leader of the Opposition what our position is. Our position is that the occupation of Kampuchea by the troops of Vietnam is not something which can continue. We will be using all our best endeavours to try to secure a position where that is brought to an end. Clearly, the twin conditions of achieving a proper resolution of the problem in this area are that there be a withdrawal of the forces of Vietnam from Kampuchea and, associated with that, that there be the creation of a condition where the forces of Pol Pot are not able, in a condition of the withdrawal of the forces of Vietnam, to impose by force upon the people of Kampuchea a situation in which the people of Kampuchea are not able, in a free act of will, to determine what sort of government they want. Mr Peacock —I agree with that. Mr HAWKE —I am glad to see the indication from both the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs of their agreement with that. In an acceptance of our belief that the achievement of those twin conditions is necessary for what I perceive to be the common objectives of both sides of this Parliament, I, the Foreign Minister and this Government will be, with the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations, China and the United States of America and later in discussions that we will be having with the Government of Vietnam, attempting to use what power and capacities we have, with a due recognition of our place in the world and the limits to what we can do, and will be seeking to do what we can, to achieve those results. I conclude, having stated the Government's general position on this, by informing the Leader of the Opposition that the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Lionel Bowen, will be seeing Mr Son Sann this afternoon. Mr GEAR —I ask the Minister for Transport: Given the serious impact of the current economic recession upon the interstate trucking industry, as demonstrated by the increasing number of bankruptcies and the rate of involvement of heavy vehicles in road crashes, will the Minister inform the House of the current position with respect to its promised inquiry into the road freight industry? Mr PETER MORRIS —The issue referred to by the honourable member in his question is a serious one. It is a fact that an increasing number of heavy road vehicles are involved in fatal road crashes. That is not to say that this is the responsibility of the road transport industry. It is also a fact that economic pressures on the industry have increased significantly, particularly as a result of the incompetence and the mismanagement over the last seven years of those opposite, who sought to represent small businessmen. A vast number of small businessmen in the road transport industry have suffered and have gone into bankruptcy because of the ignorance of those who now sit opposite. Mr Shipton —What about retreading? Mr PETER MORRIS —That was the previous Government's proposal, not ours. The fact is that the national road freight inquiry that we proposed during the election campaign will provide for the first time on a national basis a comprehensive examination of the road transport industry. The States have indicated that, despite their partial inquiries on occasions, they do not have the capacity to look at all the problems involved. What we propose to do through the inquiry is to examine the economy and the efficiency of the industry, the impact of regulation on the industry, the effect of existing truck financing practices, the effect of competition from rail on the industry and the need for a national research program relating to the road freight sector. It is our expectation that the inquiry will invite submissions from all interested groups within the industry so that everybody who has a concern will have an opportunity to put a point of view. The matter has been actively pursued by the Government since it came to office. The Prime Minister has recently written to each of the Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory inviting their co-operation and support in the inquiry. We hope that that co- operation and support will be forthcoming. Mr SPENDER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Aviation. Are airlines using Sydney Airport incurring losses caused by traffic congestion and traffic delays at the airport? If so: Firstly, what is the current annual rate of those losses? Secondly, what decisions has his Government made-I emphasise the words ' decisions' and 'his Government'-to eliminate the causes of those losses? Mr BEAZLEY —I should preface my answer to the honourable member's question by pointing out one or two things about the parallel runway to which he indirectly alluded. Any losses that are being suffered by airlines at the moment at Sydney Airport and which may have been removed by the construction of that runway-and that would be a debatable point-would not be removed for a period of at least eight to 10 years. We have a problem here and now that we happen to be dealing with, and that problem has several solutions. I will provide to the honourable gentleman a little later information in respect of those losses. I do not have the information immediately to hand, but I do concede that there are losses involved. The previous Government set in train a process of ground movement procedures which I think were excellent ones and which we are pursuing. They will require construction work during this year, both in terms of taxiways and in terms of the implementation of a ground-surveillance radar system. We will be pursuing those matters. We estimate that with the new procedures set in train by the previous Government there will be an improvement in the realm of 8 per cent in air traffic movements. In addition, the Government is considering what additional fast taxiways might be provided, what additional air traffic control procedures might well be implemented and what other developments might take place at the airport, designed specifically to achieve savings to the airlines and to deal with the problem to which the honourable member makes reference. But, overall, it is my belief that there will be no real solution of the problem at Sydney that will be of a decent, long term character, that will meet the needs of Sydney as the preferred entry point to Australia of most international travellers, that will meet the needs of New South Wales country regions for people to get into the city on a regular and reasonable basis, and that will meet the operational requirements of the major domestic airlines of Australia, until a second airport is constructed, and properly operating, at a reasonable distance from the city. I do not believe that the previous Government came to any other conclusion. I note that in a letter which the honourable member wrote recently to the Sydney Morning Herald he expressed support for the view that a second airport site should be acquired, and I agree wholeheartedly. I assume that he arrived at that judgment for the reasons I have outlined in answering him today. I notice that my predecessor as Minister for Aviation also came to the same conclusion. That is evidenced by the material he put down when he announced his intention to proceed with a closely spaced parallel runway. It is very necessary that we arrive at that decision as soon as we possibly can. It is one that will be fraught with considerable political difficulties. Nevertheless I believe that overall, in the interests of the country and of the people of New South Wales-- Mr Carlton —Boring! Mr BEAZLEY —I am dedicating this answer to the memory of Reg Swartz and the honourable member ought to look upon it with respect-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House has been doing very well in regard to the number of questions asked and answered and I request the Minister to co-operate. Mr BEAZLEY —There will be no solution of the problems of the people of New South Wales and in regard to the very important services that Sydney performs as the major entry point to Australia until we have a second airport. In achieving that objective, the Government will be grateful for all the support it can get from the Opposition. Mr WELLS —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Science and Technology, relates to an answer given by him earlier this day in which he stated that Australia's rate of technological advance had fallen during the period of office of the previous Government. I ask: Was this related to declining levels of Government support for research and development during that period? What other policies of the previous Government contributed to the decline? What new areas could be explored by Australian industry to give Australia a chance to recover the lost ground? Mr BARRY JONES —The level of government investment in research and development neither rose nor fell dramatically, at a time when the rest of the technologically advanced world was moving forward very rapidly. For example, Canada has doubled its investment in research and development over a five-year period. It is President Mitterrand's intention to double France's investment over a seven-year period. Therefore, to stand still amounts to regression compared with the rest of the world. The Government hopes to promote the 16 ' sunrise' industries that we identified during the election campaign. We believe that this is an area, in conjunction and association with existing industries, with both forward and backward linkages, which can help move Australian industry in the right direction. By a strange coincidence, not having anticipated the question, I happen to have with me a piece of an extraordinarily interesting substance called partially stabilised zirconium, or PSZ, produced by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. It will bring about a revolution in the automotive industry. Engines that are constructed of PSZ rather than metal alloys have an increase in fuel efficiency of from 38 per cent to 56 per cent. That order of magnitude of increase in fuel efficiency is so great that it cannot be resisted, I would think, by any future motor manufacturing enterprise throughout the world. The CSIRO estimates that the value of this product may well be, by the year 1990, of the order of $2 billion per annum. This is an example of one of the 16 'sunrise' industries that are so essential for this country. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Pursuant to section 19 of the Weights and Measures (National Standards) Act 1960, I present the National Standards Commission annual report 1981-82. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Science and Industry Endowment Fund statement of income and expenditure and balance sheet for 1981-82. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HODGMAN —Yesterday in the House the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), in referring to me, said: I can tell him that no one was subsidised more than he was with 70,000 bucks for a car to run around in for eight months-- Then he corrected it to '$70,000 for Commonwealth cars'. Outside the House, I told the Minister that I rejected his allegation. I am now reliably informed that the Minister's statement that no one was subsidised more than I was is untrue. I am further informed that it is believed that the former Leader of the Opposition for one had a much higher account for Commonwealth cars than I ever had. I reject the smear made upon me by the Special Minister of State and suggest that he was not merely attacking me but also was attacking the former Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr YOUNG —Yes, I do. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr YOUNG —Yesterday, as a result of an interjection made while I was speaking, I told the honourable member for Denison that he should not complain too much about Government subsidies, seeing that the taxpayers of Australia had to fork out $70,000 for his car transport costs over a period of eight months. I did not take it any further and I did not intend to. I was just drawing his attention to the fact when he was talking about government subsidies. He asked me outside the chamber to give him details because he did not accept what I had said. I now have the details if the honourable member would like them. If he asks me a question in the House tomorrow, I will give him every line of the details of his car costs from 1 July last year until the date of the election this year, where the cars were, how they were costed against him and how much he cost the Australian taxpayer. Ministerial Statement Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —by leave-I wish to inform the House of the result of my investigations into reports of improper behaviour at the Royal Military College, Duntroon. Honourable members will be aware that following newspaper articles in April, I called for a report from the Commandant of RMC and for other relevant information. I subsequently made the Commandant's report public, noting that inquiries into allegations of improper conduct had been made and were continuing. The Chief of the General Staff has now passed on to me a further report by the Commandant. As a result of the Commandant's more recent investigations, a number of steps have been taken to improve behaviour, with particular emphasis on supervision of mess procedures, non-interruption to study and sleeping time, and on the principle that assimilation and induction training at RMC are to reflect approved practices throughout the Army. Also as a result of the Commandant's investigations, a number of charges were made and a number of cadets were subjected to disciplinary action. Among these, five cadets were recommended for expulsion from the college. In the light of all the evidence available to me, I have decided not to endorse the recommendations for expulsion but have asked the Commandant to substitute a lesser punishment. I have done this because I believe that the number of substantiated incidents of improper behaviour have not been isolated cases but rather have been reflections of a wider pattern of conduct which has apparently become accepted as customary. I do not in any way condone such behaviour. In these circumstances it is not appropriate that the severe punishment of expulsion should apply to a limited number of cadets. Let me emphasise that in no way am I suggesting that the Commandent has acted unreasonably in recommending expulsions. I am quite satisfied that he is determined to ensure that this type of behaviour does not continue, that he has examined all the allegations thoroughly, and that where hard evidence has been available he has taken vigorous action to punish the offenders. I note that the Commandant has taken speedy action to improve some procedures and I have asked the Chief of the General Staff to prepare a comprehensive report for me on the detailed steps that have been and will be taken to ensure that policies on behaviour are not only clearly understood but also vigorously implemented. To this end, I have asked that he give particular attention to the degree of supervision given to the cadets by the college staff. The Chief of the General Staff Advisory Committee is meeting today on this matter. I table for the information of honourable members a copy of the Commandant's final report, other than sections which reveal names of individuals, and a copy of my minute to the Chief of the General Staff which I personally gave to the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) yesterday. Mr SINCLAIR(New England) —by leave-There is no doubt that all of us are concerned about the maintenance of proper standards of behaviour at the Royal Military College, Duntroon and, indeed, in every other training establishment around Australia whether it is the Australian Army, any of the other Services or , any other area. The question mark that has hung over the head of Duntroon since the assertions were first made in the Age is to be regretted. I think it is particularly regrettable that we now have a comment from the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) which, in paragraph 11 of his minute of 10 May 1983 to the Chief of the General Staff, states: As you know, I asked the Age for further detailed information of specific allegations, and I note that such allegations as have been given to me orally cannot be substantiated by factual evidence. I do not believe it is satisfactory for anybody if assertions are made which cannot then be backed up. I think we all should regret that a newspaper like the Age should see fit to sensationalise allegations in what are very serious matters for the cadets concerned. There is certainly an obligation on senior cadets and junior cadets to maintain the standards of discipline set for the college. One hopes that, as a result of the changes in procedures which Major- General Coates, the Commandant of the College, has advised the Chief of the General Staff, these past practices will be obviated. I commend the Minister too for not expelling the five cadets concerned. Honourable members on this side of the House were most concerned that it seemed for a while that these boys might well be the scapegoats for events that should not have taken place but apparently were alleged to have taken place within the college. The fact that they had already passed their initial year's training and some of them were more advanced in the college course meant that they had obviously passed through that early and rigorous selection process. They had passed their exams and now their whole future was to have been blighted, because of allegations made apparently by youngsters who had not met the same standards and who apparently had left the college. I think it is important that individuals not be selected in such a way as to prejudice their careers, and I believe the Minister has acted quite properly in this instance. As I mentioned a while ago, the Minister has identified the steps that are to be taken by the College Commandant. They are set down in one of the documents that he has tabled in the House; that is, in the final report of the College Commandant of the CGS, dated 22 April 1983. On reading through those steps, I think there are a number of important elements in them which do seem to accommodate the difficulties that have previously taken place at Duntroon. I think it is important that these standards also be taken in mind by the preliminary council of the Australian Defence Force Academy, ADFA. As honourable members will know, the future training of officer cadets in Australia will go through significant changes when the Australian Defence Force Academy is established. One would hope that the same allegations about discipline at Duntroon will not be made there. I hope that each of the military colleges will take note of the experience in this case and take note also of the advice of the Minister and similarly conform with the procedures and practices that have been laid down. In his statement, the Minister comments: . . . the Chief of the General Staff to prepare a comprehensive report . . . on the detailed steps that have been and will be taken to ensure that policies on behaviour are not only clearly understood but are also vigorously implemented. When the Minister receives that report, I ask that he table it also in the Parliament so that honourable members in this place may observe those changes that have taken place: The matter of the status of Duntroon can thereby be maintained. However, I think it is important that the community at large recognises that Duntroon over the years has established a very high reputation both for itself and for its graduates. It is a very excellent military training college whose standing is high not only this country but also in those Asian and other countries whose students participate in its courses and also with those people who have come to exchange points of view in their particular professional discipline with those graduates of Duntroon. It is important that those standards be maintained. The Opposition certainly supports any efforts by the Minister and the Government which will ensure that that will be so. Sitting suspended from 12.58 to 2.15 p.m. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Before the debate on this Bill is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill, the Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 1982-83 and the Appropriation (Parliament Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1982-83. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(2.15) —Before Question Time I was referring to the balance of payments figures that were released yesterday, which continue to show a deteriorating position within the competitive structure of Australia and the deterioriation that has taken place, in a very real way, in our export performance and indeed, in particular, in terms of the capital flow of this country. I particularly wanted to highlight that, to bring us back to one of the basic problems facing Australia-the question of wages and the payments beyond wages. It is quite clear that the rapid increase in wages costs in 1981 was at the expense of the competitiveness of Australian industry. Because of that, we are seeing today that large areas are simply just not competitive. The debate of recent weeks has been a call by the Government for wage restraint . At the same time, there have been people working away at the edges, the on site allowances, little give-ups here and give-ups there, which are eroding the confidence of the business community in the Government's ability to maintain a restraint in this area. But it is not only that to which I draw the attention of the House but also to the true cost of labour, which is a very important ingredient. The concentration of the debate upon direct wage costs would not have been significantly misleading if total labour costs had been growing in a fixed proportion to direct wage costs. But as the details of the survey by the Australian Industries Development Association show, it has not been the case, and in fact wage cost movements are a biased underestimate of the actual movements or the total cost of employing labour in Australia. The survey produced by AIDA goes on to show that the add-on costs grew from 33 per cent in 1974 to 39 per cent in 1981, and in the one dramatic year, 1982, they grew to 43 per cent. It is not hard to extend those figures and to assume that by the late 1980s the add-on cost to labour in terms of these other items will certainly be 50 per cent. For the direct interest of the House, it is worth detailing the percentage increases that have occurred, because while wage, as a direct cost, has increased from 1974 to 1981 by a factor of $3.60 an hour to $8.80 an hour, the add-on costs have increased from $1 to just short of $4 an hour. These additional costs come in the form of annual leave, annual leave loading, public holidays, long service leave, sick leave, compassionate leave, other paid work absences and benefits, allowances, non-productive paid time, superannuation, workers' compensation, insurance, payroll tax, employee amenities, employee health, uniforms, safety and other add-on costs. Many of those costs are, of course, recognised by industry as being important to the job. But in discussions on labour costs, I find that far too often no concern is given to this huge area of add-on to the overall cost structure of business. This has been particularly so, in the last few years, of the rapid growth in superannuation, which is one of the high growth areas in this add-on cost. In addition to that, there has been considerable growth in the cover of employees for health costs. On top of that, there has been a considerable increase, according to these figures, in the area of payroll tax which, of course, is the area that State governments took over from the Federal Government some years ago and they have consistently used it as a very substantial income earner for the State government treasuries. In drawing the attention of the House to this matter, I think it is quite evident that the debate that has so far been taking place on the wages question has been misinterpreted to the extent of these additional costs. When statistics are produced in future, I hope that they will relate not just to the direct cost but to the add-ons that occur. Unless we are prepared to accept these points, not only in terms of the loading for holiday pay and for the discrimination in terms of employment such as weekend penalty rates and the like, it is not likely that many of the service industries in Australia will be able to get out and match the competition from overseas and the requirements that will be made by visitors to this land. With those comments, I indicate that the Opposition will not be opposing the Appropriation Bills. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(2.21) —Appropriation Bills (No. 5) and (No. 6), which we are debating, provide for Additional Estimates arising out of cost and price increases since the August 1982 Budget. Additional appropriation is necessary to cover these increases. Insofar as the original appropriations were initiated and sanctioned by the present Opposition, I feel that it is, therefore, appropriate that Opposition speakers should support the thrust of the Bills, given that the cost increases in many cases have been a result of the previous Government's disastrous anti-inflation policy. Yet how much support for national recovery have we seen from the Opposition to date? I am afraid that in sum total it really results in obstructionism, which was seen at the Constitutional Convention in Adelaide, when conservative governments stacked that meeting to turn what should have been an objective forum into another party political hothouse of mud slinging and intrigue, and it has been carried on in this House as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has attacked the constructive things that this Government has been trying to do. I am concerned-but I hope that it is not so-that the Opposition may not want recovery, because recovery would show that this Government is a competent economic manager and can deliver the goods, while the previous Government could not or would not do so. To return to the Bill, as I previously mentioned, a significant proportion of the appropriations required arises out of cost increases experienced in Commonwealth Government departments. In turn, many of these cost increases have arisen out of increases in staff ceilings. One of the major increases in this area has been in the Department of Social Security, to allow the Department better to cope with the flood of unemployed people over the last 12 months. This has been a direct result of the previous Government's economic policies, and the horrendous effect of those policies can now be seen queuing up outside welfare agencies around Australia. Amazingly, the Opposition now says that we, as a government, should be doing something about unemployment. As the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) , the Treasurer, so cogently put it this week, it is a pity that Opposition members have not been crying those crocodile tears for the unemployed over the past seven years. In February 1976, 5.4 per cent of the work force was unemployed. By February 1983 the figure had grown to 10.7 per cent. The National Economic Summit Conference was the first attempt by a government to come to grips with the communication problem between governments and the people for whom they are legislating. As such, it should be applauded not only by the business and consumer community but also by the Opposition, which after all is part of the Parliament which has been elected to represent the people. As the representatives of the housing industry pointed out, the recently convened meeting of the industry attended by the Minister for Housing and Construction ( Mr Hurford), the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) was another example of reporting to the people affected by legislation before that legislation is enacted. The labour intensive construction of houses forms an integral part of the reconstruction of human lives which we are undertaking in Australia. While we in the Australian Labor Party have certainly worn the tag of the compassionate and sometimes do-gooders who wear our hearts on our sleeves, it is a fact, not widely recognised but nonetheless true, that we who have come to office from the ranks of the less privileged have a strong streak of practicality born of experience. This practicality is reflected in policies and attitudes towards social problems. Nowhere is this more apparent than in policies to combat unemployment. In vivid contrast to the non-policies of the Liberal and National parties, which parties point-blank refused to consider job creation schemes in the face of unemployment of dimensions unknown since the Depression of the 1930s, Labor thinking suggests that while long term policies dealing with the impact of a new technology are essential it is not only compassionate but also good sense to ensure that in the short term jobs are created. In similar practical fashion, we as a government will base our job creation on construction projects which will also go a long way towards alleviating the accommodation problem of thousands of unlucky Australians, given that we will have to phase in the programs which we wish to pursue, owing to the size of the deficit which we inherited. We will meet this priority and this will not only meet the prime objective of any healthy society, and that is that every last person in the society should have a decent standard of living, but will also give added spending power and stimulate, and inject hope into, a depressed business and consumer community. Our Government has opened the lines of communication with that community. It is the only reasonable way to run a country. The only surprising aspect is that such meetings and communication between governments and business and community groups have not taken place before. It does not surprise me that a green-eyed Opposition Leader subjects us to a tantrum on the success of the Government's operation in public relations, but it saddens me and I ask, in the name of the people who elected both the Government and the Opposition to represent them, that he exercise a little restraint. I now look forward to a further outreach into the community by a government committed to meeting the needs of that community. The previous Government's reaction was to suppress publication of figures on unemployment. I hark back to the actions of the previous Government, because it is so important to the success of our policies that the community realise just what has been done in the name of party politics by the Opposition. As the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) pointed out yesterday, one of his first steps upon reaching office was to order a collection of the figures on the unemployed on a regional basis. The collection on 17 March showed a total of 822,000 Australians officially without a job. The Government will reinstate the collection and publication of these figures. We do so in the belief that before a problem can be rectified it must first be recognised. This is a major reason for the failure of the previous Government to come to grips with the burgeoning economic and therefore social problems in Australia. It typifies the vast gap separating the Liberal-National Party and Labor policy. It is the reason why Australians turned to the Labor Party and it is the reason why Australia now, under new leadership, is turning its face in a new direction, away from the frightening sterile landscape of recession to the hope of revival born of long-sighted planning and compassionate administration. I turn now to one facet of the appropriations now under discussion which is a statistical reflection of the human face of poverty which is now, regrettably, a part of Australia. A sum of $2m is sought to supplement grants administered by the Department of Social Security for community welfare agencies. This supplementation is necessary because of the great burden on welfare agencies due to an unprecedented influx in the number of people seeking relief from poverty. Who are these people who are forced to go to charity for the first time in their lives in order to feed their families? They are the three million people who, according to the Australian Council of Social Service figures, are now living below the poverty line. In 1978 a joint government study with ACOSS regarding emergency relief proved that up to 90 per cent of those people on relief were social security beneficiaries. Many of those people are on the unemployment benefit. But let us not get emotional about the situation. We will talk of facts and figures. Over the past 12 months, welfare agencies such as Life Line, the St Vincent de Paul Society and the Salvation Army have been unable to meet the requirements of thousands of people who have never gone to charity before but who are now going not just for clothing and shelter, but for food, for the very necessities of life. A typical picture is a family whose income earner has been retrenched. Whether he is paying rent, which could be $50 to $100 per week in Brisbane, or whether he is meeting large payments on his house, housing takes such a lump out of the amount he gets in unemployment benefit that it is not surprising that he cannot make ends meet. This is a reality. In Brisbane alone over 200,000 people live below the poverty line. The way in which this has affected welfare agencies has become obvious. Twelve months ago Life Line was distributing food parcels worth $65 for emergency cases . Because of the number of people who are now coming for relief, it has had to cut the value of those parcels back to $25. It gives out food parcels worth $10, $15 and $25 at a time when the dollar does not go as far. St Vincent de Paul in Brisbane alone is expending $2,000 a day on food. These people do not come for the secondary necessities of clothing and shelter but for the urgent requirement of food. A profile of people in Brisbane and across Australia who now do not have enough money to buy food for their families is instanced in an article from the Brisbane Telegraph of last night. The article, headed 'Baked beans on the dole' states: Putting the car up for sale because you cannot afford to register it, coming home to share baked beans on toast with your pregnant wife and three children- this is the life of the unemployed family man in Brisbane. Ian last enjoyed a full-time job 10 months ago. He is a professional fisherman, jack-of-all-trades, and had 'people knocking on the door' with offers of work. His wife, Sandra, who is expecting their fourth child in October, said: 'You really take that pay-packet for granted, when it comes in regularly.' They will never take it for granted again. . . . . Their fortnightly $297.60 dole cheque is usually accounted for before it arrives. Sometimes, bills account for two cheques at a time. It was this which brought Ian and Sandra and their children, aged 6 years, 3, and seven months, to Life Line. For the first time, they had to ask for outside help. 'We're able to get clothes from second-hand shops, but even their prices are going up. So is milk and electricity,' said Sandra. 'It was Ian's birthday last week and there wasn't enough petrol in the car to take it for a drive. It was a quiet birthday.' That picture is not something out of a Victorian novel. That is what is happening in Australia today. It is all very well to have an influx of facts and figures-and they are necessary-but until this House comes to grips with the problem that gives rise to the facts and figures it will be impossible to get Australia back on the road to recovery. That is the difference between the last Government and this one. Before a problem can be cured it must be recognised and its dimensions must be recognised. We sat here for seven years and saw those dimensions go unrecognised. It was very bad to hear then Government members say that there were no huge unemployment figures. They did not recognise the fact of unemployment, and that is on record. Mr Carlton —That is nonsense. That is absolute rubbish. Mrs DARLING —That is on the record. Is it rubbish that the Budget figures announced last year were shonky? Is it just in my imagination that the then Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), said at the time of the Budget being announced that less than 400,000 people, in total, would be unemployed by June of 1983 and that at the time he said it the figure had already gone over the 400,000 mark? What about the deficit? Is it in my imagination that the deficit was known before the election and that it was deceitfully hidden? Do I imagine that the problem was met by stopping the publication of figures on the number of unemployed? These are the facts and to giggle inanely does not help those people who are paying a packet for us to be here in this House to put forward policies for them. I am now part of a Government that is taking up that challenge and which will have to run right across the stupid party politicking which is thrown up in an effort to stop us carrying out the policies which we promised and which we will put into practice. Poverty is the bitter harvest of Fraser policies. After the 1977 election the Fraser Government froze pensions, cutting out indexation for the May quarter. It cut funeral benefits in the same way. There was one story before the election and another after. That Government knew what the deficit would be; it ran up the deficit, which in plain words is just a debt which we will have to meet, in order to carry out election promises. In 1983 it made election promises that it knew it would have to break, being aware of the amount involved. This Government will phase in social reform which will render emergency relief a thing of the past as need is relieved. We are aware that these appropriations are filling needs in a band-aid way. We would rather that every Australian was on a decent income and did not have to resort to emergency relief. No family wants to live on charity; it is the intention of this Government that in Australia families will not. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(2.37) —Before addressing some remarks to an item in Appropriation Bill (No. 6), by way of a short reply to what has been said by the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), I say this: When it comes to playing partisan politics, the Australian Labor Party has always been streets ahead of the Liberal Party or the National Party. It is that partisan and ideologically committed attitude that members of the Labor Party bring to all questions which gets them into the kinds of holes that they are presently digging for themselves . That brings me directly to the question of the funding which has been announced of $175m for Qantas Airways Ltd and Trans Australia Airlines. In the two months since the Labor Government has been in power it has made three major decisions in the field of aviation. First of all, it cancelled the third runway at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. That was an irresponsible decision made solely in the interests of Labor's electoral prospects. I will be glad if the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) will table any advisings or minutes he has on the subject so that we can see what his Department's views on that question are. The decision had nothing to do with long term planning, the interests or convenience of the travelling public, with Sydney or Sydney's future as the gateway to Australia, or with the efficient operation of airlines. If we were to remain under Labor, which we will not, Sydney would be committed to stumbling along past the year 2000 with two increasingly overburdened runways. The second decision made by the Government was that TAA was to remain a government-owned company. I stress the words 'government-owned' because it is nonsense to speak of the public owning TAA. Of course that decision was no more than a knee-jerk reaction to Labor's blind adherence to a nineteenth century ideology. Thirdly, we have the injection by Appropriation Bill (No. 6) when it becomes an Act of $175m into Qantas and TAA-$115m into TAA, the previous Minister having authorised $25m, and $60m into Qantas. These are huge capital injections which have been made, on what has been stated by the Minister-we have to judge these matters on what the Minister says-without any sense of purpose or direction. It is the spend now and think later school of government. In order to understand the implications of those decisions it is necessary to look at the financial background and some of the figures relating to those two companies. Let me start with Qantas. In doing so, I acknowledge that Qantas has experienced real difficulties by reason of the competition in international airlines and by reason of the well-known depressed world trading conditions. What do the figures say? During the 1980-81 and 1981-82 financial years Qantas lost a total of $75m in airline operations. The Minister's recent Press statement indicates that preliminary figures for 1982-83 show an operating loss for that year of $45m. This totals a loss over four years of $140m. Qantas, understandably enough, paid no dividend over the 1980, 1981 and 1982 financial years and its results have been made worse by exchange losses in those years amounting to $17m. It is well known that it has been forced to take action to cut costs and to realise assets. It sold the Wentworth Hotel and realised a profit on the sale of that asset of around $62m. However, Qantas's malaise is not due solely to international conditions, to harsh competition or to the world recession. In Qantas's 1981-82 annual report, the Chairman says: Our competitive position continues to be placed under extreme pressure from demands in Australia for higher wages and lower productivity-demands which do not occur to the same degree in countries of competing airlines. It is the old story: We are living beyond our means and Qantas has suffered as a result of that. Will this kind of financial trend in Qantas's profitability continue? It seems almost inevitable on what we know thus far. The recent devaluation of the Australian dollar can, it would seem, only make things worse. Let me once again quote from what the Chairman had to say in his report to the Minister: The relationship between the Australian dollar and Qantas' foreign trading currencies has a major effect on the Company's results. The recent depreciation of the Australian dollar against the US dollar has resulted in increased costs, expressed in Australian dollars, for fuel and materials- One can only assume that those increased costs will continue. To sum up, the reasons why it would seem Qantas will continue to lose money and why this ominous financial trend will continue are these: The figures for operating losses which the Minister has indicated will be very high for this financial year; fuel costs; probable industrial unrest; exchange losses caused by devaluation; and, presumably, continued exchange losses as a result of commitments made by Qantas in the past. So unless there is a dramatic turnabout in Qantas's fortunes, it will need more money. What about Trans Australia Airlines? We do not have the 1981-82 results for that company and the Minister in his statement of 3 May referred to a small operating loss. We do not really know how it is doing although reportedly it is running at a heavy loss. We know that it has a guaranteed share of the Australian market, unlike Qantas which must compete internationally. We do know from the Australian Financial Review of 4 May that two of its five airbuses are on the market, which is hardly a sign of confidence or of ready cash. We can only suspect that TAA is running at a very heavy loss. These matters will be known to the Minister. It would be good to hear from him what is the position of TAA. Thus far he has not bothered to inform the public of that position. Where does this leave us? This leaves us with some questions and some issues of fundamental importance. First, have management decisions, particularly management decisions in TAA, contributed to the need for the major injection of funds-that is the injection of $175m of which only $25m had been authorised by the previous Minister? Secondly, when the Government made the decision to inject these vast sums into Qantas and TAA, did it call for forecasts or cash flow statements from Qantas and TAA? Surely it must have. What did those forecasts show about profitability? The Minister seems to have some confidence about Qantas returning to profitability. In a recent interview on PM on 3 May he expressed confidence, or the hope, that these organisations would return to profitable trading. He must have had some basis for expressing that hope or for that expression of confidence, and it is about time he took the Australian people into his confidence so that we know on what basis the decision was made, so that we know what the forecasts are and so that we know the good news if there is any good news or, more probably, the bad news. The next question that we would like answered is: What projections does TAA make for its getting a larger share of the Australian market? That would be highly relevant whether or not it is to become profitable. Is there such a projection? If so, the Minister should tell us. Next, what benefits will the fare paying public get from this vast injection of capital which runs at about $ 11 to $12 per man, woman and child in this country? Will we have cheaper fares? If so, will the Minister tell us when and how? The ministerial news release refers to reduction of the costs of these airlines. Surely the reduction in the cost of these airlines should be reflected in some way which will benefit the Australian public. What are the initiatives which had not been possible under the previous Government and which the Minister referred to in his media release of 3 May? What are the details of these initiatives? When will they be put into effect? Is this just a vague, general pious statement made in hope of future improvements in the operation of TAA? What return on investment does the Minister expect? This is a question of fundamental importance. The Minister has spoken learnedly about debt equity ratio, no doubt keeping very clearly in mind the difference between long term debt and short term debt. He criticised the former Minister, who certainly knew a great deal more about the industry than this Government demonstrates that it knows. The Minister must know what return on the injected funds the Government expects. The Minister would have us believe that it was a commercial decision. He is quoted in the Australian Financial Review as saying that this was the shareholders' response. He said on PM that it was a shareholders commercial injection of funds. If that is so, the fundamental point is that one expects a return on the injected funds. Whether it is provided by way of lent working capital or by way of paid up capital, one looks for a return. What return does the Minister look for? Is it one per cent, 2 per cent, 3 per cent or 4 per cent? What projections have been given? What do we know about these companies? The handling of these decisions by the Government and by the Minister, and what they said about the reasons for the decisions, demonstrates that the Government does not know why it made the decisions in the first place to inject $175m into these two companies. I quote from the news release of the Minister of 3 May in which he said: This is not in any way a handout to cover losses or projected losses that the airlines have incurred or might incur. It is an essential measure designed to make the airlines more competitive, to reduce their costs and to help keep air fares down. Does he seriously make that statement in view of the Qantas figures? Does he seriously suggest that the $60m which is to be injected into Qantas would have been needed but for the losses which have been incurred by that company over the last four years? If he did believe that on 3 May he appears to have forgotten within 24 hours what he said on that day, because in the Australian Financial Review of the following day he is reported as saying that he had granted the $ 60m to Qantas as a salve for immediate problems. It cannot be both a salve for immediate problems and an essential measure designed to make the airlines more competitive. It is either a handout or it is a commercial injection of funds, the shareholders' response. On the subject of the shareholders' response the Minister is reported in the Australian Financial Review of 4 May as saying that the funds were injected as a shareholders' response to an extraordinarily difficult market. That is apparently not a handout. In making that statement, he seems to have misunderstood the role that shareholders play. Shareholders in private companies have the right to quit their investments and to sell up. They have the right not to inject capital into ailing companies. In short, they make a business a commercial decision. Who consulted the shareholders? What purposes do the shareholders, the great Australian taxpaying public, serve? They serve one purpose and one purpose alone, and that is to provide money. What cost cutting measures has the Minister examined? What cost cutting measures have these companies put to him? What specific initiatives are proposed to increase the efficiency of these companies? All these questions are left un- answered. All we know is that Qantas and TAA-Qantas most certainly-are faring badly. We do know that $175m has been injected into these companies. We do know that Qantas's present position is bad and its position in the future is likely to be equally as bad for some time, recalling that it is losing about $45m in this financial year. We are left, therefore, with some bland and empty generalisations about the reasons for the injection of funds. In the case of Qantas, we are left with a contradiction between a salve for immediate problems- if the Minister was correctly reported-and, on the other hand, a shareholder's response. It is most certainly a salve and it is most certainly not a shareholder's response. When one comes to the end of the day, the major kinds of questions that the Australian public needs to have answered are these: Firstly, what kind of structure is proposed for these companies in the future? Secondly, what are the Government's policy objectives for TAA and Qantas? Thirdly, are they to be free to manage their affairs on sound commercial principles? Fourthly, if they are to be free to manage their affairs on sound commercial principles, are they to face the sanctions of failure in the market-place or is the Australian taxpayer, that shareholder who cannot quit, to be called on again in the future? If one looks to the answer to that question under this Government, it would appear to be almost too clear that the answer will be that this Government will prove to be incapable of making or understanding commercial decisions, just as it is incapable of making hard decisions on the future of government-owned enterprises . When these or any other government-owned organisations need assistance, the Australian public needs to know that it will be called on to provide the funds and it will have no alternative but to provide the funds. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(2.58) —The Appropriation Bills which are under discussion at the present time provide for the appropriation of funds to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures additional to those appropriations which were made in the last Parliament for the current financial year. The additional funds apply to both capital works and wage and salary increases. Cost and price increases which have occurred since the Budget was prepared are principal factors underlying the Additional Estimates. Although the Budget figures contained allowances for prospective wage and salary increases, those amounts were not then appropriated and funds are now required to meet the cost of awards and determinations made before the introduction of the wages pause in December 1982. Because of other factors such as staff increases, the appropriations now sought , together with those made in Appropriation Act (No. 3) 1982-83 and Appropriation Act (No. 4) of 1982-83, and after allowing for prospective savings , represent a net increase of $1,286.5m in expenditures financed from annual appropriations. This increase represents approximately 2.5 per cent of aggregate Budget outlays for the fiscal year. The Government considers this increase is unavoidable in view of the need to maintain essential services, to continue at existing levels programs of the previous Government, pending their review, where appropriate, and to fund certain requirements that have to be met by the Government since the election. I will outline some of the main areas in respect of which the Government has found it necessary to seek additional provisions in these Appropriation Bills. In Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 1982-83, an estimated $275m is for wages and salaries-being $208m for non-defence and $67m for defence purposes-to meet increases in award wages and other wage and salary costs, including the costs in respect of increased staff ceilings approved by the previous Government. An amount of $17.5m is included under the Department of Communications for the Australian Broacasting Commission, primarily to meet salary and rent increases and thus enable the Commission to maintain its domestic services. Under the Department of Defence, provisions totalling some $129.1m are to meet prices and exchange rate effects on the costs of new and replacement equipment. A further $11.9m is included under the Department for the repair and overhaul of equipment and stores. An amount of $10.4m is sought for the Department of Defence Support for production assistance in respect of the Nomad aircraft and covers increased subsidy and development costs caused by price increases, production over-runs and cancellation costs. A further $4.3m is sought by way of additional working capital advances to various Government defence factories. An amount of $10m is sought under the Department of Foreign Affairs for the provision of the special grant to Papua New Guinea announced recently by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). Supplementation has been sought also for a number of welfare related programs funded from annual appropriations, including: The sum of $2m in respect of grants administered by the Department of Social Security for community welfare agencies; the sum of $3.3m for payments in respect of accommodation for migrants and refugees, and support for employment-related schemes administered by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, including $3m for special training for Aboriginals, $2m in respect of the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training, $1.5m for community-based youth support schemes and $1.5m for youth training. Some of the major capital funding items include an amount of $175m for additional capital injections to Trans Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd , reflecting the deterioration profitability and liquidity positions of the airlines due to the downturn in the airline industry. Part of the increase for TAA was approved by the previous Government in December 1982. Since that time, it has become necessary to approve an additional $90m injection of capital for TAA and $60m for Qantas. The sum of $25.5m is included under the Department of Communications, representing a further payment on the 75 million part-paid shares in Aussat Pty Ltd which are now held by the Commonwealth. An amount of $3 .2m is provided to the Australian Taxation Office for the purchase of facilities for a national integrated computer system, a second computer site and equipment to assist the Taxation Office in the implementation and administration of the proposed labour and services withholding tax legislation. Included under the Department of Primary Industry for payment to South Australia is $11m in respect of concessional loans for the reconstruction of the forestry industry in the wake of the recent bushfires in that State. An amount of $4.1m is sought for payment to New South Wales as a concessional loan to assist the Letona Co-op Ltd. An amount of $7.4m is provided under the Department of Resources and Energy in respect of an advance to the Pipeline Authority. An amount of $90m is included under the Department of Transport to meet an urgent need to increase the capital of the Australian Shipping Commission resulting from liquidity difficulties. The amount comprises a direct capital injection of $30m as well as $60m to enable the immediate conversion of that amount of outstanding government loans to equity capital. The provision of additional equity to the Commission is subject to satisfactory arrangements being agreed with the unions on reductions in manning levels across the Australian National Line fleet. It can be seen from the Bills presently before us that cost and price increases are the principal factors which necessitate the provision of additional funds. These increases are a direct result of the policies which were pursued by the previous conservative Government-policies which had such a devastating effect on the economy of this country. The major element of the Fraser Government's approach was its 'fight inflation first' strategy. It was this strategy that exacerbated rather than assisted our economic problems. The previous Government' s tight monetary approach did not reduce inflation but it did squeeze out of the system any chance of real economic growth. In August 1982 the former conservative Government brought down a Budget which by understating expenditure and overstating income estimated the deficit for the current financial year as being $1,674m. We all know that it was no time at all before the deceptive and rubbery nature of the Budget was outlined for all to see. In fact, within days of the Budget being presented, the funds provided for unemployment and welfare payments were shown to be downright inaccurate and misleading. The Budget blowout continued throughout the former Government's term of office and is still continuing because of the effects of that Government's decisions on the Australian economy. We know now that the anticipated deficit for the current financial year will be in the order of $4,300m-a far cry from the original estimate. The fragile nature of our economy was outlined in great detail at the recent National Economic Summit Conference, a conference historic in its formation and in the manner in which community and union leaders were apprised by the Government of the state of the nation. Never before has a government been willing to apprise the people of Australia of the true nature of the parlous position that this Labor Government has inherited from the conservatives sitting opposite. The Australian economy is in deep recession. Economic activity and the level of employment are continuing to fall and the level of unemployment is rising. Profits are depressed and inflation and interest rates remain high. One cannot deny that the country's decline into recession has been as a result of many factors, including the international recession. It is also an undeniable fact that the previous Government did nothing to stimulate the economy or provide additional job opportunities for those 700,000 people unfortunate enough to find themselves on the dole. The Labor Government has now set in train a number of measures to get Australia moving again and legislation to give effect to this will be placed before this House in the very near future. I do not intend to canvass these recovery measures during this debate, but suffice to say that this Government of which I am proud to be a member will do something about increasing demand, creating work and providing assistance to those in need in our community. As I mentioned earlier in this debate, the additional funds now required are as a result of cost increases. The schedules outlining the various costs show that increases in wages and salaries are a dominant factor. It is for this reason that adherence to the prices and incomes accord between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions is paramount if a real growth in the economy which will be beneficial to all Australians can be achieved. Let me now turn to some of the major capital funding aspects of this legislation which affect Australian Government travel and transport carriers and outline in greater detail the reasons for such increased funding which is designed to ensure that our national carriers are allowed to continue in that important role, free from the threats of sale or downgrading of activities imposed or proposed by the former conservative Government. The Government seeks to provide $115m to Trans Australia Airlines and $60m to Qantas to assist both airlines during a period of a severe downturn in the demand for international and national air travel. The problems faced by our national carriers are similar to those faced by the major airlines of most other countries, namely increasing costs and a downturn in demand. In the late 1970s Qantas committed itself to the acquisition of bigger and more expensive aircraft as a result of the boom in passenger travel which unfortunately declined rather rapidly over a short period as a result of an increasing international recessional process. At this stage I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the weekly average passenger traffic carried by Qantas in and out of Australia and the weekly average seat capacity of that airline. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Weekly Weekly average average passenger seat Qantas traffic(a) capacity Year ending March 1979 14,462 22,457 1980 17,222 25,406 1981 16,819 25,932 1982 17,210 26, 286 1983 18,056 29,549 % Increase 1979-1983 24.9% 31.6% (a) Average weekly passenger movements into and out of Australia. Mr MOUNTFORD —I thank the House. That table shows that from 1979 to 1983 weekly average passenger traffic in and out of Australia increased by 24.9 per cent, whereas weekly average seat capacity increased by 31.6 per cent. The Qantas expansion occurred during a period of tight monetary control when interest rates and costs were rapidly increasing. The effect of the increase in interest rates during recent years, for instance, shows that the interest burden on Qantas of $ 53m in 1982 increased to $69m in 1983. The crux of the problem goes back to the boom period of travel in the late 1970s. To cash in on this boom market, Qantas, as did many other airlines in the world , placed orders for new equipment. The trouble with buying huge and expensive aircraft such as the $60m Boeing 747 is that orders have to be placed for these aircraft years before they are ready for delivery and progress payments have to be made. Qantas reached the final committal point for ordering a new series of Boeings in 1979 and months after that, when there was no turning back, the world air traffic market collapsed. The initial Qantas strategy was a 'roll over'. The newer 747s are more efficient than the older ones, so like other airlines Qantas decided to buy new and sell off the old. But the 'roll-over' strategy depends on a good resale market. Airlines have to be matched to aircraft and the price for both has to be right. But what happened in the 1980-81 period was that, with the collapse of the air traffic market, the second-hand market for wide bodies also collapsed. If there were such a thing as a normal market, the three 747s Qantas had for sale would be worth something like $20m to $25m each. So if they had been sold at a fair price, the cash result might have made it unnecessary for Qantas to sell off some properties. But the problem went far beyond merely having capital locked up. Overhead charges such as interest payments, depreciation and care and maintenance on each aircraft would add up to about $8,000 an aircraft a day, or more than $150,000 a week. This is before attributing a figure of up to $250,000 a week to represent the forgone opportunities of using the capital tied up in these aircraft. So, irrespective of what was happening in the market place, Qantas was flying into a built-in headwind-the high interest payments caused by the low equity component of its capital and the overhead of having three expensive aircraft pushed up against the fence. In order to finance these initiatives Qantas had to borrow quite heavily, having been denied adequate capital by the previous conservative Government. The most important cost factor for airlines today is the price of fuel. Qantas' s fuel bills make up 30 per cent of its airline expenditure. Again I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a further table showing the airline unit fuel costs from 1979 to 1983. Leave granted. The table read as follows- AIRLINE UNIT FUEL COSTS 1979-83(a) 1979 (base year) 100 1980 184 1981 257 1982 264 1983 291 % Increase 1979-83 191% (a) Average unit price paid throughout the world for that year-1979 set at 100 base units. Mr MOUNTFORD —I thank the House. The table shows that the increase in fuel costs between 1979 and 1983 was 191 per cent. This, of course, has become part of the world-wide problem which occurred in the 1970s. However, the position has also been exacerbated by the previous Government's oil parity pricing and the decline in the value of the Australian dollar. The need of the new Government to devalue the Australian dollar recently was a result of the irresponsible behaviour of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in talking up depreciation which accelerated an outflow of capital from Australia just prior to the 5 March election. Labour costs constitute one-third of Qantas's total outlay, even though the number of employees over recent years has declined. In April 1983 the approximate staff numbers were 11,500. But while staff levels have remained fairly constant over the past 10 years the total employee costs have soared by 241 per cent. There are, of course, other problems facing Qantas. The competition from overseas and the number of gimmicks which have been put forward by a number of overseas airlines have made it very difficult for Qantas to compete on the international market. The same applies to TAA. That Australian Government owned airline is facing similar problems to those of Qantas-inadequate capital, the need to borrow heavily, high interest rates, fuel increases and high labour costs. The injection of $115m that I mentioned previously, which is covered by the legislation, will permit the revitalisation of the airline and enable it to take initiatives which had not been possible under the previous Government. In conclusion, I emphasise the injection of capital funds into Qantas, TAA and the Australian National Line is very necessary. It will enable all three national carriers, in the air and on the sea, to compete better against overseas competition. It will enable them to fulfil this Government's wish that they remain in Australian Government ownership thus ensuring long term service to the people of Australia. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(3.16) —I would like to begin by acknowledging the victory of the Australian Labor Party on 5 March. It was certainly convincing and decisive. What needs to be understood on both sides of the chamber, as well as in Australia generally, is that the Opposition need recover only 2.6 per cent of the national vote to put the Government out of office. That is not a particularly comfortable margin. I believe that 13 to 20 members on the Government back benches would realise that their positions in this place are not necessarily all that secure. I believe that will keep the Government on its mettle and will ensure that the sorts of things that were canvassed by it during the election campaign will be implemented. If they are not, I rather suspect that next time around there could easily be a change of government. During the election campaign, and prior to it, the Labor Party created enormous expectations in the Australian community. It now has the task of delivering on those expectations. If it fails to do so I believe that it will suffer at the hands of the Australian electorate the next time around. The National Economic Summit Conference, which was undoubtedly an enormous political success for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Government, has added to the expectations in the community and will increase the pressure on the Government to perform. It is obvious at this early stage that the Government will continue to blame the former Government for all sorts of things; we have seen that going on. I guess it is the approach that all incoming governments take but I do not think that it will necessarily wash all that much. The reality is that a Labor Government is now in office. It is the Government that is making the decisions. It is the Government that will introduce the Budget in August. It will not be our Budget; it will not be our deficit. That needs to be understood. The decisions about which policies are to be continued and which are to be cut will be made by the Cabinet of this Labor Government. They will not be made on this side of the House. Whatever level of deficit the Government comes up with, whatever economic strategy it determines in relation to the Budget and for the period that follows will be decided by Labor's priorities. That needs to be understood. It will not be good enough for the Prime Minister and his Ministers to continue, into the indefinite future, to blame everything on the former Government. It should be acknowledged that the Australian Labor Party has deserted its platform. That platform was hammered out in great detail last year at the ALP Conference. It was built upon in forming the strategy for the elections of 5 March but, in reality, it bears no relationship to the policies that the Prime Minister and his Government have followed since they achieved office. It is very interesting to go through the documents that were made available prior to, and during, the National Economic Summit Conference and look at some of the acknowledgments made therein by the Government, on economic matters in particular. Perhaps the most significant is that the Government acknowledges that unemployment will continue at levels of around 10 per cent for the next three or four years and perhaps even longer. Of all the things that the Prime Minister and his Ministry have done since they achieved office the greatest indictment must be that they have walked away from the unemployment problem on which they placed so much emphasis during the election campaign and when in Opposition. They have obviously realised the sorts of difficulties that the Australian economy is facing. They are acknowledging that the policy thrust of the previous Government was not too far off the mark. For a Labor government, only a couple of weeks after it has been elected, to capitulate to that reality and acknowledge that unemployment will continue at a level of about 10 per cent for the next three or four years represents an enormous indictment of that Government. I say to all Government supporters and to Australia generally that it is a pretty grim prospect that we are being offered when the Prime Minister of Australia tells us that under his newly elected Government, which was to bring all Australians together, we will have 10 per cent unemployment in 1983-84, in 1984-85 and in 1985-86. If that is the best that the Government can offer to Australia a harsh judgment may be made concerning it in two or three years when it faces the people again. We ought also to look at the Government's foreign policy, because it is apparent that under this Government Australia's foreign policy has collapsed. One has only to consider a couple of areas of concern, especially those of East Timor, Kampuchea and the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai. If anything was clear about the policy of these aspirants for government during the pre-election period it was in relation to those matters. Labor said that it would overturn the policy of the previous Government on East Timor. It said it would derecognise the incorporation in Indonesia of East Timor; that it would reintroduce aid to Vietnam even though that country was occupying Kampuchea; moreover, that it would withdraw the Australian force from the Sinai. It is apparent to everybody that, despite the footwork of the Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden), as he has gone from country to country since the elections, the Government has had to capitulate, to accept the propriety of the former Government's policy in relation to those matters. Despite the pressure being exerted on it from within its party and by back benchers, the reality is that the Government can do nothing about East Timor. It will have to withdraw its assertion in that regard. It will have to change its attitude concerning the offering of aid to Vietnam. Moreover, it will have to continue to maintain the force in the Sinai. One could give all sorts of other examples of the way in which this Labor Government has walked away from its platform, its commitments and its election promises. Perhaps closest to the hip pockets of most Australians is the matter of tax cuts. I do not believe that the average Australian will be all that much impressed by what the Economic Summit may have produced. The reality is that the Prime Minister made it clear that tax cuts would be put in place when his party came to government. His policy speech, of which I have a copy with me, even has on the back tabulations showing what a taxpayer with dependent spouse and children would get, what a taxpayer without such dependants would get; it is all there. It could not be clearer, yet the Australian Labor Party came into government and promptly walked away from that promise. That should be understood . I find it interesting that the Prime Minister has demonstrated that all he is concerned about is being there. He did exactly what he had to do to get there and he is doing what he perceives he must do to stay there. Whatever that might mean in terms of capitulation and change of heart and policy does not matter. The fact of the matter is that he is there; he sees himself as being in his rightful place in government in this country. Being there is what he is all about. I go so far as to say that the Prime Minister is the Chauncey Gardener of Australian politics; he is just concerned about being there. I wonder how long the Labor Party-this great party with an enormous ideological commitment built up over 60 years or 80 years in this country-will accept this 'being there' approach offered by the Prime Minister of the day. I do not in any sense want to regard myself as a twentieth century Nostradamus, but I predict that ALP supporters will start to expect and demand implementation of the Party's platform and policy. I do not think that the great Labor Party will go on for too long just feeding the ego of the Prime Minister and allowing him the fruits of office when all the people who have supported him and done so much work over so many years to achieve the success of a Labor Government at the polls expect him to do more than just be there. They expect him to implement the policies and the platforms for which they all stand. It will be interesting to see how this Government reacts when the pressure really comes on. What will it do about its foreign affairs, wages and unemployment policies? Dare I ask also what it will do about the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation? We might hear a word or two about that this afternoon when the Prime Minister comes in to the House to talk about these matters. In my view, the ALP faces two major difficulties. The first is that it has created an expectation that it will deliver the goods for its supporters and the people who voted for it. As I have indicated, it has already walked away from so many of those promises, policies and, indeed, its own platform. It has to learn to live with that and it is my view that it will not be allowed to do so because the people who supported it will not accept that. If they had wanted the sorts of policies this Government is implementing, they would have voted for Malcolm Fraser, Doug Anthony and the Liberal-National Party team. It is as simple as that. They voted for a Hawke Government because they perceived that they would get different policies. They are not getting different policies and I think they will probably come back to the Liberal-National Party coalition at the next election. I predict also that the Government will have enormous difficulty containing the ideologues within the party. It will be very interesting for honourable members on this side of the House to watch that over the period ahead of us. I do not believe that overseas recovery, even if it does come and there is some doubt about whether it will come, will be enough to save this Government. The signs of recovery in the United States of America are still very tenuous and the Prime Minister and his Government are hanging an awful lot on that overseas recovery. If it does not come, there will be some enormous difficulties facing the Government. I now turn to the area of transport for which I have responsibility as shadow Minister. I am very pleased that the Minister for Transport (Mr Morris) is in the House for this debate. I think it goes without question that transport is an area which is of major significance to the Australian economy. These days, the portfolio is structured to cover three broad policy areas: Roads, rail, to the extent that the railways are a Commonwealth responsibility, and shipping and shipping policy. When I was preparing this speech and giving thought to the things I would say, I determined that I would consider the mandate that the ALP has, because I do not want to cause any problems for the Minister in relation to those things for which it is clear that the Government has a mandate from the people. I refer to those things that the Government put before the electorate during the election campaign. The Australian Labor Party has now come into Government with the expectation of implementing those measures without any great difficulties from the Opposition. But one of the interesting things about the policy speech that was delivered at the Sydney Opera House on 16 February is that transport does not get a mention. Mr Fisher —Not at all? Mr LUSHER —No, not at all. I do not quite understand why that is because I know that the Minister, when in Opposition, was a very vigourous shadow Minister. He and I shared a lot of interests in a committee sense and our offices were on the same floor of the building. I saw his staff beavering away day and night. There was obviously a great deal of work done by the Minister for Transport in his period in Opposition, but for some reason he failed to get anything up at all in the ALP policy speech which was delivered by the Prime Minister. Even in the back-up documentation that was not delivered by the Prime Minister at the Opera House there was no mention of transport-even though all sorts of other areas that were not even departmental areas got a mention. The only place that I could find it mentioned was in the commitment to spend $70m on the Jobs on Roads Program. This came under the section headed 'Community Works Program'. It was not under a section headed 'Transport'. I think that is interesting, because I had difficulty trying to find out what was the policy of the Labor Party that was put before the people during the election campaign. The next thing that transpired in this history was that the Governor-General came to the Parliament on 21 April 1983 and delivered a speech on the occasion of the opening of the Thirty-third Parliament. Mr Keogh —A very good speech too. Mr LUSHER —It was an interesting speech; I will say that to the honourable member for Bowman. The Governor-General covered a broad range of areas. I here pay a tribute to my friend, the Minister for Transport. I am pleased to say that transport got a mention in the Governor-General's Speech. In that Speech it was laid down that an Inter-State Commission would be established. That was legislated for and passed by both Houses of the Parliament in the life of the previous Labor Government. The Bill was never given royal assent. It was not given royal assent by our Government and it remains to be seen whether the present Government asks for royal assent to be given. There is nothing very new about that proposal. There will be a blue about it when it comes up because a lot of people were concerned about it. The second proposal was for a national inquiry into the road freight industry. That, I think, is new; I do not recognise it as having come from elsewhere. I acknowledge that the Minister actually got that one into the Governor-General's Speech. In that Speech there was also mention made of the fact that the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program would continue. I think that is a tribute to the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), the former Minister for Transport, who legislated for that. I think that is terrific. The next proposal was for improvement in the efficiency of national rail services and the upgrading of designated railway routes of national importance, including port and rail facilities for exports. Again, I think that is a tribute to the former Minister for Transpot and an acknowledgement of the policy that he was implementing and pursuing in that area. It was also mentioned in the Speech that the Government would put the Australian Shipping Commission and the Australian National Railways Commission on an improved commercial basis. The legislation to do that had already been introduced into the Parliament by the former Minister. Again, we acknowledge the contribution made by the former Minister in that regard. The last matter mentioned in the section on transport in the Governor-General's Speech was that the Government would pick up the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. The Minister has introduced the legislation into the Parliament; it is in terms indentical to those which had been introduced by the former Minister for Transport under the former Government and which had lapsed upon the prorogation of Parliament. If we consider the transport section of the Governor-General's Speech and look at the sorts of things this Government will be doing in the life of this Parliament, we will be looking at a pretty dynamic area. I hope that the Minister for Transport will be able to keep himself busy over the period ahead. I certainly hope that I do not get bored with trying to keep up with him as he goes about the process of administering this Department and implementing what policies the Australian Labor Party may have. There are other issues. I mention shipping and, in particular, the need for a major inquiry into coastal shipping. The question of regulations, the Navigation Act and things of that nature are particularly important to me. I will give them a lot of scrutiny in the period ahead. I am concerned about the Australian National Railways Commission. I believe it is a disaster area. It is a statutory authority that has a corporate plan to which it has never stuck and has no hope of sticking. It is supposed to break even by 1988; it has about as much chance of that happening as-well, honourable members can put it in their own words. The Australian National Line is another disaster area. The Government has had to allocate $30m in cash and write off $60m worth of loans to try to improve the situation of the Australian National Line. Over the course of this Parliament I want justification from the Minister for Transport as to why ANL should continue in government ownership if in fact it will continue to guzzle the dollars in the way that it is. I will obviously be scrutinising the administration of the Bicentennial Roads Development Program in the period ahead. I look forward to co -operating with the Minister for Transport over the period of this Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(3.38) —I support the package of appropriation Bills before the House. In the atmosphere of this afternoon's debate, at the outset I wish to express my appreciation to the former Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), for the courtesies and the assistance that he provided to me in my capacity as shadow Minister for Transport. I welcome the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) in his new role as the shadow Minister for Transport in his rightful place on the other side of the chamber. I want to convey to him and to the Parliament my intention to provide the shadow Minister for Transport with the same kind of courtesy, treatment and reciprocal approach as was provided to me by my predecessor. I appreciate the remarks made by the honourable member for Hume at the end of his speech just a few moments ago. It is interesting to listen to the comments of former Government supporters when they complain about what they see as broken promises. No really honourable gentleman on the other side of the chamber could make such a claim. In seven years in office honourable members opposite created the greatest record of unbroken promises, unfulfilled obligations and reversals of policy. Mr Lusher —There is no reason for you to go down the same track. Mr PETER MORRIS —But I am saying it very gently to honourable members opposite. I appreciate the concern of the honourable member for Hume about the welfare of the new Labor Government. I hope that it is honestly and genuinely intended. Mr Braithwaite —What about your own retreaded promises? Mr PETER MORRIS —I ask the honourable member for Dawson to be patient. It is interesting to listen to those comments because the previous Government's abysmal record of incompetence and mismanagement has brought this country to its knees. It is for those reasons that honourable members opposite were hurled from office on 5 March at a date of their own choosing without policies and without representation of what they were about or what they intended for the future. I am very touched by the concern of honourable members opposite about what is going to happen to this Government because they did not have a policy to present . Their only reaction had been one of negativism. At the same time, I am concerned at the lighthearted comment of the honourable member for Hume, the shadow Minister for Transport, that transport did not get a mention in the Australian Labor Party policy speech. Had I known of his concern I would have ensured that at least half a page of items had been included for his benefit. Mr Lusher —It would have been very enlightening. Mr PETER MORRIS —It would have been enlightening. I think the best thing to do, given the amiable manner in which the shadow Minister for Transport and I are going to work together, is for him to pop around to my office. I will ensure that he has a copy of the full document which was distributed before the election. It spells it all out there for him. I will explain it. Mr Lusher —It came out after the election. Mr PETER MORRIS —Do not worry, I will explain it. I also remind the House that the platform policy of my party which was released in July of last year-this policy was formulated at the 1982 biennial conference of the Australian Labor Party-set out the principal objectives of my party. For the benefit of those honourable members opposite who did not have time during the election campaign to read it I point out that in this document-- Mr Lusher —It came out after the election. Mr PETER MORRIS —No, it did not. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The Minister will ignore the interjections and address his comments through the Chair. Mr PETER MORRIS —I am sorry. I will have all that information ready for the honourable member for Hume. If any other members of the Opposition would like to have a briefing they should let me know and I will arrange for a committee room to be set aside and I will go through the document for them, sentence by sentence. I would like to correct the shadow Minister for Transport on one point . He referred to the Inter-State Commission Bill. Certainly that Bill did have bipartisan support in its amended form in 1975. That Bill received royal assent in 1975. But the previous Government of which the honourable member for Hume was a member for seven years refused to proclaim the legislation. That is what happened. The honourable member for Hume said that an inquiry should be held into coastal shipping. His party had seven years in which to set up such an inquiry. Previous Liberal-National Party governments were in office for 23 years before that. In all, Liberal-National Country Party governments had 30 years in which to set up a coastal shipping inquiry. The previous Government did nought about it. It is a matter about which regular allegations are made sometimes by people in the community with vested interests. If allegations concerning interstate coastal transport are backed by some form of evidence the inter-State commission, after it is established, could examine them. In view of allegations which are made from time to time by various groups that is certainly an area that could well be the subject of activity by the proposed Inter-State commission. The honourable member for Hume said that railways are a disaster area. My same comments apply. For more than 90 per cent of the period since World War II conservative administrations have been responsible for national railways. If they are in a disaster situation now then it is the responsibility of those honourable members who sit opposite. We are looking at the problems of the Australian National Railways Commission. In doing so we will operate on the basis of consultation. We will try to get a proper information base to the work force and develop a better relationship among the Commission, management and the work force. We will look at ways of inproving the provision of national mainline rail services. Our policy document provided for that in the form of a national railways council. We will not be resting to ensure that the Commission is made more efficient and that its productivity is increased. The shadow Minister for Transport and I share some common interest from our service on the Expenditure Committee. It is an area of positive endeavour on our part. The honourable member for Hume also referred to the Australian National Line as a disaster area. He asked why it should continue in Government ownership. The question that beggars is this: If that is his view now why was it not his view some 61 days ago, prior to the election of 5 March? Mr Goodluck —Passenger trains back in Tasmania would be a good idea. Mr PETER MORRIS —In the seven years of the previous Government the honourable member for Franklin was one of the members who went along with the cancellation of the last passenger service in Tasmania, the Tasman Limited. The honourable member for Franklin endorsed that cancellation and approved it. The honourable member for Franklin was party to that mischief. In its seven years in office the previous Government endorsed the removal of passenger trains in Tasmania. Let me turn to the more important areas. I want to mention-- Mr Goodluck —No, I did not endorse it. Check the records. Mr PETER MORRIS —Honourable members opposite will have plenty of time to talk to me privately. I will make available a committee room. Do not worry. We will deal with those things then. The other matter to which I wanted to refer is the amount of $750,000 that was to have been provided by the previous Government to publicise the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program. It was a paid media advertising program. The former Government intended to spend $750,000. A lot of kerbing and guttering, road drainage and the sealing of roads could be done for $750,000 in those areas of Australia which do not have those services. We have removed $700,000 from that sum. Instead of the amount in the Appropriation Bill (No. 5) being $750,000 it is now $50,000. Most of that was expended by the previous Government prior to 5 March. Mr Lusher —You transferred the rest to the-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member for Hume has had his opportunity to speak. Mr PETER MORRIS —The other matter to which I wanted to refer is the amount of $ 75,000 which is to be provided to the Bureau of Transport Economics for the expansion of computer facilities which will enable the BTE to save on costs that it pays out now and would have to pay to data processing bureau in future years and to use the latest computing and information processing techniques in its important research work. Another matter concerns the provision of $2.5m. I am sure that all honourable members from Tasmania are concerned about this item. It relates to the construction of the second Hobart or Bowen bridge in Tasmania. That amount is necessary because it is an ongoing commitment from the previous Government to meet contractual commitments arising from accelerated programs and site developments. Mr Goodluck —Thanks for letting me open it. That is terrific. Mr PETER MORRIS —I am sure that is another matter on which you will be strongly supportive of the Government. That is being done on a bipartisan basis. However, the most important significant item is the payment of equity capital to the Australian Shipping Commission which was touched upon briefly by the shadow Minister for Transport. The Government has agreed to make available to the Australian National Line the sum of $30m as a cash injection for immediate working capital and to maintain the liquidity of the Commission. We have agreed to convert $60m in government loans to equity capital. That will place the Line on a much sounder commercial footing. It will substantially reduce its indebtedness and its debt servicing costs and interest payments. Mr Lusher —It will just cover the loss too. Mr PETER MORRIS —It is not a capital loss my friend, because-- Mr Lusher —I said it will just cover the loss. Mr PETER MORRIS —It will not cover the loss. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will address his remarks through the Chair and not respond to the interjections. I advise the honourable member for Hume once again that he has had his opportunity to speak. Mr PETER MORRIS —Very good advice, Mr Deputy Speaker. I accept it. The conversion of loans to equity capital will reduce interest payments and debt servicing and at the same time will give a much more secure base upon which the Commission can develop in the future. We need to remember that, when the Commission was established in 1956, it had a capital injection of $32.85m. In the first year, its revenue almost equalled its capital of $32m. In 1964, there was a further injection of $3m and, even though there had been a vast expansion in revenue, the capital remained at that figure until the recent decision of the Government. In the 1970s, ANL expanded into overseas bulk and liner trades. This expansion was financed by recourse to loans and lease back financing that left the Commission with a huge interest bill to be met from its operations, which left it without reserves to cushion it against the troubles and difficulties it would face in a period of recession, as has developed over recent years. Today, the Commission operates over 33 ships' across a diversity of trades. It employs almost 4,000 people and it provides a significant and essential service in the domestic and international trades. Its assets are worth in excess of $ 400m. Its turnover is in excess of $500m a year. Like any other enterprise in a period of recession and depression, much of which was inflicted upon it by the previous Government, as Australia is experiencing now, it is certain that the Commission would suffer some difficulty in trading conditions and performance. Across the globe, something like 100 million tonnes of shipping is laid up because there are no cargoes to be transported. Many operators-less efficient national and private ones-have been driven into insolvency because of the state of the industry. The fact that the Australian Shipping Commission has survived to date is very much due to the people who manage and work in the operation. It does no credit to those now opposite that the Commission finds itself in a desperate financial situation. That information was available to the previous Government at least as early as February last year but it declined to do anything about it. Since then, the Commission's difficulties have been exacerbated, firstly, by poor leadership from those who now sit opposite, secondly, by the high interest burden, thirdly, by chronic undercapitalisation and, fourthly and most importantly, by a serious lack of morale that arose from attacks within the former Government upon ANL and Trans Australia Airlines. When we came to Government the position was very clear. If we expected that enterprise, which is owned by the Australian people, to perform effectively and efficiently in the way the public expects it to, there needed to be a concerted effort by all involved-by seafarers, management and government. It was in that tenor that we approached the problem of arranging meetings between employees, the Commission, its management, myself and the Department of Transport to try to bring together the common objectives. I commend the representatives of the seagoing unions and the Commission for the very positive and constructive attitude they exhibited during those discussions. Mr Goodluck —Don't go too far on them, for goodness sake. Mr PETER MORRIS —I beg the honourable member's pardon? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! the honourable member for Franklin will remain silent. Mr PETER MORRIS —The former Government tried its way and it just about destroyed the enterprise. We are trying to put it on a proper basis now. We expect the support of the Opposition on this matter. The agreement that has been reached between the Government and the representatives of the seagoing unions and the Commission is designed to increase productivity and efficiency to make the Line more competitive. It will result in a rationalisation of crew sizes, part of which is to be achieved in the fairly immediate future and part of which is to be achieved by the the end of the year. In addition agreement has been reached on what we call the ANL Shipboard Practices Committee. That Committee has the very positive objectives of reviewing and examining shipboard practices and productivity, the sharing of tasks on board, the organisation of duties, shipboard organisation and proposals, from whatever source, for improving the efficiency and operation of those vessels and of the Commission generally. In going about it in that positive and consultative way, sponsored by Government, but involving the employees of the Commission and the Commission itself, we hope that it will develop and provide the kind of shipping service that the Australian people expect its Commission to provide. I am confident that it can. As I have said, I again commend the officials of the seagoing unions for this very enlightened and courageous approach they have made to what is a very serious problem. The result of this will be to provide a secure and developing future for the ANL. It will be a line that will be more competitive and more efficient. The $30m cash injection we are providing will help it to get over its immediate problems. The $60m conversion of loans will ease the debt servicing problem I mentioned earlier. But that can only be done in the spirit of consensus, which is something that I am sure those opposite have found is out there in the community. People are sick of the division of Fraserism. They are sick of that confrontation and division. They want Australians to pull together and work together to get this country back on its feet again. We are reflecting that hope in the action that we have taken in respect of the Australian National Line. In a few short weeks, we have managed to achieve more for the Australian National Line than seven years of Liberal Party and National Party confrontation , rhetoric and union bashing have. Mr Groom —Rubbish. Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member for Braddon says: 'Rubbish'. He will hang by his own words. With a proper financial structure and positive union involvement, ANL will be a viable commercial operation, able to maintain its position in world trading. In due course, it will be able to grasp opportunities to expand operations and provide greater employment opportunities for seafarers. Most of all, as a great maritime nation, we need a maritime presence in the shipping trades of the world. We have not had that under conservative governments but we can do it. It will provide jobs and careers for Australians and a better balance of payments picture. I am very heartened by the approach that has been taken by the unions and the Australian Shipping Commission and all the parties involved. I support the Bills before the House and I commend the honourable member for Hume for the expression of attitude that he has made to this date. I assure him that I will be reciprocating. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(3.53) —We are now sitting as the Thirty-third Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. As I said in my speech last week when we spoke on the South West Tasmania dam issue, this is an historic Parliament because there are Tasmanian members of parliament only on this side of the House-in Opposition . There are no members from Tasmania on the Government side. I believe that is a very significant factor and it is one which I hope the Government, especially the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), will give a great deal of thought to. I emphasise this point again by asking: Why is it that the people of Tasmania have totally and absolutely rejected the policies of the Australian Labor Party and why have they returned to this Parliament five members of the Liberal Party who sit in opposition on this occasion? Mr Keogh —It was just an accident. Mr GROOM —Just an accident, yes! The reason was, of course, that the people of Tasmania were afraid of the actions that the Australian Labor Party might undertake in taking away from Tasmania our own State's rights and our responsibilities. I do not want to get back on to that dam issue or speak too long on that point. This certainly should have been a Parliament of hope. There has been a lot of talk about consensus, of harmony and of bringing the nation together. Part of the policy enunciated by the Prime Minister before the election was that he would reduce unemployment. But the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) made a very salient point when he said that we now have an admission by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister that unemployment will remain at about 10 per cent for at least the next three years. Here we have it that the people of Australia were told that if the Labor Party gained office, the present Government would reduce unemployment. Now we have the admission, within a matter of weeks of Labor's gaining office, that there will be no significant reduction in unemployment. I would hope, as I believe every fair minded Australian would hope, that we could reduce unemployment. It is a tragedy that so many young people are unemployed. Somehow we must get these people back into jobs. If the Labor Party has the answers, so be it; we say congratulations. On this side of the House, we shall be happy, because our job is not to do the right thing by ourselves and by the party that we represent but to do the right thing by Australia. We would hope, therefore, that we could reduce unemployment. There has been much talk about the deficit. This is an old trick. It was used by Mr Cain when he gained office in Victoria and by Mr Bannon when he gained office in South Australia. The idea is that when one gains office one says: 'We did not realise that the economy was in such a disastrous state and therefore we cannot keep our promises'. It is an old record that we hear being played day in and day out in this place. It is interesting when we hear talk about a mandate. It is a very interesting concept. What is a mandate? On the one hand, the Prime Minister says: 'I have a very clear mandate to stop the dam in Tasmania, and despite the fact that it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and despite the deficit situation, that is a promise we have made to the people. We have this mandate; we shall go ahead and stop the dam. We are not concerned about the deficit as far as the dam is concerned. It will cost hundred of millions of dollars, no doubt, in compensation for Tasmania. Regardless of the deficit, we shall implement that policy and spend hundreds of milions of dollars of mainlanders money to stop the dam. We do not care about the deficit'. On the other hand, what about income tax? In the policy speech the present Prime Minister said: 'We will reduce personal income tax'. I do not have the details in front of me, but there were a number of different areas in which he was going to reduce personal income tax for Australian taxpayers, and he would do that immediately. He quoted the cost of doing that. In his policy speech there are scales and schedules which indicate all the details of the promises. Now, of course, the Prime Minister says: 'We cannot do this because of the deficit situation.' So we have this duplicity: 'We shall implement this policy to stop the Tasmanian dam regardless of the deficit. We do not give a damn about the deficit. But we will not implement this mandate and this promise concerning personal income tax because of the deficit'. Where is the honesty in those two positions taken by the Prime Minister? We are now talking about appropriations. The Government of the day is asking this Parliament to approve large amounts in appropriations. This is a very important factor. Here we are sitting as a parliament. It is tragic that we have so few members in this chamber at present, and certainly so few on the Government side. But we are being asked to approve a huge sum to be spent by the Government under these Appropriation Bills. So we are now fulfilling a very important role, and we should look carefully at the appropriations. I want to refer briefly to three particular areas of appropriation contained in these Bills. If my arithmetic is correct, we have $54,691,000 to be appropriated to the Department of Defence, $18,007,000 to be appropriated to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and $288,000 for the departments of the Parliament. I want to focus attention on those areas of appropriation. The first appropriation is for defence. If we are to appropriate funds, as a parliament, for the Department of Defence, it is important that that money is actually spent for proper defence purposes. This, of course, highlights the spy planes episode that occurred recently when an F111 and a Mirage jet flew over South West Tasmania. Mr Hodgman —Shameful! Mr GROOM —As the honourable member for Denison says, it was a most shameful incident. It is one which the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in the other place tries to laugh off when he talks about the streaker's defence-it seemed like a good idea at the time. That is not a very good defence when we are talking about matters as important as this. It might be all right for a streaker appearing in a magistrate's court charged with running on to the Melbourne Cricket Ground, but we are dealing here with major issues of concern to Australia. It is vitally important that those who are charged with the grave responsibility of administering the defence of this nation realise how important that responsibility is, and they must do the right thing by the people of all of Australia, including our State of Tasmania. We notice that the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes), who is not in the chamber at present, has not admitted that what he did was wrong on that occasion. He answered questions in the House last week-not very well, but he endeavoured to answer questions put to him by me and by the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) on this issue. Eventually, the Minister came clean and admitted that there had been additional flights over South West Tasmania, despite the fact he initially said that there were only two flights over South West Tasmania. But he has continued to suggest to this chamber that it really was not an unlawful act, that it was not a wrong thing to do and that what he did was proper on that occasion. There are two important issues which honourable members should take on board. The first is that here we have a case in which the defence forces of Australia were used for a partisan purpose. It was not to help people in a bushfire or where there were floods. It was a partisan purpose because at that moment a legal battle was going on before the High Court of Australia, in which the Commonwealth and the State of Tasmania were locked in dispute. Here, the Attorney-General, who, I believe, is the principal offender in this matter, conspired with the Minister for Defence for the F111 to go across our State, Tasmania, to take film of the South West, the dam site and what is happening in the South West and to place that evidence before the High Court. It is quite incredible-this is the second point-that an F111 was tasked to undertake this mission on the basis of a telephone call between a Mr Glare, of the Attorney- General's Department-- Mr Goodluck —It was a glaring mistake. Mr GROOM —It was a glaring mistake, as the honourable member for Franklin mentions-and Group Captain Waterfield of the Royal Australian Air Force. Group Captain Waterfield authorised the mission without consulting officers and without any written confirmation that the mission had been approved by the Minister for Defence. I suggest that honourable members should look at the papers that have been tabled on this issue, in which one sees a glaring conflict between the reports that were presented to senior officers and to Ministers by Mr Glare and a report by Group Captain Waterfield. Group Captain Waterfield said in his minute of 11 April: Mr Glare confirmed that the Minister for Defence had approved the task about 15 minutes ago. Mr Glare, in his report of 11 April, the same day, said: I then contacted the Director of Air Force Operations, Group Captain Waterfield , at about 3 p.m., informed him of the events, and suggested that he confirm the approval with his Minister's office. So, there are two quite different versions of those conversations, what happened and what was undertaken by those officers. Mr Goodluck —Did the Governor-General know? Mr GROOM —The member for Franklin says: 'Did the Governor-General know?' Mr Goodluck —That is important. Mr GROOM —That is an important issue, because we must ask who is in ultimate command of the nation's defence forces. Who makes the final decisions in these matters? When this matter first came to my notice, I think on 11 April, or maybe 12 April-I would not be certain; I would have to check my records-I sent two telegrams. I sent one to the Chief of the Air Staff and I sent one to the Governor-General, who is mentioned in the Australian Constitution as being the commander-in-chief of our defence forces. I received two interesting replies. I do not have them before me at this time to table but I would be pleased to do so if that were requested by any honourable member. The Chief of the Air Staff said that this was not a matter for apology. I had requested an apology on behalf of my constituents for the fact that a Royal Australian Air Force plane had flown over Tasmania in the circumstances that prevailed. I am not quoting exactly from his telegram, but he said: 'We are subject to the civil power'. He said it is a matter for the civil power to make these decisions; it is not for the Air Force to make these decisions. In other words, the chiefs of our defence forces are not in ultimate command of those forces. I received a reply from the Governor-General's official secretary in similar terms, saying that although the Governor-General was mentioned in the Constitution as the commander-in-chief of the defence forces, in effect it was a matter for the Ministers. An important question we should ask is: Who is responsible for these decisions? Who decides when our defence forces should be used? What are the criteria for using our defence forces? I believe that it would be appropriate for the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) to come into this chamber as soon as possible and detail when the defence forces can be used to aid the civil power. I believe it would also be appropriate, and this is a point that has been made by the honourable member for Denison, that the Minister for Defence should come into this chamber and admit that he was in error in authorising this particular mission. He should also apologise to the people of Tasmania for what to them was a most offensive incident. Perhaps that is not understood by the Minister, but it is certainly understood by the people of the State of Tasmania. They were most upset that the defence forces, in which they have always had confidence, were being used against them in this way, and one could not deny the fact that the defence forces were being used against them. The evidence they collected was to be used for the Commonwealth case against the State of Tasmania. It was obviously a secret and hostile mission because those concerned were told to make sure that the plane was not obvious-in other words, that the people did not see the plane when it flew over the dam site. I want briefly to mention one other matter. I referred earlier to the appropriations to the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Department of Communications. Over the last few days one episode has caused so much concern in Australia. I refer to the battle between the ABC and the present Government. One must ask initially who is the Minister responsible for the ABC. Is it Senator Button in the other place or is it the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) in this place? Who is the Minister responsible for the ABC? I thought that the honourable member for Holt was the Minister for Communications and, therefore, the Minister immediately responsible, at the political level, for the operations of the ABC. But apparently it would seem that, despite the fact that Senator Button is the Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications, he in fact is the superior Minister and he is the one who directs the Minister in these matters. If we are concerned about accuracy, and I believe that we should be concerned about truth and accuracy, we should look at the letter that Senator Button wrote to Professor Kramer, the present Chairman of the ABC, the Chairman whom the present Government, by its pressure, obviously wants to sack. But there are some glaring mistakes of fact in the letter written by Senator Button. This was an important letter because this was a major political issue at the time that letter was prepared. It was a letter which was seen, apparently, by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Mrs Child —How does this fit into the Appropriation Bills? Mr GROOM —Because, as I have indicated, we are dealing here with appropriations, including the appropriation to the ABC. If the honourable member had been listening earlier she would have noted what I said. The basis of Senator Button's concern was an interview by Helen O'Neil of Prime Minister Fraser during the election campaign. Senator Button in his letter said that this incident happened during a Press conference. He said this in his letter. It was published in the Age of 7 May. People can read it. They should read it carefully. There was no Press conference. The incident did not happen at a Press conference. That is mistake No. 1. He said that a question was put to the Prime Minister by Helen O'Neil. If we look at the facts, no question was put . So that is another mistake made. There was an aside-obviously an aside, if we look at the facts-by Helen O'Neil. No question was put. I will quote her words. She said: I must ask President Reagan that. That was the only comment she made. That was not a question, that was a comment that she made. Then in his letter Senator Button said the former Prime Minister had trouble anwering the question. He said: I am informed by journalists who were present at the Press conference that the then Prime Minister seemed to have some difficulty in answering that question . . . I have quoted directly from his letter. As I said before, there was no Press conference. Is Senator Button misleading the community of Australia, and in particular Professor Kramer, to whom he wrote the letter? He talks about journalists who were present at the Press conference. But there was no Press conference, so who were these journalists? It was an interview conducted by telephone. This may not have been such an important issue had a letter not been written by a senior Minister of this Government concerning a major national political issue. It contains assertions which are clearly inaccurate, which are untruthful and grossly misleading. The whole basis of his letter was wrong in fact. That is something that that particular Minister should be ashamed of and he should admit to the community of Australia that he made mistakes in that letter. As I said before, there was an allocation also to the Parliamentary departments . I hope that the Prime Minister will pursue the thoughts that he had when he was not a member of the Parliament, when he said that the Parliament should be reformed. Here we have the national Parliament sitting. People are watching us. How many members are here at the moment? What is this debate all about? How worthwhile is this debate? Are we not wasting our time? Where are the Ministers? There is one Minister at the table; no other Ministers are here. We are really wasting our time. Is the Parliament worthwhile? What we need are reforms of the Parliament so that we can question effectively Ministers such as the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). I think we should have a special committee room , we should have television, we should have effective committees where we can question the Minister for Transport or the Prime Minister-any of the Ministers, including Senator Button-about some of the mistakes that they are now making. The fact is that the balloon has burst already. The Parliament has been sitting for less than two weeks now-- Mr Goodluck —The honeymoon is over. Mr GROOM —The honeymoon is over. There have been glaring mistakes by this Government. I am sure that the people of Australia are most disappointed with what has happened so far and we want the opportunity to ask these people some questions about these matters. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired . Mrs CHILD(Henty)(4.14) —The Appropriation Bills provide, among other expenditure, $2m for the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training; $1.5m for community based youth support schemes and $1.5m for youth training. We did not hear very much about any of those three expenditures from the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom). In fact, all he had to say had very little relevance to the Bills and showed very little concern for the disastrous unemployment among Australians. No one in this House will resile from expenditure that will in any way bring forward some coherent policy for youth employment and youth training. The existing short term preparation and work experience schemes do little to improve the employability and job skills of the hundreds of thousands of long term young unemployed. Everyone here is well aware of the current economic difficulties we are all facing. Every Australian family is affected by them. But, as is usual, within our system the heaviest burdens fall on those least able to bear them. The recent National Economic Summit Conference recognised that Australia must improve its standards of education, training and retraining. We need to base our economic recovery on a more productive national effort. Recovery will be temporary if we do not take full advantage of the potential of our work force. We must have the will and the courage to encourage projects to get our unemployed people off the dole and back to work. Hundreds of thousands of Australians of all ages are living in poverty on unemployment benefits. This Government has provided a welcome increase of $4.25 in the unemployment benefit but I do not think anyone on the other side of the House can congratulate himself on having done much for the unemployed over recent years. With the cost of living as high as it is today, an increase of $4.25 paid from 1 May simply recognises the justice of indexing the unemployment benefit as we have already indexed pensions. The unemployment benefit of $68.65 is still totally inadequate. The fact that so many people are unemployed is totally unacceptable to this Government. I am sure the level of benefit also causes deep concern to honourable members on both sides of the House. In 1974, when seconding the motion that the Address-in-Reply to the Governor- General's Speech be agreed to, I reiterated his words when I said that there were three main principles we should all take as the basis for living, and they are as relevant today as they were in 1974. They are: Protection of the weaker sections of society, equity in sharing sacrifice as well as in sharing prosperity, and the need to ensure that any deferment of expectations would not be made at the expense of those for whom deferment could mean a lifetime of deprivation. Into these three categories come the poor, the old, the sick, the handicapped and the disadvantaged including women, migrants and Aborigines and all those recipients of social security benefits. Heading that list would be the great army of unemployed who face a lifetime of deprivation. We live in an age in which the poor are not easily distinguished from other members of society. They are not integrated into their occupational or neighbourhood communities as they were in earlier decades. A report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development entitled 'Are the Poor Always With Us?' suggests that we would have more effect on reducing the level of poverty if we scrapped all our pensions, grants and subsidies and spent one per cent of our gross national product on a redistributive plan. However, redistribution of wealth alone will not eradicate poverty. There is a notion about that rising affluence will sooner or later reduce or eliminate poverty. Without fundamental structural change in our economic and social institutions affluence may not be a cure for poverty but may well turn out to be its siamese twin. It is useless in 1983 to blame the unemployed for not having jobs. This attitude focuses attention on the disabilities of the unemployed rather than on the disabilities of society. It focuses attention away from the need for social change, from job creation schemes, from the absolute necessity to get people back to work and from the desperate needs of the unemployed who want jobs. Divisions have occurred in our society and will multiply without government- backed job creation policies. We will concentrate on job creation schemes, as Appropriation Bill (No. 5) indicates. Without comprehensive policies for youth, more and more young people will end up on the dole. The implications of a generation of unemployed young people has horrific overtones for the future. The social implications of unemployment will engulf us all, and to a large extent they already have. The former Government must carry the burden of guilt for all it failed to do to ensure that young Australians had a future and a place in our society. The longer the period of unemployment, the more difficult the problems. Long term unemployment sets up psychological trends that are hard to reverse. The social cost of unemployment lies at the door of seven years of Liberal government. It is an enormous problem that this Government has inherited. I pointed out in the House in February 1982 that we must work together, Opposition and Government, to give back to the unemployed in this country their self- respect and we as a Government will now do so. The Government recognises the severity of the task. It has already moved in the job recreation area. In New South Wales technical colleges further full time pre-apprentice course places are being made available under a Federal Government offer to all the States and Territories to create 2,000 additional trade-based course places in 1983. Further community based and council sponsored schemes to rehabilitate and train long term unemployed young people are also under consideration. It has to be recognised that many long term unemployed young people have never worked since leaving school. It would be quite useless to create short term dead end jobs that do not in any way train people for future rewarding employment. Many of those seeking work have limited educational qualifications and are so further limited in their opportunities. What small opportunities are open to them demand few skills, give little satisfaction, are repetitive, tedious and generally temporary. Such schemes offer too little too late, after young people have already been alienated from both the education system and the system itself . The greater emphasis given by this Government to youth affairs reflects our intention to develop a consistent and coherent set of policies designed to meet the needs of Australia's youth. All of us in this House represent the aspirations of the people of Australia. Working together with a will we can solve the unemployment problem that is our national tragedy and is doing so give hope to the hundreds of thousands of Australian families who in this so-called affluent country live in poverty. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(4.21) —I will, as did my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), make some comments on the funding to be appropriated for Australia's two Government-owned airlines. The Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) justifies grants totalling $175m of taxpayers' funds into the coffers of Trans Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd by claiming to inject those Government-owned trading enterprises with additional capital. It is an injection all right, and the sting is being put on the vast majority of Australians who have little hope of ever recovering their investment either in the form of reduced air fares or returns on their investment by way of commercial dividends payable into Consolidated Revenue. By ignoring one commercial measure-that is, an adequate return on capital for, one hopes, maximised profits arising from reduced interest payments-this Government is committed to a deception which no commercial enterprise could get away with. If the Minister's Press release were part of a prospectus for capital raising by an Australian company, the authors would be subjected to the extreme rigours of Australian company law. The National Companies and Securities Commission would be in, boots and all. The measures proposed will have the effect of increasing trading profit-or, more likely, minimising trading losses-over the years immediately ahead. Concurrently, the return on funds will be worse than at present. This is from a Government which, in seeking to justify the establishment of a prices surveillance authority, promises to take into account an adequate return on capital. This decision may give those to be subjected to the will of the PSA some hope because the criteria used by the Minister for Aviation confirm that his Government has a convoluted idea of what constitutes an adequate return. It may also explain why the Government could not seriously consider structuring TAA as a public company. At least it has the sense to realise that no prudent private investor would contribute capital to TAA under the conditions in which this Government is prepared to commit taxpayers' money. This commercially inept decision increases the former Government's grant of $25m to TAA to a staggering $115m. The equivalent of paid up capital is to rise, therefore, by 360 per cent in one hit. I suggest that that is enough to make the Broken Hill Proprietary Co . Ltd, CRA Ltd and other corporate giants either green with envy at the Government's generosity or blanch with fear at its profligacy. Those companies may hold similar views about the 65 per cent increase in Qantas's capital. Trading losses of the dimensions being incurred by both TAA and Qantas would not normally be conducive to vast capital raising but it seems that under this Government commercial sanity is not to be a hallmark-shades, I might add, of Bourkes stores and ACTU-Solo. Mr Deputy President, the Minister has the audacity to assert that these measures are 'not in any way a handout to cover losses or projected losses' by the airlines. Whatever the degree of sincerity in making that claim, that is precisely their effect. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! I do not wish to stop the honourable member but he is in the House of Representatives now and he just referred to me as Deputy President. Mr ROCHER —I do apologise, sir. Thank you. Mr Morris —They never learn. Mr ROCHER —He is right; old habits die hard. While one hopes otherwise, these grants may offer neither the prospect of adequate profits nor adequate returns. In a burst of realism, uncharacteristic of the Government in this connection, it at least has had the good grace not to promise reduced air fares either with TAA or Qantas. That brings me to another matter I wish to raise. Western Australians, even Liberal Party supporters, could have been excused in the aftermath of the March 5 election for thinking that some good may have come out of the change in government because a Western Australian was appointed Minister for Aviation. In particular, air travellers to and from Western Australia on domestic flights may have felt that they had good reason to believe that they could expect a better deal in future under the new Minister. When he was in Opposition on the back bench as merely the honourable member for Swan, the Minister had a great deal to say on the subject. Much of what he said then is recorded in Hansard. Amongst other things on 3 March 1981 he said: With the current air fare structure, Western Australians are had both ways. We subsidise eastern States jet routes and we subsidise eastern States F27 routes. It may be fairly concluded that nothing has changed from the time when he spoke on those matters prior to his appointment as Minister for Aviation. It is sad to say that nothing has changed since then. Mr Cadman —Which State is he from? Mr ROCHER —He is a Western Australian. During debate on the Airlines Agreement Bill the Minister, then merely the honourable member for Swan, said: Western Australians cannot, I believe, look forward with the degree of confidence they ought, to a rapid gaining of access to Qantas flights on the east-west trip. He went on to remind the House that: various estimates made of the value to the Western Australian travelling public of the use of Qantas seats have put the reduction of fares as high as 50 per cent. Western Australians, and indeed others, might well have anticipated an early announcement from the Minister for Aviation permitting, to use his words, 'a rapid gaining of access to Qantas flights on the east-west trip' as he had previously advocated. The reason Western Australians may have expected access to Qantas flights may be best expressed in the Minister's words when he said: We are paying $500 for a trip to Sydney when all we need to pay is $250 if we use Qantas. That is still a pretty straightforward proposition as it was when he made it and one which, I might add, attracted my attention at the time. While I will not pretend that I voted against my Government's legislation when it was put to the test in this place in June 1981 because of his powers of persuasion, much of what the honourable member for Swan said accorded with my thoughts. In his speech of 5 March 1981 the Minister referred to a revelation in the report of the Holcroft Independent Public Inquiry into Domestic Air Fares which he termed 'a $23m per annum rip-off of the Western Australian traveller'. Again, on April Fool's Day 1981 he said that the Holcroft inquiry pointed to the 'systematic ripping off of some $20m per annum from the Western Australian public over a very lengthy period'. While I do not suppose a difference of $3m in the short space of less than a month bears dwelling upon, the Minister is now in a unique position to rectify the wrongs that he identified so eloquently in the four or five speeches he made in this place between March and June 1981. All this begs the question: Will he secure a remedy for the $20m rip-off as he called it and which I assume would be more now if it were indexed. He may even care to make that corrective action retrospective; I notice he has never displayed any aversion to retrospective legislation in this place. My Western Australian colleagues on this side of the House and, I suspect you, Mr Deputy Speaker, look forward with eager anticipation to an early announcement by the Minister for Aviation, on behalf of the Government, that the things he argued for and spoused when in Opposition will be put into practice under his stewardship. His powers of persuasion are undoubted so he should have no trouble with his Prime Minister and Cabinet. After all, he will have the virtue of practising what he preached in the past. If he needs any reinforcement, I will quote also from the April Fool's Day 1981 speech of the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins) who said: Qantas has an attractive proposition to offer to us, yet it is prevented from offering seats to the travelling public because, in the first instance, of the existence of the two-airline policy and, in the second instance, of a reluctance by the Government to make a change based on a fear about what Ansett Transport Industries Ltd would think about it. In the same speech he said: I first raised this question publicly in 1978. Those are the words of the honourable member for Fremantle before he became a Minister of the Crown. They might be said to give a commendable perception of the problem. They might even have given an impression that the honourable member for Fremantle and Minister for Finance would work with the Minister for Aviation -both Western Australians-to ensure access to employ Qantas seats to the benefit of Western Australian air travellers. The words of the Minister for Finance should give the Minister for Aviation the necessary incentive to persevere and win over Cabinet, particularly as a Cabinet Minister also hails from Western Australia. I urge the Minister to get on with it and to make an early statement confirming that past injustices suffered by air travellers in relation to access to Qantas flights to and from Western Australia will be remedied. Many Western Australians will join with me when I ask that the appropriate announcement be made within the next few days. I wish now to go on to another matter. It is something of an understatement to say that there is widespread disappointment amongst business entities with the capacity to maintain and ultimately to increase employment over the Government's abandonment of group taxation proposals announced in the former Government's Budget. The proposal to allow company groups to offset a loss suffered by one company in a group against the taxable income of another company in the same group, provided there was 100 per cent common ownership, was one way in which the present Government could have expressed its new found support for the business sector in a practical way and with flow-on benefits for employment. Despite its proud boast that it will continue the previous Government's spending programs this Government is not prepared to enact legislaton to put into effect an important initiative which also formed part of the former Government's Budget package. Both the reports of the Asprey Taxation Review Committee and of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System recommended the grouping of companies as proposed by the then Treasurer at the time he brought down his Budget in 1982. There were good reasons, and those good reasons remain, for such a measure to become part of our tax laws. Amongst those reasons I cite by way of an illustrative example a case of one company in a group finding itself in a loss position for tax purposes while a sister company has earned taxable income-taxable income as it was and will now remain. In this case and in others like it it might be said that the problem can be minimised with careful planning although, of course, it is not always possible for a group of companies to so order its affairs. It should be patently obvious that each year that goes by a loss unable to be recouped within a group reduces the effective benefit of the tax loss to the group due to the impact of inflation. It is common for a parent company to incur expenditure on behalf of a group of companies-sometimes, but not always, even the bulk of the overhead expenditure of its subsidiaries. Out of this, difficulties frequently arise for the parent company in substantiating with the Commissioner of Taxation a deduction; there are also difficulties for a subsidiary company also being required to substantiate management fees which may be charged by its parent company. Complications also arise where management fees are raised on the basis of time spent by personnel of the parent company, as well as by inclusion of charges for general overheads. Another set of problems which will continue to arise because of the Government' s failure to honour its predecessor's Budget commitment surrounds investment allowances. Often the reason that groups of companies are established is to foster a range of specialised activities within the overall business objectives and managerial capacity of the group. It is, in fact, a sort of departmentalisation formalised in accordance with company law. The assets of one in the group may be suitable and utilised to service one or more of the other companies which comprise the group. In its professed support for private enterprise, the Australian Labor Party might have been lauded for encouraging profitability and the subsequent benefits for revenues and for the economy as a whole; but its actions, or lack of them, confirm what most of us suspected was merely election and pre-National Economic Summit Conference rhetoric. If it was more sincere, this Government would know of problems with the investment allowance and its application and allocation to separate entities within a group of companies. It would know that by simply addressing itself to the decision in 1981 arising out of the W. A. Hughes Pty Ltd v. Australian Commissioner of Taxation case. This Government could and should have been aware of the contribution towards both survivability in business and tax equity if it had addressed its collective mind to the precarious position of private company groups. Private company groups also suffer from an inability to offset the losses of one or more of their number against the profits of others in the group. They also have to pay taxes on profits even though, at worst, the group may be in an overall loss situation or, at best, even though losses exist and payment of tax on the profitable entities eats into any overall profit. By virtue of Division 7 provisions, private company groups also are faced with the burden of paying compulsory dividends on top of taxes even though trading results would not warrant either if the total operation and accounts were consolidated as a single corporation. Corporate taxes were never intended or designed to penalise businesses where those businesses are so structured that they become another form of departmentalised operation only distinguished and distinguishable by incorporation in accordance with company law. The ineptitude of the Government in this connection gives the lie to any popular notion that it may be a sound economic manager. The manufacturing industry in Australia does not need the additional burden which the Government's selective back-tracking on previously announced measures occasions. The adverse effect of the Government's decision is not confined to the manufacturing industry. An earlier suggestion by the Minister for Finance that only large companies would have benefited only underlines his lack of knowledge and experience. He, as the Minister responsible, deserves the opprobrium of not just those directly affected but also the entire business community. In its selective approach to acceptance of the previous Government's Budget measures and inconsistencies in its pre-election and post-election treatment of air travellers to and from Western Australia, this Government stands condemned. I hope the Australian public understands its shortcomings. I hope the Australian public will remember them. Mr KEOGH(Bowman)(4.38) —The only real part of the speech by the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) that was worth listening to was when he concentrated on quoting my colleagues the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) and the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). Towards the end of his speech, he referred to the bottom of the harbour, which is the best place for it! This afternoon I want to confine my remarks in this cognate debate to Appropriation Bill (No. 6) and specifically to the proposed appropriation of $90m for the Australian National Line. This $90m, comprising $30m as a direct capital injection and $60m to enable the immediate conversion of outstanding Government loans to equity capital for the ANL, is something for which the Minister responsible and indeed the Government are to be congratulated. These funds will enable the ANL to keep afloat in more ways than one. They will allow our Australian flag carrier to survive and our Australian crews to face a reasonably promising future rather than the bleak prospect of financial ruin by the chronic undercapitalisation that the previous Government seemed quite content to force upon it. Clearly, the ANL has been saved by the election of a Labor Government. It has been given a new lease of life by this Government, but it is appropriate that, as the Government requires, the ANL must take on some responsibility in the future for its survival. There is no doubt that the previous Government was fully aware of the critical situation that existed as far as the ANL was concerned, but it refused to act. In fact, that Government allowed this important public enterprise to become run down. Obviously it suited the previous Government's free enterprise philosophy for the ANL to appear inefficient and unable to compete satisfactorily with its competitors. In contrast with the attitude of the previous Government, this Labor Government is committed to the survival and to the future viable operations of the ANL. Earlier this afternoon, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), who led for the Opposition in this debate, suggested that transport and transport policy were not really given any attention in the Australian Labor Party policy prior to the last election. Because of the way in which the election was thrust upon us by the former Prime Minister, we had very little time to put completely before the Australian people all the very important and attractive parts of our policy. I do not want it to be assumed for one moment that I am complaining about the fact that the former Prime Minister brought the election on early. As a matter of fact, I am sure that, during the seven years that he was the Prime Minister of this country, that is the only thing for which the Australian people can be grateful to him. This afternoon I want to draw to the attention of the Opposition, and particularly the honourable gentleman who led for it, the fact that that was the reason why there might not have been very much attention given to transport policy in the Labor Party campaign in those few short weeks before the election date. The former shadow Minister who is now the Minister for Transport (Mr Morris) and is responsible for this section of Government policy has been very vocal and has covered Labor Party transport policy quite fully in the past. I inform the House that the Labor Party is very solidly committed to the survival of the ANL. That is the reason for this injection of capital into the Australian National Line. The Labor Party believes in expanding the operations of the Australian Shipping Commission to ensure that an equitable share of our overseas trade is carried in vessels that are Australian owned or controlled and Australian manned and to provide financial incentives for the expansion of Australia's international shipping fleet. We are deeply concerned that, although Australia is recognised as a major trading nation, our flag vessels carry less than 4 per cent of our annual overseas trade. At present, annual revenue forgone in carrying export minerals alone is about $ 1.6 billion and is expected to rise to about $3.3 billion annually in 1995 on the basis of current prices. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you know that the Labor Party believes that a planned and reasonable approach to the expansion of the fleet is essential if Australia is to reduce its dependence on the world shipping market. Whilst freight rates are now at an all time low, when the world depression eases and shipowners seek to recover heavy losses freight rates will almost certainly jump. Australian industry will be severely handicapped in its access to overseas markets if this dependency is maintained. The solution to the problems confronting the ANL is not simply more money any more than it is more strictures on the Line. The solution lies in a concerted and planned effort by the Government and by all sections of the maritime industry to increase productivity, to raise efficiency and minimise costs to make the Line more competitive. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) is to be congratulated for the fact that he has already initiated consultations which have resulted in a significant agreement by the ANL to improve its efficiency and by the maritime unions to reduce manning levels and improve their productivity. I believe that conditions of employment and pay rates for Australian workers should be second to those of no other country. Likewise, I believe that Australian workers should not, except in the most exceptional circumstances, be required to forgo any of their hard won conditions. However, I have reason to believe that such exceptional circumstances now exist, particularly in respect of the future operations of the ANL. The agreement to reduce manning levels, reached following consultations between the Australian maritime unions and the Senior Vice- Chairman of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Charlie Fitzgibbon, must be regarded as a starting point only if the appropriations in this Bill are to have the desired effect and the ANL is to become competitive again in the long term. Manning levels, shipboard practices and hours of work must be thoroughly examined, realistically reviewed and changed if necessary. Several examples of what could be described only as excessive luxuries and featherbedding have been brought to my attention. Whilst it is appropriate, as the Minister indicated to the House this afternoon, that a committee be established to look at all aspects of the day-to-day operations of the ANL, I believe that it would be more appropriate if this examination were conducted by an independent expert authority. Nevertheless, any examination of the working conditions and the day- to-day operations such as that proposed must be very worth while and must be very welcome both to the management and the seagoing unions which participate in the operations of the ANL-and which would be looking forward to the successful operation of the Line in the future. As I said, many examples of inefficiencies and practices that have crept into the operations of ANL ships over the years have been brought to my attention. I would like to take up the time of the House this afternoon for a few moments to refer to a practice which was brought to my attention recently. A person who sought my support in respect of representations he wanted to make outlined in some detail the serious effects that the excessive availability and use of intoxicating drink can have on the personnel and shipboard life in general of Australian National Line ships. I will quote from the representations that were put to me, to illustrate to the House perhaps what a serious problem this is. It appears that this problem generally has been overlooked in respect of the cost efficiency of the operation of ANL ships. The representation stated: Bars appeared on ANL ships about 12 years ago . . . since that time the performance of ANL ships has dropped year by year. They are occupied at all breaks by some of the crew during the day and continuously from 3 p.m. onwards the overall efficiency of all is affected and in some cases the loading of stores becomes hazardous as beer is distributed to those handling stores and store cranes. The view of the person who put the matter before me is: . . . to control hours or quantities will not work and will bring about more trouble. The ships should be without alcohol in any form and that means for everybody. It means that the Master will have no liquor for entertainment, likewise the Chief Engineer . . . American ships are dry and run well without liquor. The navy has alcohol but it has regulations and discipline to manage it and we do not in the merchant service. It is suggested that the big plus if all ANL ships were to be run dry would be that the people who were not prepared to serve would not remain with the Line and the number of accidents would be cut down. It is also suggested that time off for sickness due to excessive alcohol consumption would be reduced and the result would be an overall benefit to the cost of operation of these ships. I am not suggesting that this is a matter of major consideration. I merely bring this matter to the attention of the House as I have been asked to do. But I suggest to the Minister and to the House that this is one contributing factor. It is one of a whole range of factors which have crept into the operations of the ANL in recent years and which must seriously have affected the efficiency of the Line. The Line must benefit if this matter and other matters that affect efficient operation are examined by the committee the Minister has proposed to the House. The difference between the attitude of this Government and the previous Government to the ANL of course is indicated by the very swift move that was made by this Government soon after assuming office to inject funds into the ANL to ensure its immediate and continued operation. The previous Government did not believe in the survival of the ANL; this Government does. The Government, in a rather responsible way, will demonstrate that belief by its support for the Line . The ANL will be given every available opportunity to get over its current problems. As a result of certain necessary changes which have been foreshadowed to date and which I am sure will come from the review that is to be conducted, I am sure that we will be able to show the world that the Australian National Line can operate as a successful and competitive fleet in the future. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(4.53) —Madam Deputy Chairman, may I congratulate you on your election as a Deputy Chairman of Committees. I regret that you are in the Chair at the moment. I have a few words to say about a speech that you made this afternoon and I would prefer to see you sitting on the other side of the House. However, I would like to pick up a couple of points that you made in your speech . I was annoyed that you seemed to take upon yourself and your party the view that you were the only ones that had a monopoly on compassion for those on lower incomes. I would think that the objective of all of us in this House is to get jobs for Australians. The position is not, as you seem to indicate, that the Australian Labor Party is the only party that is worried about that objective. Mr Kent —If the honourable member-- Mr WHITE —The honourable member will get a chance to speak if he wants to. One of the reasons I wish to enter this debate is to say a few words about guidelines for foreign investment in Australia. We are all concerned about the need to get foreign investment into this country to provide jobs for Australians who are unemployed. The Government tells us that the foreign investment guidelines are to be reviewed in the very near future, and I welcome that. What most of us are concerned about is that the guidelines will be toughened rather than, as I believe they should be, loosened-which would encourage more foreign investment in this country. Australia does not generate enough savings to provide the capital required for the development of the country. The only way in which to create jobs is to expand the private sector and get employers to put people on instead of off. I would like to quote from an insert placed by the Government in the last few weeks in Australia's Foreign Investment Policy, a publication of the previous Government. It states: The Australian Labor Government recognises that foreign capital has a significant role to play in the development of the Australian economy and is in general agreement with the broad thrust of the policy outlined herein. The insert contains one or two other paragraphs which I will not quote. The Opposition is pleased to see that the Government recognises that foreign capital has a significant role to play. I wish to raise, in the course of a few minutes this afternoon, the requirement of 50 per cent Australian equity that is contained in these guidelines. Generally speaking, development projects will not be approved by the Government, as they were not by the previous government, unless Australian equity amounts to at least 50 per cent. Two examples of the application of that policy have been provided recently in my own electorate of McPherson. Yesterday approval was given to a proposal by a company called Tanzora Pty Ltd to build units on the Gold Coast because 51 per cent of its equity was Australian. However, a few weeks ago a company called Sanko Shoji was refused approval to proceed with the building of certain units on the basis that it did not have enough Australian equity and, I might add, that there were already too many units on the Gold Coast. Let me deal with the latter point first. I hope that we shall never again see any government reject the building of units, or some commercial activity in this country, because of Government reasoning that there are too many or too few of whatever it is planned to build. That would be a disastrous course for this country if it were ever carried through. The Government should be the last body in the country to make commercial judgments on whether there are too many or too few of something. The units envisaged by the Sanko Shoji company would not have been completed for two or three years. Even if the Government were a good judge of commercial matters, who could say how many units would be required by that time? That aside, governments should never make decisions on the basis of what is good commercially. Let us leave that to the market-place. To return to the matter of the 50 per cent Australian equity requirement, I say that many foreign developers have great difficulty in attracting Australian capital for some of their projects, particularly the higher risk ventures. I fail to see why we should select an arbitrary figure of 50 per cent Australian equity as the basis for a project proceeding or not. Surely the criterion should simply be whether it is in the national interest. If we are talking about creating jobs in Australia, that is what serves the national interest. If foreign developers or development companies submit a proposal but can only raise , or only wish to raise, 20 per cent of capital from Australians, and the proposal is in the national interest in that it is creating development and jobs , why should any government refuse it permission on the basis that the project has not 50 per cent or 51 per cent Australian equity? I put it to the Government that in the coming weeks, when these policy guidelines are reviewed, we should get away from the 50 per cent figure, which was arrived at God knows how or why, and consider the matter rationally. If a proposal is in the national interest and will create work for Australians, if it will be good for Australian development, let us not stick to the 50 per cent requirement. Whatever development takes place, cannot be taken away. If a developer gets half way through a project, something happens and he cannot finish it, he cannot take the project away. It is not as though he can take away the land or the building. What we are seeking in Australia is jobs. At the moment that is the main thing. That is the kind of development that we should be encouraging. Mr Theophanous —You did not worry about it too much when you were in government, did you? Mr WHITE —If the honourable member had been here earlier when I was speaking he would have known that I am not particularly apportioning blame in this matter between this Government and the former Government. I would urge any government to display more flexibility in this matter. The guidelines are to be reviewed and now is the time to have a good look at them and ensure that they are in the national interest, that they will create jobs for Australians. If the honourable member does not want to see development projects go ahead, and thus create jobs for the Australians that week after week he is complaining are out of jobs we will make sure that that fact is farily well publicised as well. I do not think that it would be a bad thing if, during the review, serious consideration was given to a proposal to remove all foreign exchange controls for a period and just see what happens in regard to foreign investment. If at the end of that period the policy proves not to be in the national interest controls could be reimposed. I hear some inane laughter from the other side of the chamber. I would be delighted if honourable members would get up during this debate-they have a chance to do so-and tell us what would be wrong with such a proposal. If some emotional argument is to be put that foreigners should not invest in land in Australia, let us hear the reasons. I would be very interested to hear them, as would most honourable members on this side. I hope that the Government will note the few remarks that I have made because the time is ripe, now that the guidelines for foreign investment in Australia are to be reviewed, to make those guidelines more meaningful and get away from the rigidity that has been applied to these sorts of proposals in the past. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation)(5.3) —Appropriation Bill (No. 6) provides for the appropriation of $115m for Trans Australia Airlines and $60m for Qantas Airways Ltd. Before outlining some of the issues involved and the reasoning behind our recommendations that these funds be provided, I should comment on a number of technical points. Firstly, as to the funds to be provided for TAA, towards the end of calender year 1982 the previous Administration made available to TAA additional capital funds amounting to $25m. On that occasion the funds were drawn from the Advance to the Minister for Finance. The $115m referred to in the Bill includes a sum of $25m to recoup that advance. We have proposed that an additional $90m capital be provided to TAA during the current financial year. In summary, the total funding to be paid to TAA during 1982-83 will amount to $115m, the $25m having already been paid. The sum of $115m will be made available as equity capital, that is, shareholders' funds. These funds will not attract interest. The Australian National Airlines Commission will be expected to manage its affairs with the aim eventually of providing a dividend to its shareholders, in other words, the Australian public. We have also decided to recommend to the Parliament a capital injection of $60m for Qantas. These funds are also included in the appropriations before the House . As is the case with TAA, it is proposed to provide the funds as equity capital . Similarly, interest will not be charged and it will be up to the management of the company to aim for the payment of dividends. The proposals will significantly improve the gearing ratios of both the Commission and Qantas. As a result of them the Australian public will have provided equity funds totalling $ 130m in the case of TAA and $149.4m in the case of Qantas. The amounts involved are substantial. Therefore, I think it appropriate to offer some comment on the recommendations and the prospects we see facing TAA and Qantas in the immediate future. As I have indicated, the funds are not provided as a subsidy to the airlines. I want to make that quite clear. I make that point not so much for the benefit of the members of this House because most of them, I am sure, are in complete agreement with what we have done. I make the point more for the benefit of the members of the public who may have been misled, or at least very puzzled, by the sensational sub-editing evident in recent reports speculating on our consideration of this issue. These are not handouts. The airlines are not failing. We are moving to fix the problems faced by both the Commission and the company as a result of inadequate working capital. In that sense, it is an action precisely comparable with the situation in the private sector when shareholders provide additional funds. As with any industry, the aim is to arrange the affairs of the business in a manner which allows management the flexibility it needs to compete effectively and to return dividends to its owners. The fact that TAA and Qantas are publicly owned-I emphasise that they will stay that way-does not alter the basic objective of performing effectively. I have commented in some detail on that particular aspect, because I think the contrast between our decision and the approach adopted by the previous Administration offers a very instructive lesson. I except from my comments in that regard the performance of the specific Ministers with responsibility for aviation who did try reasonably hard on behalf of both TAA and Qantas during their periods of office. They were subjected to the most vile campaign of vilification in respect of both airlines by people who are now, fortunately, absent from this Parliament. Despite the rhetoric over many years, the simple fact is that the previous Administration allowed both organisations to depend far too heavily on borrowings to finance their operations. Both the commission and the company ultimately faced crippling interest problems. As a result, both were left without the flexibility which is essential for proper management in any organisation, be it government or private. Both have in recent years faced extremely difficult trading conditions which compounded the problems arising from inadequate working capital. The inattention to the question of the gearing ratio was perhaps understandable in circumstances when there was a constant increase in usage of the airways well beyond the rate of improvement of the economy as a whole. But the full impact of the economic contraction was not felt until we had moved down to the sorts of levels we have actually experienced. There has been a substantial contraction in the airways industry since that period and the gearing ratios in those circumstances began to be completely inadequate and the indebtedness positively crippling. It would also be appropriate to note at this point that the policies of previous administrations were not limited to restriction on capitalisation. For example, TAA paid something like 90 per cent of its net profits to the Government between 1975 and 1981. It was not permitted to build up its reserves. In addition, it has been obliged to operate, on behalf of government, uneconomical services. In the case of Qantas, there are requirements for it to maintain services for social and political reasons. The list in both cases has been quite extensive. As I have said, there is a marked contrast between the private sector rhetoric and the public sector penny pinching which characterised the previous Administration and the decision we have taken to face up to the commercial and management issues involved. I note that the decision that we have made meets the commitment outlined in the Governor-General's Speech. In that Speech it was stated that we would give consideration to the capital needs of both TAA and Qantas. It also happens to have been a promise made, an undertaking given, prior to the last election campaign by my predecessor, as spokesman on aviation matters for the Australian Labor Party, the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Peter Morris). I am happy to be able to advise the House that we have carried out what I consider to be an absolutely vital and important election undertaking associated with the Governor -General's Speech. Overall, that Speech indicated our intentions to put this economy, and business in this community right. We are starting in this instance with two government businesses very important to the Australian nation. I turn now to a number of more detailed comments with regard to both TAA and Qantas. As I have indicated, both companies have been working hard within the constraints imposed to improve their own situation. Qantas has sold a number of major properties to improve its cash position. It has been progressively reducing its work force over a number of years in line with the competitive staffing requirements which obtained in the markets in which it has to operate. I point out that this voluntary staff reduction program has reduced staffing levels world-wide by about 2,000. The company has also cut back services and rationalised remaining services on routes such as those to Europe where traffic has shown a major decline. Similarly, TAA has undertaken a number of significant steps to improve market performance and efficiency. Staff numbers have been reduced through voluntary and early retirement from a peak of some 9,000 in 1980-81 to about 8,000 at present. It has rationalised services, in particular, F27 services. Strict controls have been introduced over capital expenditure and cargo operations have been reorganised. It has also taken a number of initiatives to stimulate demand through innovative fares with the object of improving its market share and from recent advice given to me it has done so with some considerable success. The management problems of TAA were undoubtedly made worse by uncertainty over the future ownership and the nature of the airline. There is no doubt in my mind that this uncertainty damaged staff morale. We have now resolved that uncertainty and we are confident that further improvements in competitiveness will follow. I say in passing that the Joint Chairman and Managing Director of Ansett, Sir Peter Abeles, has welcomed our decision to put TAA on a proper commercial basis. I am sure that the travelling public can only benefit if competition between TAA and Ansett is conducted on a more equal footing. As I have said, in both cases airline operations have been conducted in very adverse trading conditions. Domestically, the downturn in the economy over the last two or three years has had a very direct and serious impact on passenger traffic carried by both major domestic airlines. The international airline industry as a whole has been experiencing the most severe financial and trading difficulties in its history-again, largely as a result of the world-wide economic recession. By way of illustration, I note that the International Air Transport Association has estimated total losses by its member airlines at about $US2 billion in 1983. Despite this, Qantas's losses on airline operations have been relatively less than those of many other airlines. I understand that one or two honourable members on the other side of the House have sought to indicate that the injection of funds we are giving Qantas is somehow unprecedented, somehow strange by comparison with what may have been done elsewhere-that is, for the competitors with which Qantas has to deal. I will point out one or two things about that. A number of other airlines, major competitors of Qantas, have received more support from their governments than the previous Government gave Qantas; indeed, they received more support than is the case with even this particular injection of funds to Qantas by our own Government. Singapore Airlines received a capital injection of $200m from its Government in 1982. Air New Zealand received $68m in 1982. The British Government, during the period 1975-82, increased the capital base of its national carrier, British Airways, by $265m. During the same period, the capital injection provided to Qantas by the previous Government was $25m. The Opposition spokesman on aviation has referred to the cost per head of the recent capital injection to Qantas. He may wish to note that the total paid up capital of Air New Zealand is $120m which is $38 per head of the New Zealand population. Singapore Airlines has a capital base of $261m, which is equivalent to $107 per head of population. In contrast, the capital base of Qantas is now $149.4m which is $10 per head of the Australian population. I have specifically cited those airlines because they are equivalent to Qantas in size and in the areas in which they operate. I would not like to leave the House under any misapprehension that both airlines are still facing, and will continue to face, very difficult conditions. I hope to be able to table the TAA report for the financial year ending June 1982 in the very near future. I expect this report to show a small operating loss. I do not anticipate other than a substantial loss for 1982-83. However, we are looking for improved conditions and results during 1983-84. The outlook for Qantas remains very difficult to forecast and is very heavily dependent on a recovery in world economic conditions generally. Again, I think that substantial losses are likely to occur during the current financial year, after taking into account interest and other items. By providing these funds, the Government has signalled its support for and firm belief in the prospects of both these Australian-owned airlines. Both have a national importance, and not simply from the point of view of aviation. We have moved to place both airlines in a position where they can plan confidently to meet competition efficiently with a better cost structure and a sound commercial basis. In the time remaining to me I would like to take up just one or two of the issues that were raised in the debate. I apologise to the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) who is the Opposition spokesman on aviation for not being in the chamber to hear his speech. I had certain Cabinet committee requirements at the time. I regard my failure to be present as an act of discourtesy. I apologise for it. I will attempt to be in the House in the future when he is speaking on a matter directly of concern to me. I did hear the speech made by the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher). He asked what might be anticipated for Western Australia taking into account my expressions of view in the past about the need for Qantas to operate across the continent. This matter has been raised frequently by honourable members representing Western Australia on both sides of the House. The point I would like to make is that in the speech of the honourable member for Curtin there was a vast historical gulf extending from early 1981 until the present day; it was as though nothing had happened since the point of time when those speeches were made and the point of time when we came into government. In fact, a great deal happened. Principally what happened in relation to that issue was that the Airlines Agreements Bill was passed through this House. Included in that Bill was provision which meant that Qantas could not operate domestically without the express permission and agreement of the other two airlines. That was written into the two-airlines agreement not by the Australian Labor Party, not by Western Australian Labor members, but by the previous Government in revising the previous airlines agreement. Also included in the two-airlines agreement, which in fact controls effectively the domestic operations, is a provision whereby it could not be scrapped or in any way substantially altered before 1986. We are going to commence a review of that process but it cannot begin until late 1984 in order to bring it into a reasonable time scale for conclusion at a point when we can do something about it. I do not want to hear, at any stage in an aviation debate in this House, any honourable member on the other side of the House criticise this Government's operation of the airways systems based on a restriction imposed by the two airlines agreement. Honourable members opposite are responsible for that agreement. They are responsible for its timing and its conclusion. If that agreement is having the adverse impact on airways honourable members opposite indicate only one group of people in this country is to blame. By that, I do not mean to imply that I am in favour of the total deregulation of the Australian airways system. I think that proposition could have a very serious and deleterious effect on the profitability of the airlines, the employees of the airlines and the safety of our airways operations. I think there is often far too much shoddy thinking on this matter in the Australian community. We do not have a market like the United States. We are not talking about a situation where there are 30 million people on one side of the country, 100 million people on the other side and 70 million or 80 million people in between. We have one and a half million people on one side of the continent, 10 million to 12 million people on the other side and a couple of million people in between. That obviously creates a very different and very difficult marketing environment in which the airlines have to operate. Nor do I indicate by anything that I have said that I think it is entirely inappropriate that TAA, for example, ought not in some circumstances to operate effectively social service routes. That has been required of it in the past and it will probably be required in the future. There will be no interjections from National Party members from Queensland on that particular subject because I imagine that if TAA did anything else they would have a lot to say about it. The fact of the matter is that we have obliged TAA over the years to bear the brunt of government decisions both in relation to its dividends and the operations that we have expected it to undertake. Those decisions have placed TAA in an extraordinarily difficult position competitively. We have been invited by people like the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and others in the past to preside over the winding down of the commission because of the difficulties in which TAA has found itself. That situation is largely a result of the trading conditions for airways that apply not only domestically in Australia but also internally overseas and internationally. According to the honourable member we are obliged to look at TAA's situation as though there has been no history and as though the performance of the airlines between 1981 and 1983 has been preceded by an equivalent performance prior to that date. This is of course ludicrous. As I said before, this legislation is aimed at rendering commercially viable two great national institutions. In the process of becoming commercially viable I believe that their managements will be able to operate innovative policies in a way that, because they have been living from hand to mouth, they simply found impossible. They are now going to be presented with that opportunity to be innovatory. I expect that as they become innovatory they will look at broadening the market and at broadening the opportunities to travel for the Australian public both on a regular basis and as tourists. This will not be possible without capital injection but will be possible as a result of capital injection. I think that is a development that all Australians, Western Australians and everyone else, ought to welcome. It has taken this Government to end the dithering, the inefficiency and the incompetence that has reflected the past Government's policy towards TAA and Qantas in, as the honourable member for Mackellar said, such a decisive fashion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Beazley) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 4 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Beazley) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 4 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Beazley) read a third time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —by leave-I move: That, in addition to the Leader of the House or his nominee and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or his nominee, Mr Campbell, Mr Cross, Mr Griffiths, Mr Gorman, Mr Hall, Mr Hodgman, Mr Miller, Mr Simmons and Mr Spender be members of the Committee of Privileges, five to form a quorum. The Government sees the setting up of the Committee of Privileges as an extremely important measure. Honourable members will recall that in the last Parliament there were some difficulties with matters that were raised in relation to the operation of privileges and what it meant in the responsibility of honourable members. The members of the then Committee applied themselves in this area and did an excellent job in bringing some sanity to this area of privileges of members of Parliament and also brought great credit on the institution of Parliament and how it is used. We have a good mixture of members who are prepared to accept the responsibility of being on the Committee. I understand that the exercise that they are undertaking is to be completed in a very short period. I hope that, at the completion of their work on this matter, we will have a clearer insight as to the way Parliament is to proceed in relation to future problems of members or of the House itself. I think all honourable members who were members of the last Parliament will agree that that Parliament did not bring great credit on itself or on the members of the Parliament in relation to their behaviour on certain episodes. When the then Privileges Committee was asked to produce a report in relation to one matter, it left greater dissatisfaction in the ranks of members of parliament than if answers had been given to the problem without it going to that Committee. I hope that this Parliament and future parliaments will not be confronted with these types of problems. We have a clearer view of how the privileges of Parliament ought to be used. There is great cynicism among people outside the Parliament that on occasion parliamentarians do use the Parliament for too much in respect of their privilege and that perhaps there ought to be some curtailment of that power. Of course, there has been discussion of using organisations outside the Parliament to apply their judgments on what ought or ought not to be the privileges of members of Parliament. But I think ultimately you, Mr Speaker, would agree, as a person who has spent a considerable amount of time applying himself to these problems, that the Parliament itself should be the sole arbiter of the way in which it will be used. I do not think we can seek greater wisdom from outside the Parliament than that which we can apply ourselves because we are the people who must suffer from an incorrect decision in relation to the use of privilege or any misuse of privilege. By and large, I do not think that, although problems are presented to the Parliament on occasions, there are many misuses of the privilege of Parliament. But when it is misused, privilege brings great problems and traumas to the institution. I hope that we can overcome those problems in the future. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That, in addition to Mr Speaker, the Chairman of Committees, the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, ex officio members, the following Members be members of the Standing Orders Commitee; five to form a quorum, viz.: Mr Groom, Mr Humphreys, Mr Lindsay, Mr Millar, Mr Mountford, Mr Rocher and Mr Sinclair. Ministerial Statement Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-Events of the last few weeks relating to the expulsion of the Soviet KGB officer Ivanov involve fundamental issues of national security and individual civil liberties. My Government's approach to this matter has involved placing these issues above all other considerations, including political party or personal associations. For my part I have sought to ensure that because the issues of national security extend beyond which political party holds office the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) was fully briefed. He expressed complete support for the Government's proposed course of action. I am appalled that the endorsement by the Leader of the Opposition of the Government's approach was of insufficient influence to prevent members of the Opposition making efforts to exploit for political purposes a matter in which issues of national security and individual civil liberties are concerned. The decision relating to the expulsion of Ivanov had the unanimous support of all members of the Cabinet Sub-committee on National and International Security, comprising myself, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes ). The subsequent decision regarding Mr David Combe's association with the Government had the full support of both my Cabinet and my full Ministry. The basis for the expulsion of Ivanov is not in question, and remains as set out in the Foreign Minister's statement of 22 April. As regards the action relating to Mr Combe, the Government has never been in any doubt about the validity of its decision. At the same time it was concerned that he should not become the object of public censure without some opportunity to defend himself. From the time that the Opposition used his name in the House yesterday, it was essential that he be given this opportunity. Mr Combe's association with Ivanov, and the subsequent decision made by my Government in regard to his contact with it, have been the subject of several hours of discussions today between Mr Combe and the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, during part of which time the Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Mr Harvey Barnett, was present. During these discussions Mr Combe gave his detailed account of his professional activities as a public affairs consultant and his past relationship with the Soviet Union and the Soviet Embassy, and the Attorney-General set out, in the terms summarised in the following paragraphs, the considerations which have determined the Government's course of action. Following those discussions Mr Combe has now advised the Government that, having regard to all the circumstances as they stood at the time the Government made its decision, he 'understands and accepts' the Government's decision that Ministers not deal with him in his capacity as a consultant lobbyist. The Government's decision, which was made in the first instance by Cabinet in Adelaide on 26 April and endorsed by the full Ministry in Canberra on 2 May, followed a recommendation made by me explicitly based on the following considerations: Ministers' doors should be, and be seen to be, open without the need for leverage by a party insider; and it was not appropriate that a former party official, by virtue of that status, have special advantages or access to government denied to others. The Ministry, at its meeting on 2 May, agreed that the Special Minister of State should bring forward a submission canvassing a possible scheme for the registration of Government lobbyists generally, not just those with Labor Party connections. I now make it clear that there was a further consideration underlying my recommendation to the Cabinet and Ministry which was not explicitly raised with either body at the time, but which had been the subject of prior discussion and agreement by the Cabinet Sub-committee on National and International Security. The information and advice then available to the Government suggested that Mr Combe's relationship with Ivanov had developed to the point that it gave rise to serious security concern. The view of the National and International Security Sub-committee was that, as events had developed, Mr Combe either had been, or appeared to have been, compromised by Ivanov to the extent that it was no longer appropriate for Government Ministers to deal with him. The deliberate cultivation by Ivanov of the relationship with Mr Combe, and the stage that process had reached on Labor's assumption to office, was one of the reasons-but by no means the only reason-which led to the Government's decision to expel Mr Ivanov from Australia on 22 April. It is the view of the Attorney-General and his Department that, on all the information available to them, no criminal offence has been committed by Mr Combe. There is certainly, in the Government's belief, no foundation for any allegation or imputation that Mr Combe is, or ever was, in any sense a Soviet spy. I repeat that the Leader of the Opposition has been fully briefed on all aspects of the Ivanov matter-including the position of Mr Combe and the advice of the Attorney-General and his Department-both on 21 April, the day the decision to expel Mr Ivanov was taken, and subsequently. He has expressed complete support for the Government's actions in this matter. Let me stress what I said to the House at the outset of this statement. When issues of national security are at stake, whether they be manifested in terms of foreign espionage activities or by such means as the articles published in the National Times last week, which are prejudicial to the national interest, this Government will not be deterred from resolutely defending that interest, whatever attempt may be made no misrepresent this principled position. Nor shall we attempt to exploit such issues for our own political gains. We will remain committed at the same time to ensuring that in defence of the national interest, there are no transgressions of individual civil liberties. It is perhaps inevitable that there will always be elements of doubt and suspicion in the minds of all Australians in circumstances where there can be less than full disclosure of information. That is a responsibility which a government must accept, and for my part I accept it. But I trust this statement will put to rest the uncertainty of the last few days, and convince all Australians, of whatever political persuasion, of the correctness and fairness of our handling of the matter. A climate of innuendo and deceit, which some have attempted to introduce into this matter, is not one which my Government will be guilty of creating or permitting to flourish. Finally, I am sure that our actions in respect of this matter, and of the National Times articles, will have made it clear to all other governments that in no way will my Government be compromised when matters of our national security are at stake. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-The matter to which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has drawn the attention of the Parliament has come before me, in its typewritten form, only in the last half-hour or so. The Government may have had an extensive period of time to consider it; I simply make the point that on a matter as important as this, despite undertakings to the contrary, I received only 35 minutes notice of this statement. The first point I want to make is that all members of the Opposition, so far as I am aware , and certainly all members of the shadow Cabinet and shadow Ministry, endorse the Government's action in expelling Ivanov. I made that clear publicly, and I have not moved one dint from that. It has not at any time been called into question by the Opposition at all. No question has been raised regarding the expulsion of that Soviet agent. Injecting, as the Prime Minister has, in this statement, allegations and elements of political exploitation is, frankly speaking, mendacious. Yesterday, the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) asked why Ministers were instructed to have no dealings with Mr Combe. The Prime Minister responded in terms that have now been well publicised. The Prime Minister himself earlier had indicated that he would not depart from the normal process of not walking down the path of disclosures in areas of national security; and yet it was the Prime Minister who called into question, by dint of his answer, the role of Mr Combe in this matter. The Prime Minister is responsible for the way in which this matter has blown over the last 24 hours, for it was his answer , and his answer alone, which not merely linked Mr Combe to this affair but denied him, prima facie, even a basic element of civil liberty. Mr Speaker, do remember that this was, by yesterday, a matter of public notoriety, before the Deputy Leader of the National Party rose to ask his question. The problem, of course, was not the question; the problem was created by the answer that was given. The Sunday Telegraph contained an article which, by implication, led to certain conclusions. The Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, on its front page, all but named the person. We learnt during Question Time, by dint of an Australian Associated Press release, that the Caucus had discussed the matter without the person being named. All these transpired before the Deputy Leader of the National Party raised the matter. Prior to that, Liberal Party and National Party members had not been involved. The fundamental error was made by the Prime Minister, who should at all times adhere to the constant practice, as he said himself in the Parliament yesterday, practised by parties on both sides of the political fence, of not walking down the path of disclosure of matters that go to elements of national security. One can neither confirm nor deny; one can neither say that it was someone nor say that it was not someone. That is the practice that has been qualified so severely by the Prime Minister's answer yesterday. In fact, the Prime Minister compromised this Government by the nature of his answer to the Deputy Leader of the National Party yesterday. That was in answer, not to a question fundamentally of national security but, if honourable members will recall, it was a question relating to ministerial dealings with Mr Combe. And yet the Prime Minister walked right down the track of smearing without detail. These matters should never have been brought into the open. These matters do go to the heart of national security and all of these things have been brought about by the Prime Minister's inadequate handling of the matter. The actions of the Opposition have been entirely proper. The questions flowed from Press reports and, indeed, from reports of Caucus discussions and the Prime Minister is straying from the rules. Let me turn-- Honourable members interjecting-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! So far the statements have been listened to in relative silence. I suggest that that continue. Mr PEACOCK —The Prime Minister has indicated that I have been fully briefed on this matter. That is correct. I have also fully supported, as I indicated, the expulsion of Mr Ivanov, the Soviet KGB officer which, by dint of the briefings to me, clearly pointed to fundamental issues of national security being raised. I have-and I think it has been accepted by the Prime Minister-been entirely proper in my conduct in this matter. But the matter goes to the heart of the proper handling of matters of national security and matters of civil liberties and the rights of individuals. At page 4 of the distributed statement read to the Parliament by the Prime Minister, he said: I repeat that the Leader of the Opposition has been fully briefed on all aspects of the Ivanov matter-including the position of Mr Combe and the advice of the Attorney-General and his Department, both on 21 April, the day the decision to expel Mr Ivanov was taken, and subsequently. He has expressed complete support for the Government's actions in this matter. That support was complete in relation to the actions which had remained secret. That support did not go to the matters made public by the Prime Minister, nor did it go to the substance of the question by the Deputy Leader of the National Party regarding, allegedly, no ministerial contact with Mr Combe as a lobbyist, a fact that I knew nothing of and had never been informed of by the Prime Minister at all. I had no notion that Ministers had been so informed. I had been briefed on matters of national security and the matters relating to Mr Combe. I had not been informed, nor need I have been informed, I assume, of whatever directive had been given to Ministers. But do not say to me that by dint of the Prime Minister's response I have therefore given subsequent endorsement to what has transpired. I feel very grave disquiet at what has been in the last few days-which was the time element referred to at the conclusion of the Prime Minister's address-the cavalier manner in which this matter has been handled, not merely in the Parliament but also in the Caucus. There should never have been any straying from the fundamental point that these matters are not commented upon publicly or in the Caucus at all. Once the Prime Minister moves away from that position, he walks down a mine field which he has himself exploded. A judicious Prime Minister would not have spoken in the manner in which he did in this Parliament or in the Caucus. A judicious Prime Minister would not have moved beyond the normal precedent in areas of national security of neither confirming nor denying the allegations. A judicious Prime Minister would not have swept aside normal concepts of civil liberties as he did in this House yesterday and we are, therefore, forced to conclude that the current occupant of the Prime Ministership is not a judicious man. Mr SPEAKER —I wish to inform the House of the following nominations of members to be members of the Standing Committee on Expenditure-- Mr McVeigh-The Prime Minister was going all right until he opened his mouth. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member for Darling Downs that the Standing Orders provide that when Mr Speaker is standing addressing the House all members should observe quiet. Mr Shipton-Does that include the Prime Minister? Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Higgins tries the patience of the Chair. I wish to inform the House of the following nominations of members to be members of the Standing Committee on Expenditure: Mr Baldwin, Mr Robert Brown, Mr Free, Mr McLeay, Mr Allan Morris and Mr Mountford have been nominated by the Government Whip, Mr Goodluck, Mr Tuckey and Mr Wilson have been nominated by the Opposition Whip, Mr Ian Cameron and Mr Lusher have been nominated by the National Party Whip and Mrs Kelly has been nominated by the Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Debate resumed from 4 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(5.56) —The Opposition will support the Taxation (Interest on Overpayments) Bill because it gives effect to a decision of the former Government. The Bill follows an announcement that was made in the last Budget Speech that the penalties for late payment of taxation would be increased from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. That announcement was made because of a decision by the former Government that the old interest rate of 10 per cent had become increasingly irrelevant. It was an interest rate which had been set in 1922 at a time, incidentally, when the long term bond rate was 5 or 6 per cent. As honourable members will be aware, the long term bond rate is now in the order of three times that figure. On that basis alone, a very strong case clearly existed for an increase in the interest rate on unpaid taxation amounts. But over and above the need for that to occur, very considerable evidence had been presented to the former Government, with which the then Opposition agreed, that the relatively low amount of interest charged on unpaid taxation had been exploited, along with the then prevailing fifty-fifty arrangement, as it was known in the accounting profession, by a number of people who had been involved in very large and sophisticated tax avoidance arrangements. As a consequence of that evidence, the former Government came to the conclusion that the most appropriate action was, firstly, to increase the rate of interest from 10 per cent to 20 per cent to reflect more adequately monetary values and interest rates which prevailed at the time and which still, generally speaking, prevail; secondly, to abolish the fifty-fifty rule, which in combination with the low rate of interest had really acted in many cases as an incentive for people indefinitely to dispute and contest the payment of outstanding taxation liabilities; and, thirdly, as it was only fair and reasonable, to give effect to a request that had frequently been put to the Government, not only by the accounting and legal professions but also by members of the public generally, that if taxation amounts are in dispute and as result of the dispute the taxpayer and not the Commissioner of Taxation is victorious it is only proper that the taxpayer, being victorious, should receive some kind of payment of interest on the amount of tax which is refunded, just as that taxpayer is under an obligation to pay interest on the amount which is unpaid if, in fact, the Commissioner is successful. At the time this Bill was announced we had the support of the Opposition. As a consequence of that, we are only too glad to express our support for this measure and indicate that it will receive a very speedy passage through the House of Representatives and no doubt through the other place. I take this opportunity not only to express support for some of the announcements of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) in relation to a continuation of measures in the taxation area announced by the former Government but also to express as I have on a number of occasions my disappointment that the new Government has seen fit not to implement the decision contained in the last Budget to offer a group taxation facility to many Australian companies. This was a recommendation of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System. It was a recommendation which, if implemented, would have been of particular value to Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and its associated companies. At a time when the Government has been expressing very great concern about the employment situation in the steel industry in Australia and has been talking at length about the need to take additional measures to help the steel industry in Australia, it has passed almost without notice, except by the Opposition, that by deciding not to go ahead with this measure the Government is striking a serious blow at the viability of the BHP steel industry . The withdrawal of this tax provsion, which was widely welcomed by many Australian companies and their affiliates, including BHP, sits very strangely at odds with the professed concern of the Government and particularly of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) about the viability of the Australian steel industry. I put it again to the Minister for Finance and through him to the Government that if the Government is really concerned about the viability of the Australian steel industry why is it that one of the Government's first decisions in the taxation area after assuming office was not to implement the group taxation decision that was contained in the last Budget? It was a sensible measure; it was a measure which had been sought by many Australian companies over a long time. It is a facility that is available in the taxation laws of many other countries. It was recommended in the Campbell report and I believe also in the report of the Asprey Taxation Review Committee. It can be brought in with adequate safeguards and adequate protection against abuse. It involves nothing other than a deferral of tax payments and taxation liabilities and, really, it is beyond explanation why a government that is professedly interested in the viability of the Australian steel industry should almost by stealth, as one of its first announcements, deny something which if brought in would be of enormous help to BHP. I hope that I can be given in the course of this debate some explanation by the Minister for Finance as to why this decision was taken. That matter relates to the generality of the taxation policies of the Government. So far as this particular measure is concerned, which deals with interest on overpayments, as I indicated earlier the Government will have the Opposition's total support for a speedy passage of this measure through the House. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(5.59) — The House is considering at the moment the Taxation (Interest on Overpayments) Bill 1983. This legislation was introduced by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) last Wednesday and he explained the nature and particular purposes of it. The former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), referred to the fact that, of all those items of legislation of which notice had been given by the previous Government, one of the three with which the present Government had decided not to persist was that which involved the transfer of losses within company groups. As the former Treasurer indicated, the chief beneficiary in Australia of that particular proposition would have been the BHP group of companies. The honourable member for Bennelong also asked for an explanation as to why the present Government has decided not to persist with that proposition. The simple reason is that this proposal would have allowed company groups to offset a loss suffered by one company in the group against the taxable income of another company in that same group. The Government is taking advantage of the opportunity to investigate further the revenue and other implications of this measure. Despite the honourable member for Bennelong's request for some indication of the Government's concern and actions in relation to the problems that the BHP group of companies is experiencing at present, I think he and everyone else is fully aware of the fact that very significant and important discussions are taking place in the Steel Industry Advisory Council. That Council includes steel industry representatives as well as the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button. Those discussions are continuing. The simple fact remains that a government has two hands. It is not necessary for us to assume, as a result of this Government being concerned about the implications of that measure and deciding at this time not to proceed with it, that that necessarily indicates any dereliction of responsibility or awareness of the particular problems that BHP is experiencing. It was estimated that the cost of that proposal would vary in the first year alone from something like $100m to $200m. It is not possible to be more specific about the possible cost but when amounts of that kind are involved it would be a serious deficiency on the part of the Government simply to accept without further investigation, without further inquiry, the proposition that the previous Government was putting forward and to be perfectly satisfied that in the light of that type of cost the measure was appropriate and one which was most likely to achieve the sorts of objectives desired. I have some personal regard for the honourable member for Bennelong and for the qualities that he brought to the position of Treasurer. It is relevant, though, that the honourable member for Bennelong should have drawn attention to the fact that there are, as I have said, three items of legislation-three items out of 16 taxation measures which had been announced by the former Government-which the present Government has chosen not to pursue. It is also relevant that the honourable member for Bennelong then had primary responsibility as Treasurer of Australia not only to foreshadow the legislation which was proposed but also to bring that legislation into effect. Some of those 16 measures which still required legislative action by the previous Government were announced as long ago as December 1981. The former Treasurer must accept some personal responsibility for that. It was a shame that the members of the Liberal Party should have forgone the degree of substance which relates to the member for Bennelong in their election of a leader after the resignation of their former leader and Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Malcolm Fraser. Instead of going for a person with some substance the Liberals chose to select someone with plenty of veneer but lacking almost entirely in substance. I suggest that the members of the Liberal Party will have cause to regret the decision that they made. The way in which that decision was made is very well indicated by the number of members who attempt to squeeze on to the Opposition front benches. We know why most of them are there. Most of them are there as a pay-off from the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), the present Leader of the Opposition; those people may have been vacillating in the degree of support that they were prepared to show to him. That is the way in which the honourable member for Bennelong was betrayed and knifed by his colleagues. We look at the back bench on the Opposition side to identify some of those people who gave support to the honourable member for Bennelong, the man of substance. We look at the front bench for those people who obtained a pay-off for their betrayal of the man of some substance in preference for the man with plenty of veneer and plenty of show but not very much substance. Mr Groom —Why are you back there? You are a Bill Hayden man. Mr ROBERT BROWN —We have seen them. The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) has seen them. They practically spill over the edge. There are more people on the front bench of the Opposition in order just to shadow Ministers than we have on the front bench to administer a government. The Opposition front benches are not big enough to accommodate them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr ROBERT BROWN —They spill over the edge. We know why they are there. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr ROBERT BROWN —In deference to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will get back to the subject. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I believe you have anticipated my remarks. I ask the honourable member to relate his remarks to the Bill. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The fact that the previous Government failed to give effect to 16 taxation measures indicates the complete shambles that taxation legislation was in at the time of the change of government. It also indicates the fact that the former Government was preoccupied with the need to manipulate a favourable political climate for the election. It had abandoned any responsibility for effective government. Despite the very serious situation in which the Australian economy was placed, and the very serious impositions on the Australian people, the former Government reneged on its responsibility to provide effective government and effective administration. That is very well indicated by the fact that 16 taxation measures, which had been announced by the former Government, were not carried into legislation. Some of those measures were announced as long ago as December 1981. With great credit the present Minister for Finance has indicated that of those 16 measures nine will be ready for this May sitting. Of the 16 measures, four will proceed in the Budget sitting. That leaves the three- one of which the honourable member for Bennelong referred to-with which this Government has decided at this stage not to proceed. The general questions in this legislation with which we are concerned at present relate to provisions which will give authority to the Commissioner of Taxation to pay interest on certain refunds of tax made as a result of a successful objection or appeal by a taxpayer against an assessment or other specified decision of the Commissioner. It will apply to those taxes which will incur a penalty tax of 20 per cent if they are not paid by the due date. There are three particular areas in which that provision applies: First, to income tax including provisional tax; secondly, to recoupment tax which is payable under the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act; and, finally, to the bank accounts debit tax. It is appropriate that a provision of this kind be made because during last year legislation was introduced in the Parliament by the former Government, supported by the Opposition and enacted, to increase the percentage of the penalty tax for those particular types of taxation from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. The honourable member for Bennelong has referred to the reason for that. In view of the substantial increase which had taken place in government bond rates, the 10 per cent rate ceased to be appropriate. That 20 per cent application became effective in February of this year. In the light of that higher penalty tax, it is appropriate that people who feel obliged, as a result of that higher penalty, to pay the tax which is under challenge or which is the subject of appeal and who pay that tax before the due date should expect that the Government or the Commissioner of Taxation would pay interest on that money if, finally, their appeal or challenge is upheld. This indicates also that, while the present Government undoubtedly will be firm in its approach to taxation matters, as it indicated in Opposition, it will at the same time not be insensitive to the types of situations in which taxpayers often find themselves as a result of legitimate challenges and legitimate appeals which they may make against decisions of the Commissioner of Taxation. Of course, interest will also be payable where the tax which would otherwise be refunded is applied by the Commissioner against some other tax liability of that taxpayer. As the legislation indicates, the rate of interest initially will be set at 14.026 per cent per annum which results from the application of a formula which applies the weighted average of yields of the longest term Treasury bonds contracted for in the most recent bond tender. Subsequent variations of that percentage will be made by regulation. It will not be necessary for the Minister for Finance to come back to the House on every occasion when some adjustment needs to be made. Interest will accrue only in respect of periods since 14 February 1983 which is the date from which the increase of the penalty tax from 10 per cent to 20 per cent is to apply. The question of taxation reform in Australia, and changes of the kind we are seeing introduced now, are matters of critical importance. The honourable member for Bennelong knows the frequency and the concern with which questions on taxation reform were raised by the Labor Party when it was in Opposition. I refer to a commitment, an undertaking, by the Labor Party as a political party on taxation reform. Just last year at our national conference the preamble of our taxation platform was varied and the new preamble which was adopted states in part: Labor recognises that the tax system has become grossly inequitable since 1975. I intercede that that is a very critical date. The preamble continues: There has been a deliberate reduction in the progressivity of the tax schedule, rampant tax avoidance and evasion, provision of tax concessions to wealthy groups, and increasing reliance on indirect taxation. The reworded platform from that national conference last year continues: A Labor Government will change this situation by basing the tax system firmly on the principle of ability to pay, on the need for an adequate minimum standard of living, and on the desirability of reducing inequality in the Australian community. It is quite clear that the Labor Party as a political party in Australia recognises the relationship between questions of taxation reform and the whole question of equity in the treatment of Australian citizens and in the standard of the material welfare that Australian families are able to enjoy. There is probably no more important factor in bringing about some social equalisation of material welfare in our type of society than that brought about as a result of the operation of the taxation system. It is interesting that during the period of the former Government from 1975 until last year the size of the Income Tax Assessment Act increased from in excess of 400 pages to 1,100 pages. That was the situation at one stage during 1982. In 1936, the Income Tax Assessment Act numbered 120 pages. Increasing the provisions in the legislation by way of amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act not only increases the size and the complexity of that Act but also is responsible for creating a situation in which some people in the community are able to manipulate the provisions of the Act in order to take unfair advantage of the actual legal wording of the provisions. That is occurring as a result of the increasing complexity of the Act. It has become increasingly easy for those people to take advantage of it. As long ago as 1980, during the Federal election campaign then, the then Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong, criticised the Australian Labor Party's plan for a royal commission to be held on wealth and income distribution . On that occasion he said that already there had been a large number of inquiries into the taxation system and nothing could be gained by holding another inquiry. After the Labor Party had promoted the proposal to hold a royal commission and after the election was held, the then Treasurer confirmed that the Australian Taxation Office had been ordered to prepare a range of options on taxation. Mr Howard said: I stress that it is part of the responsibilities of the Treasurer and of the Government . . . to have a look at our tax system from time to time and to ask a few fundamental questions as to whether we have the right taxation base. It sounds very good that the former Treasurer should have said such a thing, but did he in fact from time to time ask a few fundamental questions as to whether we had the right taxation base? I would like to pay him the courtesy of suggesting that he did no such thing. Had he done so, how would it have been possible for Professor Russell Mathews at the Summer School, Australian Institute of Political Science, in January 1982 to have made the statement which he did? This was a good 12 months after the former Treasurer had said that from to time we should ask a few fundamental questions about the equity of the taxation system or whether we had the right tax base. I ask how it would have been possible, after six years of the former Government being in office and, I think, after four years of the former Treasurer having responsibilities in that area, for Professor Mathews, if the former Government had done the job properly, to have made the following statement: If Governments and taxation authorities were to set out deliberately to design a taxation system which would erode the liquidity that small businesses need to function effectively, which would discriminate in favor of speculative activity and against enterprise and thrift, and which would give preference to foreign taxpayers over Australian residents, it would be difficult for them to improve on the existing Australian system. He went on to say: If Governments were to set out, deliberately to design a taxation system which would redistribute income from the poor to the rich, which would substantially relieve the rich of the cost of financing social welfare transfers and public services, which would consciously discriminate against wage and salary incomes in favor of other incomes and capital gains, which would distort the pattern of consumption and production, and which would provide a major stimulus to wage inflation and industrial conflict, it would be difficult for them to develop a set of tax arrangements that would be more successful in meeting such perverse objectives than the existing Australian system. The former Government engineered the taxation system; it was its chief architect . The former Government put it in place. What an indictment of the former Government's approach to taxation questions and taxation reform, that it should ever have been referred by a responsible and very highly reputed academic such as Professor Russell Mathews in words such as those? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(6.20) —In rising to speak to the Taxation (Interest on Overpayments) Bill, may I congratulate you, Mr Johnson, on your appointment as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees. I pay tribute also to the former Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees, the honourable member for Wide Bay, Mr Millar, who is sitting in the House. I think it is fair that I should pay that tribute for I know that he would have been an example to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in the short time that you served as his deputy in that position. Certainly I wish you all the very best in the chair of judgment that you occupy. Turning to the Bill, I wish to add a few points which were neglected by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown). The Bill itself is a measure that was anticipated in the 1982 Budget and is just a flow- on of the practice of legislating subsequently for those measures foreshadowed in the Budget. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) raised several questions as to when some of these other measures will come through this Parliament in the manner anticipated in the Budget. I note a question that was answered by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) earlier this week or later last week in connection with the number of Bills that were left over from the taxation measures. He suggested that there was some considerable doubt whether the Government would get around to proceeding with that proposed legislation. The main provision of the Bill is that the 20 per cent penalty tax for the late payment of income tax is being offset in certain cases where refunds are due to taxpayers because of dispute by the Australian Taxation Office or where the Taxation Office is waiting for the result of an objection to some decision. The rate of interest of 14.026 per cent will be paid, as is applicable at the moment . The second reading speech of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) also indicates that that interest will be assessible as income. I ask the Minister for Finance whether the 20 per cent penalty rate, which is often paid in advance and, incorrectly, might be allowed as a taxation deduction. This Bill, I believe, does redress some of the inequities that exist in the Income Tax Assessment Act. The honourable member for Hunter has referred already to the vast volumes of the Act. I have heard him speak in this House on many occasions with the freedom of Opposition membership. He was able to make rash statements and promises which do not have to be met now that he has been transferred to the Government benches. I intend to refer to that aspect later. Perhaps some of those inequities about which we spoke when we were in Government will be redressed in the term of his Government. Income equalisation deposits and the averaging system that is available to primary producers might be further extended to those service industries which deal predominantly with primary industries that are subject to the fluctuations in prices, the droughts, the floods and the bad times, as are their clients, the primary producers. Those are just one or two examples. I am glad that the honourable member for Hunter has spoken on this Bill. Going back through the records, I find it would appear that the reason he mentioned the full front bench on this side of the House was that he now sits on the back benches on the other side. He was responsible predominately when in Opposition for taxation matters; he spoke on taxation matters when the present Government was in Opposition. I pay him credit for the fact that he was born in a good year and in a good month. He is slightly older than I am, but there the comparison ends. On the other hand, the Minister for Finance, when he was in Opposition, had very little to say about taxation matters. Perhaps it is only because of the strict adherence by the honourable member for Hunter to a political philosophy or because he followed too closely in the steps of the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden, that he has been relegated to the back bench and is not a member of the front bench. I am very sorry about that. I would have thought that , not so much because of his knowledge but as a result of the great number of words of wisdom that he spoke from the benches of the Opposition he should have been relegated to the front bench. Then again that is another matter. In that respect I refer to the great liberties that an Opposition can take from its position. I use as an illustration an extract from a speech made by the honourable member for Hunter on 27 October 1982 concerning the terrible things that were happening under our Government as far as tax evasion and tax avoidance were concerned. I think the honourable member would give us credit for the previous Treasurer putting tax avoidance measures, at some considerable extension of the Income Tax Assessment Act, into their proper perspective and closing them off as quickly as attention was alerted to them. The honourable member is reported on page 2627 of Hansard of 27 October as saying: The position in Australia at present is that through tax evasion and avoidance the Treasury, the Commonwealth Government, and all of the taxpayers in Australia who meet their responsibilities are being ripped off-- They would be the honourable member's words, would they not- to the extent of probably $7,000m every year. Of course these figures cannot be refuted. They have been supplied by much more eminent authorities than I would ever claim to be. Mr Robert Brown —I was being modest. Mr BRAITHWAITE —The honourable member is even being modest on this occasion, too . The honourable member also said: Whenever I say anything in this House I will be able to support it. The honourable member pointed out that to compensate for this loss of revenue every household was paying $30 extra per week and every pay-as-you-earn taxpayer was paying an extra $25 per week. I just mention again the figure of $7 billion and the firm commitment that the honourable member has given to us that the Government will be firm in its total dedication to the eradication of this underground economy. What firmness! A question-I think it was a Dorothy Dixer- was asked earlier this week why the Minister for Finance was going soft on the cash economy. The marvellous answer came back that this was one of the uncompleted bits of business; that he had to put it into place, as though he were under some obligation to do so. However, the $7 billion that was being claimed by the honourable member for Hunter in 1982 turns out to be a miserable $300m under firm and total commitment of the Government to close this area of tax evasion. That is the amount of money that eventually the Government expects to get by way of a withholding tax on the building industry. What a firm and dedicated commitment that turned out to be! We are going to get $300m out of an amount of $7 billion which the honourable member said he could support as being the amount that was being ripped off. That is a great start! I hope the Government goes a little bit further than that. Mr Howard —They really believe in gradualism. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Yes, it would be good if they started somewhere, would it not? If they did, they could be gradual. These allegations can flow very softly from the mouths of people in opposition. I am sure that we will not be accused of doing that. But when it comes to putting this into effect it is a case of too much rhetoric in opposition and too little action in government. That is one of the areas that I would just like to mention. Within this House we have had plenty of comment by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke ) and his disciples and converts, who now represent the Government, in respect of the economic policy of the previous Government and the projected deficit of $ 9.5 billion. Perhaps if the Government got its act together $7 billion would be available to counteract that deficit. However, I doubt that the Minister for Finance has the capacity to come to grips with the rhetoric of previous statements. Although the comments of the honourable member for Hunter might have been made in a different context, I agree with him that the cash economy is a growing industry and is undermining our total economy. The honourable member mentioned an amount of $7 billion. The Australian of 25 April reports that Craig Emerson of the Australian National University, in a paper entitled 'The hidden economy', estimates that the cash economy throughout the world varies from 4 per cent to 30 per cent but that in Australia there are estimates that this is as high as 36 per cent as compared with the legal economy. I think that itself is a matter of some grave concern for a government, for an opposition and for a parliament. There is no doubt that the stronger the cash or underground economy the more the poor have to pay. They are the ones who are dependent on tax payments; they are the ones who probably in their own way cannot avoid or evade the payment of tax. It is the poor of the country who are suffering in this regard. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8.30 p.m. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Mr Speaker, I take the opportunity afforded by your presence of congratulating you on your election and upon taking the chair as Speaker. It is probably the most important role in the House. I know from the way you filled the position of Deputy Speaker while you were in Opposition that you will do the same fine job as was done by your predecessors. Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was able to give some figures on the cash economy. I reiterate that it is an area that both the Government and the Opposition should be considering and trying to come to grips with. Hand in glove with the cash economy are frauds on the social security system. Both operate as thieves of the common public purse. The other matter to which I would like to address myself is failure to keep promises that the Labor Party made prior to the elections. I appreciate that much is attributed to the projected 1983-84 deficit of some $9.6 billion, but I explained that aspect before the sitting was suspended. I would like to reiterate some of the broken promises that were made on taxes. Firstly, an indication was given by the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that tax reductions would become effective immediately; that he was not promising a handful of dollars that would be ripped back after the elections. Yet the latter is what has happened. Secondly, there has been a diminution of the promised 3c a litre reduction in the price of fuel. We were also promised that devaluation would not take place. Those promises were broken. There has been only a 1 1/2c reduction in the price of fuel which, I might add, has not yet flowed through to the petrol bowser. Not only motorists but also those who live in outlying areas where fuel is a major consideration and source of cost are wondering just what Labor's promises will amount to. The third example of Labor's failure to honour promises concerns the imposition of sales tax on retreaded motor tyres. On 4 May 1983, in response to a question on the matter, concerning which there had been not merely a promise but a documented Cabinet indication that sales tax would not be imposed, the Prime Minister said: Faced with that decision of the Commissioner of Taxation, the previous Government took no action to upset his finding, and in the absence of action the finding would have continued to have the effect which we are to continue to allow it to have. When members of the previous Government got towards an election, they said something like: 'We may not allow the finding of the Commissioner of Taxation to operate'. He went on: I acknowledge that there was an indication by one of the members of the then Opposition that, if we became the Government, we may take steps to reverse that decision of the Commissioner of Taxation. That is a major departure from a very important election promise. Certainly, prior to the elections, in view of the undertakings given by the Labor Party, the contractors of Australia, the bus proprietors of Australia, the people who run the buses for school children, were of the opinion that, irrespective of who was elected, legislation would be put into effect to ensure that no sales tax would be imposed on tyre retreads. In his answer to that question the Prime Minister glibly attempted to get over the matter by saying that the previous Government had said 'something like' what he then stated; also, that some type of indication had been given by a member of the then Opposition-- Mr Lloyd —A very rubbery answer. Mr BRAITHWAITE —It was a very rubbery answer. One might say that it was a retreaded promise. It is something that the Government will have to live with. How many more of its promises will it retread and put forward in a different fashion? It has not yet delivered upon a promise in this respect. Always the failure to do so is excused by the extent of the deficit. In that regard, I find it incomprehensible that the deficit projection for 1983-84 has not been put in its proper light. A forward projection of that nature, made six or eight months before the actual presentation of the Budget, can only be that-a projection or estimate. I suggest that programs would have been altered in one way or the other to ensure that a deficit of $9.6 billion would not eventuate. Every promise that the Labor Party made prior to the elections has been broken. In every case the excuse given has been the size of the projected deficit. On the other hand, while the Government cannot deliver the goods in that direction it has been able to pluck out of the air, pluck out of the bag or pluck out of somewhere or other $115m for Trans Australia Airlines, $60m for Qantas Airways Ltd and, in 1983-84, $90m for the Australian National Line. Mr Duffy —What would you have done? Mr BRAITHWAITE —I am not questioning the right or wrong of what has been done. I am merely saying that while Labor has failed to meet definite promises such as I have described it now seeks to provide money for these other purposes, about which nothing was said prior to the election, where do the Government's priorities lie? The people of Australia might well ask why the promises on tax matters were not honoured. I repeat, the people were promised an immediate reduction in taxation, a reduction of excise on fuel and an absence of sales tax on tyre retreads. Why should it not deliver on those promises yet provide funds for purposes which, as far as I know, were not the subject of projections prior to the election. Again, one might ask why the promise to reduce taxation is not to be honoured yet, on the other hand, the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) is able to say: 'We will put our hands further into the public purse for the purpose of electioneering funding'. One could find no greater examples of hypocrisy than those that I have given. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this is a measure to which the Opposition will agree because it merely follows one of the avenues that were open to us under the Budget. But, speaking to it generally, I hope that the Government will apply itself to the problem of the Income Tax Assessment Act, at its volume, complexity and the manner in which it has been patched up ever since its conception back in the 1930s. I hope that it will do what it said it would do while it was in Opposition-deliver an Act that is comprehensible, fair, equitable and everything else that it promised. That is the challenge on which the Government will now have to deliver. I do not believe that it can because Labor had the opportunity to do so between 1972 and 1975 and did nothing about it. I support the Bill and ask the Minister to note the matters that have been raised by both the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) and me in this regard. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Debate resumed from 4 May, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(8.39) —Mr Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House has a general debate covering this Bill and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 as they are related matters. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these matters? As there is no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(8.40) —The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill constitute very significant legislation for the future of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. As that organisation occupies a central position for broadcasting in Australia, these Bills are also significant for broadcasting and for Australia generally. This legislation, apart from several major alterations, is the same legislation that was introduced into, and passed by, this House last September. The legislation followed a sequence of events commencing with the announcement in May 1979 by the then Minister for Communications in the Fraser-Anthony Government, the Honourable Tony Staley, that there would be a committee of review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission with Mr Alex Dix as the chairman. The then Government initiated the inquiry because of the considerable criticism of the role and performance of the ABC in general broadcasting. There were also demands for a better legislative base for the ABC and for its role and independence to be better defined. As the ABC was approaching 50 years of service to Australian broadcasting, it was an appropriate time to conduct a general review. The Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission reported to the Government in May 1981. After careful consideration the then Minister for Communications, the Honourable Neil Brown, published the Government's response to that report in July 1982. The ministerial statement provided those interested in the future of the ABC with an opportunity to comment on the attitude of the Government before the legislation was introduced by Mr Brown in this House on 9 September 1982. The legislation was passed by the House and later introduced into the Senate where the debate was adjourned after the reply by the then Labor Party spokesman, Senator Button. One of the intriguing aspects of the furore over the past two weeks over the ABC Four Corners program and allegations of bias by Senator Button is that in spite of the official ministerial responsibility for the ABC being with the honourable member for Holt (Mr Duffy) as the Minister for Communications, Senator Button seems to be unaware of this to his, the Minister's, and the Government's embarrassment. The major purpose of the Bills is to recognise the special role of the ABC in Australian broadcasting by providing it with special and separate legislation. For the first time there is to be a charter defining the program role of the ABC. There will be a new corporate structure including an Australian Broadcasting Corporation Advisory Council to be appointed by the Corporation. A complaints procedure is to be established. One of the amendments I will be moving on behalf of the Opposition in the Committee of the Whole will be to replace the internal arrangements proposed in this Bill with an ABC complaints commission. The ABC will also be freed of Public Service control, restrictions on overseas travel will be removed and domestic news from non-ABC sources will be permitted. All of these proposals reaffirm the previous Government's commitment to an independent, publicly accountable ABC. The events and revelations of the past two weeks, however, indicate that the present Government is not so committed. That is the reason for the second reading amendment I will be moving at the conclusion of this speech. The Labor Government has, however, made several significant alterations to the Fraser-Anthony legislation. They are the deletion of the no work as directed, no pay clauses and, as I said earlier, the replacement of an independent complaints commission with an internally employed principal community affairs officer. We will oppose both of these changes and move appropriate amendments during the Committee stage. A new clause has been inserted in the charter for the Corporation to take note of the multiculturalism of the Australian community. We support this clause. But its insertion creates suspicion about the long term attitude of the Labor Government to the Special Broadcasting Service. This Government has already announced the termination of a separate and identifiable ethnic radio by its amalgamation or, more correctly, its takeover by public broadcasting. Does this clause mean that Labor will also terminate the Special Broadcasting Service and place the 0-28 television network under the ABC? What of Labor's so-called commitment to the ethnic communities of Australia? Other changes include the appointment of a staff director, the appointment of a union representative to the various appeal boards, a further defining of the guarantee that the ABC must maintain an adequate news gathering staff and that there will be no transfer in the short term of staff from Telecom Australia to the ABC. In addition to those aspects of Labor's attitude to the ABC which support the previous Government's legislation and those which are different, there is a third category about which the Labor Government is not sure what it will do. In fact, it has changed its mind three times on the issue. I refer to the method of appointment of the Board of Directors of the proposed new Corporation. Labor policy prior to the election was for its appointment by a parliamentary committee. As with so many of Labor's promises, the Minister announced a few weeks ago that this promise would not be kept. Following the immediate challenge by Senator Chipp, the Minister changed this position again to one that allowed the possibility of a committee. Now, in the second reading speech, the Minister has stated that the Government will be considering how consultations can be held with other political parties regarding nominations for the new board. Does this mean that a compromise acceptable to the Australian Democrats is being considered? What other political parties will be consulted? If it does not mean this, will the Minister please tell me what it does mean? Mr Duffy —What political parties are involved? Mr LLOYD —When the Minister was talking about the appointment of directors to the new Corporation, he said in his second reading speech that the Government will be considering how consultations can be held with other political parties regarding nominations. Perhaps the Minister can explain in his reply what he really means by that? Does he just mean the Australian Democrats or is he referring to all political parties? I ask just what the intention of the Government is, because it has changed its mind several times on this point. Mr Duffy —Oh no, the Opposition will get a guernsey. Mr LLOYD —I am just making the point that the Government has changed its position from one where there would be parliamentary appointments to there not being parliamentary appointments, and again in response to Senator Chipp, to a position where there may be parliamentary appointments. Now, it is said that perhaps the Government will talk to some political parties. I would like to hear the Minister's position, and whether it still remains the same by the time the second reading debate is wound up. Before moving to the three major issues in this debate-the independence of the ABC, the removal of the no work as directed, no pay clauses and the need for an independent complaints commission-I want to draw the attention of the ABC commissioners and management to the concern in country areas that there may be a change to the Country Hour. This program has been the ABC's major and very successful contribution to Australian agriculture for about 40 years. From the comments of senior ABC management officials over the last few weeks, the Country Hour is now under threat. It is under threat in three ways. There is, I understand, a long term proposal to move the Country Hour from the second to the third or regional network. Thus, it will not be available for all Australians to hear. There is also the more immediate proposal to reduce the Country Hour to only half an hour and to change the commencement time to 1 p.m. I ask the ABC commissioners and management to retain the present arrangement and not to change , reduce or replace a popular and valuable program for country people. This Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill has omitted all the no work as directed, no pay provisions that were in the original Bill. This is obviously a payback for the financial and general support given by the unions at the last Federal election. But it places the management of the ABC in an impossible position. Management must have some sanctions if it is to manage. I acknowledge that sanctions must be a last resort, and they are no substitute for sensible ongoing consultations between employers and employees whether they be in the public or the private sector. This particular deletion is the first of what will be an attempt by the Labor Government to remove this sanction from all Commonwealth legislation. For that reason, the Opposition will show its continuing strong commitment to the principle of no work as directed, no pay, by moving for its restoration at the Committee stage. The continuing outbursts by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button), including one he made in the Senate today, and the revelations that have followed those outbursts have created the remarkable situation that at the very time we are debating and passing legislation to strengthen the independence of the ABC that very independence is being threatened as never before in its history. These revelations have shown to the Australian people not only the lie of the Labor Government's claim to consensus but also the bullying nature of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). As numerous media reports, commentaries and editorials have highlighted, the consensus is dead and, in fact, in reality it never existed. It was a sham because almost his first day as Leader of the Opposition the honourable member for Wills (Mr Hawke) revealed his true approach by immediately attempting to heavy anyone who dared to disagree with him. The phone call of 8 May by Messrs Button and Hawke also destroyed another myth about the Australian Labor Party-that of supporting an independent ABC. Once again the Australian media has been unanimous in its reaction to that phone call. It was a blatant attempt to influence the programming policy of the ABC. But political interference and bullying were not restricted to the present Prime Minister. The most extraordinary behaviour, then and now, belongs to Senator Button. He claimed in the Senate that Dame Leonie Kramer had not always acted without fear or favour. He insinuated that he had damning evidence of this but in fairness he would write to her and leave it to her to reveal the letter, implying that if she was game to do so-that is, to reveal the letter-it would be self-incriminating. However, he had miscalculated the character of the Chairman of the ABC which means that he must be a very slow learner after all the exchanges that obviously had taken place between the two people. Professor Kramer, acting without fear or favour, refused to be restricted to the one-sided rule Senator Button had attempted to impose and revealed the other and more significant complaint of bullying that the Australian Labor Party had attempted to make against her. He attempted to restrict the debate and the judgment of the people of Australia to an aside about President Reagan. Professor Kramer not only corrected the actual details of that aside but also revealed the far more significant issue of the heated phone call from the honourable member for Wills. Day by day as the television, radio and Press confrontation developed between Senator Button and the Chairman several things became apparent. First, Professor Kramer was more than a match for Senator Button. She had the facts and the cool manner of someone who knew she had the facts on her side. She has won every round of the battle and the appointment of a royal commission vindicates her overall approach to the issue. If a popularity contest were held in Australia today the runaway winners would be Cliff Young, that remarkable long distance runner, and Professor Kramer. She has done more for the status of women in Australia in a week than all the rhetoric in this place for years. I will repeat that because so many women have said how proud they feel about the way Professor Kramer handled herself in the most unfair attack that was made on her as Chairman of the ABC. She has done more for the status of women in Australia in a week than all the rhetoric in this place for years. The second is that Senator Button had attempted to discredit the Chairman and the commissioners of the ABC so that the Labor Government would be able to appoint, without criticism, a completely new chairman and commission. Well, Senator Button has lost that battle also because the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has been forced to indicate that Professor Kramer would be on any list he proposed. If the Minister has changed his mind on that he can say so when he sums up this debate. The third point is that more than ever there is a need for legislation and safeguards in that legislation not only to guarantee the independence of the ABC but also to guarantee it in such a way that it is obvious to all Australians that the independence is safe from the behind-the- scenes bullying of the Prime Minister of Australia. For this to happen, the first thing that the Government must do is not to proceed with this legislation until the legal action against the ABC by the stood-down Premier of New South Wales is concluded. The present Chairman and members of the Commission must be retained until that action is concluded. The best way to do this is not to proceed with this legislation for the time being and for the Minister for Communications to continue or to renew the appointment of the present commissioners. Professor Kramer, in particular, must remain Chairman until the action is concluded and she must do so for the following reasons: If she is removed from office after this attempt by Senator Button to denigrate her impartiality it will be seen by all Australians as political assassination and there will be a dramatic loss of confidence in the independence of the ABC. Secondly, the present commissioners must also continue in office so that the defence of the ABC against the legal action instituted by the stood-down Premier is resolutely maintained. If a new commission or corporation is appointed by this Government then there is a danger or at least a public suspicion that the new commission will not provide the necessary support for the action. There will be fear that a private deal will be made to settle the action. There would be apprehension amongst those in the ABC who so painstakingly pieced the Four Corners story together over four months, an apprehension that they would be deserted after all of those months of effort by a new commission appointed by this Government which would do a deal with the Premier of New South Wales. Thirdly, because of Senator Button and the Prime Minister, there is also more than ever the necessity for a completely independent complaints commission to be set up not only to act independently but also to be seen to be independent. The sensible way to meet this requirement is to adopt the British Broadcasting Corporation complaints commission structure where the commissioners must be independent of the BBC or in our case any commissioners we appoint would have to be independent of the ABC. The Government's proposal, on the other hand, is, if this legislation is successful, for a community affairs officer who is appointed by and employed by the ABC. The Government, in reply, may say: 'Look at part of the legislation you had in 1982 and your complaints procedures at that time.' The reality is that the amendments that I will be moving at the Committee stage are the very amendments that the previous Government had drafted for resubmission to the Senate. Those amendments basically incorporate the BBC complaints procedure for Australia and the ABC. There is no point in any honourable member on the other side of the House raising arguments about the original Bill and the complaints procedure incorporated in it. The previous Government rightly and in response, I think, to some justified criticism, had moved away from that position and had moved to the position of adopting the BBC complaints formula which anybody who has any knowledge of these procedures around the world acknowledges is not only a fair complaints arrangement but also , equally important, is seen to be a fair and independent complaints arrangement . Because of the extraordinary situation we have seen over the last two weeks of Senator Button attempting to discredit the Chairman and the commissioners of the ABC, a complaints commission is now an even more pivotal part of the legislation . I hope that the Government will see the sense of this proposal when the amendment is formally put in the Committee stage. Because of the disquiet that the people of Australia have about the attack by Senator Button on the ABC in the last two weeks and the revelation following that attack of the blatant attempt by the Prime Minister to bully the ABC, to influence it away from its ' without fear or favour' principles and practice, in an endeavour to settle that disquiet, I move the following amendment: That all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'the House is of the opinion that the Bill should not be proceeded with until- (1) the legal action against the Australian Broadcasting Commission instituted by the Premier of New South Wales is concluded, and (2) an assurance is given by the Government- (a) that no action will be taken to alter the existing membership of the Commission until the Bill is again before the House at the conclusion of those legal proceedings, and (b) that there will be no Government interference with the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in its programming policy'. The DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Is the amendment seconded. Mr Fisher —I second the amendment. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(9.2) —As I enter the debate on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill this evening, I congratulate the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) for bringing this legislation before the House so promptly and so early in the life of this Parliament. So many conservative Ministers have sat on their hands not knowing what to do in regard to the many complex matters involved in the communications industry. When I say 'communications', I am, of course, speaking not only of telecommunications but also of the entire broadcasting and media industries. I wish to say a few words about those broader aspects later. This legislation came before this House in September last year. The present Government decided that before reintroducing this very complex and important legislation it would make certain changes to it. One important change is the new charter that the Australian Broadcasting Commission will have under this legislation which is, of course, its own Act of Parliament. A new provision in the charter requires the ABC to take account of the multicultural character of our community. This is a very important change considering the continually changing character of the society in which we live. Another change is the replacement of the commissioner for complaints with the more sensible introduction of Community Affairs Offices, which was recommended by the Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission entitled 'The ABC In Review', more commonly known as the Dix report. That was recommendation 19, a fact that the now Opposition seems to forget. This new provision in the Bill relating to community affairs offices, which are to be established in each State cuts out the Buck Rogers nature of the commissioner for complaints section that the Fraser Government had inserted in the 1982 version of this legislation. I quote from my speech on 16 September last year when this legislation was last before the Parliament. I said: . . . I really doubt the wisdom of the provision for a Commissioner for Complaints. When all the pieces are put together it makes one's imagination run riot. Imagine a Commissioner for Complaints running around with his little notebook ready for action, firing bullets at any ABC person who zigs instead of zags. This position, as it is proposed, could also be used in a rather political way . . . I still stand by those remarks this evening. I point out to honourable members that I believe the broadcasting industry now and over the next few decades will be an ever evolving industry and one that will need constant monitoring. I therefore believe that some of the sections of this very complex legislation may have to be reviewed from time to time in the next decade as the new Australian Broadcasting Corporation settles into its new charter and operation as a broadcasting corporation. I refer now to the Dix report from which this legislation virtually evolved. There is quite an interesting piece of information on page 229 of that report. Paragraph 11.7 states: Provided that the ratings are kept firmly in their place, the Committee of Review consider that the ABC should be free to serve 'the diversity of interests of the Australian public', as Justice in Broadcasting urges. Justice in Broadcasting put forward submission No. 1509 to the inquiry. The report continues: This means that the ABC should inform, illuminate, inspire, educate and entertain. In this way, it will do much to satisfy the demand evident in the ANOP survey findings that its programs should provide for the 'general community ' rather than for the sections of the community that the commercial stations do not cater for. I turn to page 235 of the same report where, in discussing the report of the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, commonly known as FACTS and the report of the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters, commonly known as FARB, the inquiry in part claimed this in paragraph 11.34: The ABC on the other hand should be more limited in its aspirations, and should be constrained to concentrate on programming which is essentially aimed at minorities . . . We see a divergence in opinion, one could say from vested interests, in an attempt to stifle the expansion of the ABC and its interests. I hope that is not the case. I believe that in the general thrust of the broadcasting industry we have to work together. There has to be a good and viable commercial industry but at the same time we must have an ABC which is also viable, strong and able to compete. Its new charter does not suggest that it should compete right across the board. But it does give it a fairly flexible mode of operation which, under the new set up of the Board of Directors of seven to nine people, I believe should streamline the operation and we should see a better run and more capable ABC competing in many areas. Also, as I mentioned in this House before, it could possibly move towards obtaining, at some time in the future, a second ABC television network run on similar lines to the two ABC radio networks we have in Australia. That is some time off, but I can see its occurring with one of the ABC television stations operating in a more general populous mode with the other specialising as occurs in the radio networks at present. In addition to the new challenges which face the ABC, I mention also cable television, radiated subscription television and satellite television. Probably the latter two will very strongly bring the ABC to the fore in the next few years. Decisions will have to be made by this Government. They are decisions, as I mentioned earlier, which the previous Government did not want to make. It sat on its hands. Successive former Ministers did not really know what to do with RSTV. They were not quite sure what to do with satellite television, who it was to go to and what transponders were to be used, et cetera. Those complex questions are now a matter for this Government to determine and implement its decisions. I am quite sure that the Minister at the table has the capacity and the backup to do that. He has shown that by the early introduction of this Bill into the House. I now move to the amendment moved by the Opposition. I always thought the Opposition was hypocritical in Government. But it never ceases to amaze me. It has outdone itself in Opposition. Here we have an attempt to hold the Government to ransom. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I remind the honourable member that he has used a term that has been ruled by the Speaker as being undesirable. The words 'hypocrisy' or 'hypocritical' are not accepted parliamentary parlance. Mr CHARLES —With due respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, I always thought that that was in relation to individuals. That term has been used in the past with regard to governments. However, I shall adhere to your ruling. Mr Cadman —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let us get the rules straight and fair for everyone. Did the honourable member withdraw? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understood that the honourable member withdrew. Mr CHARLES —Yes, I withdraw. The turnaround and the continual somersaults of members of the Opposition are quite incredible. Here they are trying to hold the Government to ransom and to hold up the passage through the Parliament of the Bill to make the ABC a corporation, all because, as the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) said, the ABC must retain its independence. Yet we know, as the Minister pointed out last week, the number of times the previous Government attempted to interfere with the ABC verbally, when the former senior Cabinet Minister, Mr Peter Nixon, on several occasions attempted to interfere with the ABC. If the ABC is not in as good a state as it should be, let us remember that Opposition members were in government for 31 of the last 34 years. If things are not right, there is only one place to look. But let us return to Peter Nixon and the ABC. When the previous Government introduced the Bill in 1982 it contained provision for a Commissioner of Complaints, which we have knocked off. Clause 83 of the Bill dealt with the Commissioner of Complaints. I shall not read out the whole clause, but the headline was 'Power to obtain information and documents'. Over the page, in clause 85, there was 'Power to enter premises'. There were all sorts of powers in that Buck Rogers-type legislation, for which there was absolutely no need when we were talking about a broadcasting industry, not some sort of Mafia that members of the Opposition, the then Government of a couple of months ago, wanted to bring into the ABC. Yet here they are tonight wanting to hold up the Bill to change it to a Corporation because of some litigation in connection with the ABC . As the Minister said last week, so be it. If the litigation goes ahead and the ABC does not win-we cannot comment on that; that is for the courts to decide-so be it. It is like any other broadcasting company. If it enters into that sort of area, if it wins, fine; if it does not win, it pays the penalty. When the previous Government could not get to the ABC via words or other areas, as the previous member for Gippsland attempted to do on several occasions, it went to the Australian Broadcasting Commission's appropriations in the Budget. Let us look at the last appropriation of the Labor Government under Mr Whitlam in 1975. The appropriation then was $132.1m. After three years of the Fraser Government, in 1978, the appropriation was $141.5m. That is a rise of a little over 7 per cent. In fact, at that stage inflation would have been in excess of 33 per cent. So there was a real reduction of 26 per cent or 27 per cent in just three years of appropriations for the ABC under the Fraser Government. That Government did not interfere with the ABC-oh no; it just tried to strangle the ABC to death. Yet Opposition members have the audacity to come before the House tonight and support an amendment which the honourable member for Murray has moved, which will not be successful in trying to stifle the ABC once more. It is not on. This Government has a resolve to bring this legislation into operation and, thus, the new Corporation. It will be an independent corporation. It will not be interfered with by the present Government, nor, I hope, by successive governments, no matter what their political persuasion. It is a disgrace that we have this sort of amendment before us tonight. It really is getting down to the depths. Rational debate from the Opposition is rather hard to get these days. The honourable member for Murray alluded to the nominations to the board. That is a separate issue. There will be fewer board members than there are members of the Commission, so someone will have to miss out. There will obviously be a reorganisation of that. But we have bowed to the greater wisdom on this occasion of the former member for Diamond Valley who included the nominations provision that exists in this legislation. We opposed it at that time, but we felt that that part of the Bill to set up this Corporation was best the way that it was. However, I remind the House of what I said earlier: The broadcasting industry, more than any other industry, is an ever-evolving industry which will need to be monitored. There may well be changes in a number of areas as the ABC settles down to finding out what is really working smoothly and whether there are any hiccups. Then it would come back to the Government and say: 'Surely we can refine this area or that area for the betterment of the ABC and the broadcasting industry so that we can have a strong broadcasting industry with government and private enterprise working together'. Until we have that, and not self- interested parties trying to push their own barrow, we shall not have the sort of industry and the quality of program that I am sure we would all like. Once again, I congratulate the Minister. The amendment is a disgrace to the Parliament, and I am sure that it will be defeated. I strongly support the legislation. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.18) —The events of the last two weeks have brought into focus the great need this country has to maintain the integrity and the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and how that integrity and that independence can be challenged and can be eroded by a determined government or by determined politicians. It is on the basis of that general principle that I support the amendment which has been moved and the amendments which have been foreshadowed to the Bill. It is impossible, as I think all honourable members would agree, to over-emphasise the importance of the ABC to the Australian community, and it is equally as impossible to over-emphasise the importance of its independence and its integrity and how independent and how honest it is judged to be by the Australian people. If the Australian people judge it to be wanting or judge it to be subject to political pressure, its stature will be eroded, and that will be a very great loss to all of us. From looking at some of the clauses of the Bill, from what the Government itself proposes, it becomes quite apparent how important the independence of this organisation is. For example, in the charter of the Corporation, which is provided for in clause 6, provision is made for 'innovative and comprehensive broadcasting and television services of a high standard', which is what we have come to expect of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The Corporation shall take account of 'the responsibility of the Corporation as the provider of an independent national broadcasting and television service to provide a balance between broadcasting programs and television programs of wide appeal and specialised programs'. But the same clause provides that nothing in it shall be taken to impose an enforceable duty on the Corporation. The duties of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Board are laid out in clause 8. They include the maintenance of the independence and integrity of the Corporation and ensuring that the gathering and presentation by the Corporation of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism. That is precisely what we seek to maintain and it is precisely what the actions of the gentleman who may be described as the senior Minister for Communications, Senator Button, and the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) have called into question. So when we hear somebody from the Government benches saying that the ABC will not be interfered with by this Government and we recall what we have learned about the actions of the Prime Minister and about the actions of Senator Button, those kinds of statements can only be treated with the contempt that they deserve, not by this House but by the Australian people. The honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) said someone will have to miss out when the Board is constituted. One should ask: Who will that be? When one looks at the composition of the Board, one realises that it is in the composition of the Board that the rock is to be found on which the integrity of the ABC is to be set, and if that Board is not impartial, if that Board is not impeccably neutral, not only may the ABC become the subject of political influence but it may also be judged by the Australian people to be the subject of influence. That reinforces the reasons for the proposition which is advanced here by the Opposition. Indeed, Senator Button, in his capacity as senior Minister for Communications, reaffirmed the necessity for the impartiality of the Board when he said in the Senate that Mr Staley had a genuine concern for the independence of the ABC and that the proposed appointments were, to his mind , impeccable. That is the kind of situation that we look for in the ABC. But I wonder whether the Government will be putting forward to us proposed appointments which are impeccable or whether the Government will be seeking to put in place in the ABC as Board members individuals whose political sympathies lie with the Government. Mr Milton —They will be people of integrity. Mr SPENDER —There comes the interjection which indeed explains everything that we need to know about how the Labor Government would go about appointing people to the ABC. The honourable member says that they, that is to say, anybody who supported the Labor Government, would be people of integrity. That is the answer which comes out of a mind which one might say is constantly in neutral while the voice keeps going on. I turn to two major provisions which are foreshadowed as amendments by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). The first relates to the no work no pay provisions. Mr Duffy —We have not seen them yet. Have you got copies? Mr SPENDER —I understand that these amendments have been foreshadowed and therefore I propose, subject to any direction, to speak to them. Mr Duffy —Are you going to give us a look at them at some stage? Mr SPENDER —The Minister for Communications asks whether we will give him a look at the amendments at some stage. He is not going to tell me that he has never looked at them or that he has no understanding of what is contained in them, is he? No, he is not. We in this Parliament all understand what is meant by no work no pay provisions. But what is the converse of that proposition. If a person does not work in accordance with directions given to him-that is, no work as directed-he can be paid. That, as a proposition to be applied to any responsible group of people, is perfectly grotesque, as I think any honourable member here would agree. Would anyone here say that an organisation can be efficiently and properly run if those in it are entitled to ignore lawful directions and still be paid? On what possible basis of commonsense or logic can that kind of nonsense be supported? And yet that is what the Government will approve. It will propose that it does not matter whether a person ignores lawful directions; it does not matter indeed what a person does-that person will still be paid. That is the first of the massive capitulations to the Left, the first of the many that we will see in this House. Does anyone suggest that that kind of conduct or approach would be tolerated anywhere else? Does anyone suggest that that is a rule that should be applied to private industry? Does anyone suggest that if an employee of a private organisation does not do what he was lawfully directed to do he should be paid? If it is not suggested that that should apply to private industry, there is no basis on which it can be applied to a public corporation, because that public corporation has great responsibilities to the Australian public, responsibilities which simply cannot be fulfilled unless those who work for the organisation obey lawful directions. Lastly, let me come to the question of the complaints tribunal. What is proposed by the Government is that there should be an individual, quaintly entitled a community affairs officer who is, as I understand it, an employee of the ABC. What kind of independence, what kind of standing will he have to entertain serious complaints against the ABC? What kind of authority will he have? If the Government is serious about its expressed desire that the ABC should be independent, that it should be an organisation of honesty and integrity, why then would it resist the kind of complaints tribunal to which the honourable member for Murray has referred, a tribunal which is modelled on the British Broadcasting Corporation example and a tribunal which, by reason of the nature of the appointment of its members-that is to say, appointments by the Governor-General for a period not exceeding five years-is in a position of complete independence? If complaints are to be entertained and a member has a complaint to make against the ABC would he not prefer that that complaint go to a tribunal which was quite independent, whose integrity and authority could not be challenged? The greater the authority, the greater the independence of this complaints tribunal, the greater the public confidence in it. I believe that most honourable members hope that there will be great public confidence in the ABC and its future operations. That can be achieved only if its membership is not only independent but also seen to be independent and if there is a proper independent and authoritative means of dealing with complaints against the ABC. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(9.30) —In supporting the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill 1983 and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, I recall my speech in this House in March last year and my considerable concern regarding the obvious intention of the Liberal Government to change the whole character of the Australian Broadcasting Commission as an independent public broadcaster. This Bill satisfies many of the problem areas which I outlined in my comments last March. Before commenting further on the new Bill I would like to make some comments about the present dispute between the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, and the Chairman of the ABC, Dame Leonie Kramer. This particular dispute has been magnified and distorted beyond all reasonable limits by the national media and also by the Opposition. It is inevitable that there will be occasional disagreements between a government of the day and a national broadcaster over the political nature of the content of some programs. What is not inevitable, what in my view is completely irresponsible, is the national media giving such a dispute the editorial and front page prominence which this particular aspect of the issue has received over the past week. I am not arguing that the content of the Four Corners program itself should not be given prominence by the media. What I am arguing is that the prominence given to the dispute is destructive and negative, and I strongly suspect that it is the beginning of a deliberately orchestrated attempt to destabilise the Government. That leading members of the Opposition, who themselves have been implicated in corrupt practices, should be heading the attack on the Government seems ludicrous in the extreme. These same people, who were decisively rejected by the Australian people just two months ago, are now trying to beat up an issue, to use the jargon of the media, in an attempt to prevent the Government carrying out its election program of economic reconstruction and a redistribution of wealth to the poorer sections of our community. Now, to cap it all, we have the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). It is another blatant attempt to stop the Bills proceeding through the House. What is it in his amendment that has any relationship to the Corporation which we are setting up-a corporation which will give the ABC the independence it has needed for the past 50 years? This amendment will be rejected decisively by this side of the House. The Bill will provide the Australian people with a public broadcasting media which will no longer be constantly under pressure to emulate the commercial broadcasting system. The charter of the Corporation, as set out in clause 6 of the Bill, explicitly states that the Corporation will provide programs which contribute to national identity and will inform, entertain and educate. It will provide overseas listeners with programs which reflect Australian attitudes and will promote music, drama and other performing arts in Australia. The charter requires the Corporation to uphold standards and to take account of the multicultural nature of Australian society. It is indeed an exemplary charter and will, subject to the necessary finance being provided by the Federal Government, mean that the Corporation has a firm base on which to build the new style of broadcasting more fitting for the social and political challenges of the next 15 years leading to the twenty-first century. I have the hope and indeed the anticipation that many of the present programs which are mediocre-at the worst, plain bad-will disappear from the ABC. I hope that we will see news broadcasts which reflect the varying political strands of Australian society. For too long have we had to put up with a news service which reflects the views of the powerful establishment. We need more news commentaries which are challenging and innovative. The broadcasting of programs which attack leading political figures in our society might produce high ratings but I want to see more critical programs about the subversion and corruption of our society by powerful interest groups-the same interest groups that support members of the Opposition. For example, since the Four Corners program was cut from 45 minutes to 30 minutes it has been a shadow of its former glory. The extra 15 minutes makes all the difference between a program of some depth and one which is superficial and narrow in breadth. This has been particularly evident on the occasions when the program has been divided into two segments in order to cover an issue in some reasonable depth. I also hope that we will see a diminishing of the present constant repetition of overseas comedy programs. I turn to the charter. It is interesting to note that the Australian Broadcasting Commission was originally created in 1932 because the existing commercial broadcasting system provided no national coverage for the less populated areas. Unlike the British Broadcasting Corporation, which was created for the public good, the ABC was created for pragmatic reasons. According to the BBC historian, Asa Briggs, Lord Reith, the founder of the BBC, and his colleagues were attributed with the view that 'wireless . . . was an instrument of public good, not a means of handling people or pandering to their wants'. To my mind, the charter of the ABC conforms to the high ideals attributed to Lord Reith. It has distressed me to note over the past few years an increasing tendency by the ABC to see the higher audience rating of commercial broadcasters as a reason for copying the mass entertainment style of commercial radio and television stations. Since the early days the ABC has had to face the superior coverage gained by the commercial broadcasters years before the ABC was created. The ABC has never been able to recover the lost ground and at present it commands only 15 per cent to 20 per cent of audiences as opposed to the 75 per cent to 80 per cent rating enjoyed by the commercial stations. ABC radio has always maintained a high standard in program content over the years although sporting coverage does seem to be one item which takes up too much program time, to the detriment of other programs. Unfortunately the ABC television programs have not followed the fairly high standards set by ABC radio. It has been quite evident that the ABC has been concerned about its low ratings to the extent that it has endeavoured to compete with commercial television by providing mass entertainment type programs. The charter as laid down in clause 6 (2) makes it clear that: (a) the Corporation shall take account of- . . . (iii) the responsibility of the Corporation as the provider of an independent national broadcasting and television service to provide a balance between broadcasting programs and television programs of wide appeal and specialised broadcast programs and television programs. At present the ABC falls far short in its offer of television programs which provide material for minority interest groups in the community. The prime example is the constant emasculation of programs containing political comment either by shortening the program, by moving its time slot or by changing the reporters and commentators because they appear controversial to a shrill conservative minority. It is ironic that the present controversy over one Four Corners television program is the exception which proves the rule. The Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission stated that the ABC 'had failed to reflect the realities of Australian society, particularly the needs of Aboriginals and non-Anglo-Saxon Australians'. I believe that ABC television has failed to reflect the needs of those groups in our society which challenge the Australian establishment- feminists, unionists, reformers and conservationists. They are all given as little attention as Aboriginals and non-Anglo-Saxon Australians. The ABC should not attempt to ape the commercial channels but should provide the type of intellectually stimulating material which the commercial channels, chasing as they do the advertising dollar, will not provide. I do not wish to go too far with my criticisms. Whilst I believe that the ABC should offer programs of intellectual quality, it is no good if those programs appeal only to an educated elite. Intellectual quality does not mean offering programs the aesthetic or educational content of which are so obscure to the average viewer that the viewer turns to the commercial channels for light relief. On the other hand, giving the public what it apparently wants in the form of trivial pop music or comedy shows is prostituting public broadcasting. Turning now to the appointment of the board of directors and the managing director of the Corporation as set out in clause 12 of the Bill, we come to an area which produces a great problem for all governments dealing with national public broadcasting systems. In Holland, Germany and Italy different solutions have been attempted to deal with the problem of political balance and freedom of operation for broadcasting corporations. The ABC is modelled on the British Broadcasting Corporation and yet there has been far more criticism in Australia about the Government appointees to the governing board than in Britain. Generally speaking, the BBC has been far more non-political than the ABC. The reason for this must lie in the political nature of the appointments made by successive Australian governments. To that extent I hold conservative governments responsible in their blatant partiality, particularly in the rapid replacement of the Whitlam Australian Labor Party Government appointees by the Fraser Government in 1976. An interesting thing is that the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender ) questioned the fact that we want to appoint people of integrity because he thinks those people will support the Labor Party. If that is what he thinks, that is up to him. I hope that it is true. We will be appointing people of integrity. Contrary to the exercise of naked power by the Liberal Government, the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has said that consultations will be held with other political parties regarding nominations to the board. From the interjections that the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) has been trying to make I guess he does not want to be consulted. It seems to have escaped the notice of members of the Opposition, in their blind attachment to and obsession with the current disagreement between Senator Button and Dame Leonie Kramer, that this undertaking has been made. The public broadcasting system in Holland is fragmented because of the access of various interest groups. The systems in Germany and Italy are fragmented because of divided political loyalties. The Australian method of government appointees could work if there were good faith on the part of the Opposition. It has been suggested that the board of directors should be appointed by a public corporations appointments body but such a system is equally flawed by the problem of who makes the appointments to the public corporations appoinment body. Incidentally, although it is a peripheral matter, with reference to sub-clause (5) of clause 12 of the Bill, why cannot the government draftsman get used to using the neutral gender? It is not good enough when we are all aware of the problems of sexual discrimination to say that he means he or she in legal documents. It is not a trivial matter. As I have mentioned earlier in this speech, the current unhealthy publicising of a disagreement between the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the Chairman of the ABC is a blatant and historical attempt by the Opposition to lead the debate away from the importance of this Bill which will give independence to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. In my speech last March I mentioned a number of matters which I am pleased to note have been incorporated in the present Bill. I am particularly pleased to note the decision of the Government that one of the part time non-executive members of the Board will be a staff elected director. This will bring to the board the experience of a professional broadcaster who will at the same time represent the interests of the staff of the Corporation. Industrial democracy is a vital part of ALP policy, and staff representatives should be appointed to the boards of all public corporations. In this respect the establishment of a joint consultative committee under clause 81 is also a welcome initiative. The consultative committee will comprise representatives of the corporation, staff association and officers and full time employees. It should be an excellent vehicle for the exercise of decision-making by employees in the day to day running of the Corporation. Another matter on which the Government has quite properly taken action is the rejection of the proposed office of commissioner for complaints. As I mentioned in Committee last September, the sole purpose of the proposed commissioner for complaints was to provide an institutionalised channel for noisy, conservative and bigoted critics to organise campaigns designed to stop the ABC from reporting or commenting objectively on the political, social and economic aspects of Australian life. Clause 82 refers to the appointment of a community affairs officer who would deal quite adequately with factual errors or invasion of privacy in the broadcasting of televised material. This clause has my full support. Clause 11 of the Bill deals with the establishment of advisory councils and committees which will advise the board of directors of the Corporation on matters relating to broadcasting and television programs in a State, Territory or region of Australia. I commend the Government on the introduction of the advisory councils which will enable the opinions of the societies represented by the councils or committees on programs of the ABC to be presented in an organised form for the ABC board. It is a system which will help rather than hinder the development of the ABC. In Britain the BBC has developed a large range of such advisory and consultative bodies and they prove a vital forum for people who are interested in improving public broadcasting. The creation of advisory councils was suggested by the Dix Committee but the previous Government ignored the recommendation. Clauses 67 to 72 deal with financial matters, and I am quite sure that unlike the previous Government an ALP Government will ensure that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has adequate funding to support its important role as a national public broadcaster. In fact, in the seven years in which the Fraser Government was mishandling the Australian economy it deliberately cut the funds of the ABC to the extent that it was necessary to phase out programs and allow a rundown of staffing levels. Over the period of seven years of Fraserism the ABC budget was cut effectively by 28 per cent and there was a loss of 1,000 staff members. I have not gone through the Bill clause by clause seriatim but rather I have highlighted certain aspects of the Bill which I believe to be important. I would not like to leave my comments on the Bill without referring to clause 28 which sets out the powers of the Corporation in relation to the establishment and maintenance of orchestras and the holding of public concerts. In this respect the ABC concerts and its general treatment of music has been exemplary. Unfortunately a lack of funding has forced the ABC to cut back on its musical programs but the existing concerts remain of high quality. It is a great relief to me that the Government rejected the retrograde recommendation of the Dix Committee to transfer the ABC orchestras to the States. In concluding my remarks I want to make it clear that, whilst I have been critical of the ABC for pandering to the mass media entertainment, I also believe that the Commission has provided Australians with many good innovative programs over the years: Programs like Four Corners and This Day Tonight were copied by the commercial stations. There have been excellent documentaries, television plays and musical programs. Its news and current affairs programs, both on radio and television, and despite my earlier remarks, have set a very high standard. The ABC has achieved much in its role as the only national public broadcaster and the people on the opposite side of this House have been its enemies for many years. I believe it will be better with its new charter, and I commend this Bill to the House. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(9.49) —First of all, I congratulate the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) on his election to the Chair and I also congratulate our two new lady Deputy Speakers, the honourable members for Henty (Mrs Child) and Lilley (Mrs Darling). As was noted in the Press, that was quite an historic occasion. I wish to mention all the new honourable members to this weird and wonderful place, the House of Representatives, on both the Opposition side and the Government side. There are quite a lot of new members on this side of the House and I as a very new 'old' member welcome them here. One of the two Bills that we are discussing is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983. That is quite a mouthful but it really means that the title of the Australian Broadcasting Commission is to be changed by this legislation to become the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The Corporation will be an incorporated body coming under the jurisdiction of the companies legislation. This change will increase the accountability of the ABC as well as the level of information which it must provide to the public. I think it is important that the ABC should become more open to the public and that it should not be run as a commission and as a government body to the extent that it has been, although it will still have some direction from the Minister in charge. The ABC must provide access to the public. The public will be able to sue the Corporation and the Corporation will be able to sue the public, if necessary. Of course, one of those suits is in train right now. That is one of the reasons why we on this side of the House have moved the amendment. We do not wish this Bill to proceed in its present form. We think it is most important that the writ that has been issued against the ABC by the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran, should be heard before any basic changes are made to the structure of the ABC and in particular to its staff and management body. The present Commission is subject to more government control than the present legislation proposes. The present Act gives the Minister direct access to programming. Under the provisions of clause 78 in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill, similar power is not proposed. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill gives the ABC a charter and empowers it to appoint a board of directors. The Managing Director will be appointed from within that board, which will comprise of six to eight people, and his term of office will be for a period not exceeding five years. The Bill provides the Corporation with full powers to operate as an effective and independent national broadcasting and television service. The Corporation will have power also to make use of the new Domsat satellite system which will come into service in mid-1985. This project was one of the major initiatives of the previous Government. An amount of approximately $350m will be spent on that program from its commencement last year to 1985. This system will be a great benefit to inland Australia in which I and many other members have a direct interest. It is a fact of life that many Australians do not receive any television or wireless reception. Under the new technology which the satellite offers, those people who presently get no television reception whatsoever will receive some sort of reception. The Domsat satellite and the HACBSS system-that is, the isololated homestead system which provides a service to children in outback Australia who presently have very little access to educational facilities-will provide television reception in those very isolated areas. Groups of small townships, stations, Aboriginal communities and all sorts of people scattered throughout inland Australia will be able to make use of that service. I hope the Government will stick to the promise it made at Griffith in the electorate of Riverina when the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, launched the Government's rural policy. The Government guaranteed it would use the concept of T.V. Australia, using the present Intelsat IV satellite for directing services into inland Australia. Presently we have use of Intelsat which gives an oval-shaped cover from Australia to Indonesia and Hong Kong. That presently provides various parts of Australia with ABC reception through the ground receiving dishes which are in place in areas such as Birdsville, Bedourie, Quilpie, Wandoan and Taroom. These are small areas of isolated pockets of people. They are able to receive ABC television through that system. T.V. Australia offered to the previous Government and now to the Labor Government the concept of using the present Intelsat system at night to record and to rebroadcast the television programs that will be beamed from stations in our capital cities to inland Australia. I believe that this is a very worthwhile project. I know that the Labor Government has cut back on most of its promises. In fact, it has not kept any of its promises. The only promise it has kept is to increase taxes. Of course, that will happen at Budget time or in the form of a mini-budget at the end of this session. I hope that the Government will keep to its promise to provide inland Australia with a television service at this time. It is a very worthwhile service and many people are looking forward to seeing television in their own homes for the first time. As I say, lots of communities still have not seen it. The other concept of communications which comes under the ABC's ambit is radio. At this time I wish to put in a plug for the Charleville radio station. Mr Cadman —Send a cheerio call. Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes, I will. Of course, people cannot get radio reception at Charleville. There is no radio reception at Charleville so nobody will hear my call. Charleville is a community of 5,000 people. In the middle of the day its residents cannot hear ABC radio. There is a small commercial transmitter there that has a broadcasting radius of about 50 miles. Once one drives out beyond that range one hears nothing except the chirp of the bullfrogs and the sound of the corroborees. While the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) is present in the chamber, I ask him to guarantee that the Government will provide an ABC radio station at Charleville. In last year's Budget, there was a provision of $ 30,000 for the purchase of property in Charleville. That land still has not been purchased. There was also an ongoing allocation of up to $800,000 for a radio transmitter in Charleville. I expect the Minister to commit himself to that project, because if he does not I might be thrown out of office! I expect the Minister to reply to that plea when he speaks. I hope that he will give me an absolute guarantee that that station will go ahead. It is most important that those people who do not have a television service at least have wireless facilities. Another change that will take place concerns the lifting of the ban on political broadcasting 72 hours before election day. No doubt most of the public -some of them are present in the gallery-welcome that pause in electioneering. I do not know why the ban is being lifted. I always think that as politicians we have more than adequate time to convince the public at large what great fellows we are. Can we not do that within the period before the 72-hour ban. I think the period of the blackout is a wonderful time to switch off, to settle down and to think again about for whom one will vote. I cannot see any rhyme or reason why that ban should be lifted. In my part of the world those who receive television transmission get only the ABC. After one has watched half a dozen Four Corners programs, with Nationwide blasting at one every week night, one is quite keen to see a pause in the campaigning. Many people in my electorate said that they would vote for the Australian Democrats. They were sick of the polarisation of the electorate. They had only the ABC to watch, and the Liberals and Labor members were at one another's throats for three or four weeks. They were very pleased that the ban existed. Some of the other amendments concern the integrity of the ABC. I believe this is something for which we can never really legislate. There is always controversy surrounding the ABC; and there always will be. There have never been two minds which think alike. It does not matter who is in charge of programming or who is the producer. Obviously those people are educated and they have some beliefs, be they religious, political or whatever. In such circumstances one cannot help but have a program slanted. I think it is most important that the directors are the people who really should be controlling what goes into programming. I think it is very important that we make sure that the right people are appointed. Now that the ABC will be a corporation I think it will be most important for us to see that the right people are appointed as directors and that from those directors we get the very best managing director that we can . I get lots of complaints because, as I say, the ABC is really the base station in my electorate. I say to people that if they are really upset about the ABC they should phone the Commission, talk to its officers and see whether they can get their own point of view across. I tell these people that nine times out of 10 the Commission is quite happy to accept what they are saying and to put their point of view across. Most news gathering services are usually short of news. The exception is this place. This is probably the only place in Australia which does not run out of some sort of intrigue. However, I can assure honourable members that the electorate of Maranoa is not necessarily overrun with political intrigue all the time. As I say, news gathering services are really quite short of news. I find that they are always prepared to run the opposite side of the story. I think that the ABC generally does a brilliant job for us. The Commission is really involved in a service industry. It is paid for by the taxpayer. The approximate allocation for ABC television last year was $127m. The allocation for radio was about $60m. In this year's Budget we will be looking at an allocation of about $200m for the public servicing of television and radio broadcasting. I think that the ABC does a brilliant job for people who are prepared to look at something different from the programs broadcast by commercial stations. Of course, the ABC goes in for a lot of current affairs programs. However, I believe that those of us who have nothing else to look at find those programs very interesting. The Bill proposes that there will be no advertising on the ABC, and I think that is probably a good feature. I know that our Government talked about allowing advertising. However, I see in the Bill that no advertising will be allowed. The Bill also provides for the appointment of community affairs officers. I just wonder who they are going to be. Are they again going to be the local postmasters who also have the job of vetting people in respect of Australian citizenship? Nobody has told us just whom the people referred to in clause 82 might be. If this is the way the Labor Government is going to set up a complaints area, I think it is most important to establish just who the community affairs officers are going to be. Are these people going to be members of the Australian Labor Party? Mr Leo McLeay —They won't be members of the National Party. Mr IAN CAMERON —I am hoping that they could be. It is most important that the right people are appointed. As I say, not only does the poor overworked postmaster have to run his post office but also he has to vet people for naturalisation purposes. It now looks as though he has to be the complaints officer for the local ABC radio station. His work is really going to be cut out if that is the case. I would just like to mention a couple of complaints that people in the bush have with the ABC. We find it very difficult to get a coverage of the test cricket, the Melbourne Cup and now rugby league football. Of course, we play league in Queensland, not that aerial ping pong stuff that they play in the south. I would like to put in a complaint about the fact that no longer can the people of inland Queensland get a coverage of rugby league matches. I think that is no good for the football supporters. After the Minister for Communications has dealt with the establishment of a radio station at Charleville I would like him to solve the other problem. No rugby league matches are shown on television in that part of the world. At present there is none. I would like the Minister to ensure that sufficient funds are made available to allow the ABC to bid on league television rights so that the people in my part of the world, many of whom play rugby league, are able to see not only the local games but also the Sydney league replays. The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) mentioned that all sorts of interested groups have access to the ABC. I would have thought that these groups get more than enough time. The greenies are on about kangaroos and God knows what. Every time one turns the television on one sees the greenies or radical groups. The same people are always involved. They are always involved in every march one sees on television. I can assure honourable members that these people get more than enough access. I think that rural programs should get a greater amount of time on television. They get only about a quarter of an hour every week on the ABC. I would have thought that the amount of time devoted to rural programs could be increased at the expense of all the greenie programs and nature programs, as good as they are. The ABC should be looking at giving a bit more time to some of the more constructive things that we do in life rather than spending so much time in news programs on marches and so on. That is all I have to say. I support the amendment and I would like to think that the Government would do the same. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(10.7) —I find it fascinating to follow in the debate the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron). Of course, the honourable member has claimed, I think in his own words, that there are too many ratbag groups on the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I would have thought that for the honourable member to be aggrieved with ratbag groups is really talking against his own constituency. I would have thought that self-interest would have made him want to see more ratbag groups because if that were the case he might have more chance of getting on the ABC. I was sad to hear that the honourable member found something lacking with the Charleville radio service. I must say that a year or so ago when I was there I was allowed to broadcast an excellent program which, if the honourable member had listened to it, might have provided a model for him. It was sad to hear this poor National Party member, this fellow who purports to represent outback Queensland, pleading with the new Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) for an ABC radio station in Charleville. I wonder what has happened in the last 34 years. The party of which this man is a member was part of the Government of this country for 30 of those 34 years. The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) and all members of the National Party sitting on the other side of the House belong to a party which for 30 years of the last 34 years had the chance to do something but did absolutely nothing for outback Australia. The honourable member for Maranoa nods his head. For goodness sake, I do not know why he is not on this side of the House, because the only government that ever did anything to provide any assistance to allow the Australian Broadcasting Commission to expand its coverage was the Whitlam Australian Labor Party Government. The Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair ), as Minister for Communications, was the Minister in charge of closing the ABC down-nothing more, nothing less. We got no outback radio stations from him. We got no ABC television coverage in the bush. He was too busy trying to get some private firm to put up a satellite so that the then Government could sell the whole box and dice. The honourable member for Maranoa suggests that we ought to make sure that we do not stop some private enterprise group from having television coverage out in Western Queensland. My point of view, and I know the point of view of my Party, is that all Australians, whether they are in the outback or in the cities, whether they are in Tasmania or in Queensland or whether they are anywhere else in Australia, ought to have some equitable spread of facilities. We will be doing that. Indeed, in this Bill for the first time in a long while the Minister clears up the problem of the ABC having access to satellite stations and to having ground stations. The previous Government was not too keen about that. It was too busy selling the damn thing to Kerry Packer. Before the honourable member becomes too carried away on the subject of why his constituents have not received cricket telecasts in the country he ought to think about the reason. The Government of which he was a supporter prevented the ABC from having enough money to buy the cricket programs. The previous Liberal- National Country Party Government prevented the people in the outback from having cricket coverage. The honourable member for Maranoa realises that; he sits there nodding his head. After hearing his interesting speech his electors should either get rid of him so that they can have in office someone who can get television and radio for them or he should get off his backside and try to deliver for his constituents when his party is in office. Unfortunately for the people of Charleville, neither of those things has happened. The honourable member comes into the Parliament, makes speeches but does nothing more. In that regard he is very much in the mould of supporters of the previous Liberal- National Country Party Government. It is interesting to see the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) stand up tonight as some sort of an apologist for the Bill that the Government of which he was a supporter brought down. The proposals of the Minister for Communications are most sensible. This new Bill will provide many of the things that the ABC needs. One of its important aspects is that it will provide genuine independence for the ABC. In the past we have heard a lot from members of the Opposition about that. They seem to be pretty keen on it at present because they believe that it harms the Government but in the past, when the ABC was critical of some of the things that their more notorious members were up to, they were very upset. They did their utmost to try to curb the ABC. They had Ministers interfere in what the ABC was doing. They employed the late night phone call to commissioners. They attempted to stand over the ABC in every way, shape and form . Only under a Labor government would the ABC have been allowed to do what it did this week. The ABC would not have had the independence to bring on such an inquiry such as it has had in recent weeks if the present Opposition had still been in government. Labor believes that, regardless of whether it is harmed or helped as a result, the ABC should have the independence to do what the national broadcaster must do . Hand in hand with that is the requirement that the national broadcaster have the highest ethical standards of any broadcasting organisation in the country. There can be no doubt that, with the passage of this legislation and the granting of the power that goes with it to the board of directors of the proposed Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the ABC will begin undertaking the type of activity that the British Broadcasting Corporation has built up for itself in London. I have no doubt that if this legislation were not passed the ABC would continue to become the victim of political pushing and pulling. We oppose that concept and will do our utmost to ensure that the ABC enjoys the independence that it should have. The Minister for Communications outlined in the second reading speech the proposed new structure of the ABC and I am very pleased to note that the concept of having advisory councils is to be implemented. If the honourable member for Maranoa has a problem understanding what these advisory councils do, he should read the Bill or the explanatory memorandum. If he has difficulty in reading the written word, as do many of his colleagues, he could have had a talk with the Minister, who would have explained the Bill. No one is suggesting, in any way, shape or form, that the local postmaster ought to be vetting anyone or doing anything so absurd. What is being suggested is that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Board should receive a genuine input from a wide range of Australians-people in the city, people in the country, people who work in industry, people who are employed as managing directors, people who have all sorts of points of views that they would like the ABC to think about. The present structure of the Commission is rather restricted. Essentially, it is a small Commission that is drawn from the elite and in some ways it is out of touch with the views of the great bulk of the people to whom the Commission should be broadcasting. I take some small issue with my colleague who said earlier that he did not believe the ABC should involve itself in too much popular programming. The national broadcaster has an obligation to provide excellence for not only narrow interests but also for a wide range of other interests. For instance, we should be expanding the activities of stations such as station 2JJJ and should be getting young people more interested in the ABC so that they transfer their interest to the other programs that are run by the national broadcaster- Mr Ian Cameron —We want televison before that happens. We do not get it. Mr McLEAY —The honourable member wants television for his constituents before that happens. He is about 30 years too late. Why did he not get the previous Government to do that? Quite frankly, he has raised a very important point. The important thing to remember in regard to his complaints is that the National Party could not give a damn about outback Australia. It is sad to see that this particular member of that party must plead with the new Minister in order to obtain television for outback Australia. The people of those areas have a far better chance of getting a television network from the present Government and Minister for Communications than they had of getting it from any of the previous Liberal-National Country Party coalition governments. The other important issue to which I wish to address myself in the next few minutes concerns the obsession of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) with no work as directed, no pay clauses. We all know that the honourable member for North Sydney has earned a considerable amount representing people in the courts and has taken a keen interest in industrial legislation. Unfortunately, as is the case with most conservative members of this Parliament, he is obsessed with the concept of legislating attitudes. If the honourable member, other members opposite and indeed the honourable member for Mallee, who has moved the amendment in regard to no work no pay, had a look at the history of industrial relations-- Mr Lloyd —I rise on a point of order. I have not moved the amendment and I am not the member for Mallee. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —I think that the honourable member should realise that what he raises is not a point of order. Mr McLEAY —I apologise for maligning the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher ). Far be it from me to be so unkind to him. Probably I could be sued by the people of Mallee for trying to foist the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) upon them. On the question of no work as directed, no pay, the Government has adopted the philosophical approach that it will not implement this type of clause. I would have thought that the Opposition would have learnt from its failures of the past in attempting to put such clauses in Bills in dealing with industrial relations. They encountered some incredible failures with Telecom Australia. Incredible industrial disputes were caused by their bloody-minded attitudes in legislation on industrial relations. Under the present Bill no constraint is to be placed upon the Corporation, when involved in an industrial disputation, approaching the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and applying for stand-down orders. The trouble with honourable members opposite is that they want to put these things in legislation so that management will be put in the invidious position of adopting a confrontationist approach to their employees over industrial relations. One has only to speak to any manager of a public or private corporation to learn that none of them want these absurd clauses to operate. These absurd clauses are only brought about by people who want to have confrontation. The present Government has quite properly deleted that clause from the Bill that was introduced in 1982. It will go a long way towards ensuring that the ABC is not racked by industrial disputation. Finally, I commend the Bills to the House. I think they will give the Australian Broadcasting Corporation the independence it deserves. They will provide for the first time in the charter of the Corporation a recognition of the multicultural aspect of Australian society. They will provide for a Board which will represent the broad views of the Australian community and for an advisory council which will ensure that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation stays in touch with the broader Australian community. I can see a great deal of good coming out of the legislation. I can see it providing the integrity that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation needs. I think that the Minister should be commended for the changes that he has made; the legislation is far better because of them. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(10.22) —Time forces me to be brief, and I will be brief. Therefore, I will not repeat much that has been said in the debate welcoming many of the measures in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill. I will not repeat the high opinion and respect that I have for Dame Leonie Kramer. I will not go over those matters. I will concentrate on the matter of complaints, because I think that in this amendment not enough attention has been given to the full significance of the changes made in the proposed investigations of complaints. It is agreed on all sides, I think, that it is desirable for the citizen to have the right to have his complaints seriously investigated. I do not think that anyone really challenges the need to have that right established. Of course , everyone agrees that there should not be time wasted on the investigation of frivolous, vexatious or anonymous complaints. Nevertheless, the whole subject of complaint is something that has achieved a seriousness and a respectability. Something has to be done about it because of the wide-ranging nature of complaints and the deep feelings that they arouse. The original Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill created an ombudsman to look into complaints, a complaints commissioner with powers no more and no less than those of an ombudsman. Whereas the ombudsman has generally been regarded by people who are concerned with the rights of the citizen as a great innovation- something to be defended and praised at least among citizens, if not always in government circles-this was not the case here. It was felt that the ombudsman was not a good thing; it was a good thing for everyone else, but not a good thing in relation to the ABC. The Government bowed to the outcry and agreed to dilute its original plan and adopt the British Broadcasting Corporation system which involved a system of investigative complaints that was independent of the ABC. The new Government has gone further and, organisationally, has watered down that provision still further. We are now to have under the legislation community affairs officers. The principal community affairs officer is to be an officer of the Corporation. That in itself is a significant weakening of the earlier plans. But the reason that I am speaking at this late hour is to draw the House's attention to something else-the change in the definition of 'complaint'. In the original Bill a complaint meant a complaint that the program was inaccurate, unfair, biased, or involved an invasion of privacy. Under the new Bill a complaint is one about an error of fact or an invasion of privacy. The reference to bias and unfairness is deleted. Therefore, under this Bill, one cannot complain about unfairness or bias. Mr Duffy —Would you like to define bias and unfairness? Mr COLEMAN —I certainly think that people want to be able to have complaints about bias or unfairness seriously investigated. I do not think that they would have too much trouble about defining the matter. There might be disagreement, but I do not think it would be an insoluble problem. Complaints about inaccuracy or invasion of privacy are important. If inaccuracy or error of fact meant, for example, that a date was wrong, I do not think that is a very serious step forward. Invasions of privacy is a more grave matter. I served on the New South Wales State Privacy Committee for a while and media invasions of privacy were within its jurisdiction. During the couple of years or so that I served on it, there were no complaints whatsoever. We all know of famous cases of invasion of privacy by the media, but they are not all that frequent. Nevertheless, it is important and to be welcomed that there is provision for it in this legislation, but I think that the omission of any grounds of complaint on the basis of unfairness or bias is a very serious omission. That is the area which rouses the most indignation among a wide range of people who night after night or day after day hear the predictable, almost mindless bias of many programs. This, of course , does not mean that I am advocating an empty neutrality or an indifference to facts on our system of government. A belief in the value of fairness is part of a belief in a free society and a parliamentary democracy. We cannot be indifferent to threats to a free society and parliamentary democracy. I wish that the charter in this legislation had included such a commitment. I wish to quote from a report that Stephen Hearst, the chairman of the BBC's future policy group, published in Encounter magazine in 1979. After stressing that programs should be as free from bias as is reasonably possible, he then said: Such a service, however, does not stand apart from parliamentary democracy and does not offer aid and comfort to its enemies. It needs to expose totalitarian forces that would extinguish the freedoms we cherish were they to take over power, and it cannot be part of its business to be morally neutral in the exposition of ideologies that regard our system of government and our order with disdain. As I said, I wish that sort of idea from the BBC was in the charter of this proposed Corporation. In any case, I think that the House should be aware that the citizen can have no possibility of complaint about programs that, to quote Mr Hearst, 'give comfort to our enemies' unless they are based on an invasion of privacy or on an inaccuracy of detail. The complaints arrangements have watered down the citizen's rights far too much. I hope that the House will seriously consider the amendment to the relevant clause. Debate (on motion by Mr Duffy) adjourned. Tax Agents-Burdekin Dam-Controlled Harvesting of Australian Fauna-Death of Mr Adair Macalister Blain-Second Airport for Sydney-Sunrise Industries-Australian Sugar Industries Motion (by Mr Duffy) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr ADERMANN(Fisher)(10.28) —Many other honourable members have possibly received complaints as I have about taxation matters involving, in some cases, summonses for non-lodgment and non-response to departmental requisitions and the like. Certainly, in some instances, such action is warranted and deserved. However, a number of instances have come to my notice in which taxpayers have been sadly and unfortunately disadvantaged through no fault or misdemeanour of their own. I do not criticise the Australian Taxation Office because, in this instance, that is not where culpability lies. In recent years there has sprung up a number of bodies posing as tax experts under trade names; they impressively advertise their services and process tax returns on a sausage machine principle. They are not qualified accountants or auditors governed by the constraints, ethics and responsibilities of that profession. They are registered tax agents who operate during the flush of the tax season for a few months and for the rest of the year they close their offices, operate on a skeleton staff or have an answering machine telephone. They prepare a return, or fail to do so, and collect their fee. When the taxpayer receives an inquiry or requisition from the Taxation Office, he finds that the person who interviewed him when he sought help with his return is no longer in the office. The taxpayer finds that his returns have not been lodged and is summonsed, as happened recently to some people who brought their complaint to me. Such people have a great deal of difficulty in even obtaining a copy of their own return. They get final notices and do not know what to do about them. They can find no help and nobody to tell them. The Taxation Office queries claims and the taxpayer cannot find the person who advised him to assist with the answers. The accountancy profession, whose practitioners have to observe standard and ethics, is undeservedly brought into disrepute. Its clients are poached by these operators who operate under national names; their service is often dilatory, inadequate and leaves the unwitting client in a mess. They are not registered accountants so they cannot be dealt with by the professional accountancy bodies. They hire on a casual basis for short periods people with a agent's certificate, and often they have no other qualifications. A taxpayer cannot find any permanent adviser. When he returns for help he finds a different face, an office girl or the office closed until the next tax season. Honourable members know the people to whom I refer. They advertise on television. Practising accountants, of course, cannot so advertise. These people advertise in the newspapers and have great signs over their shop fronts extolling their services and hawking their wares. But their casualties are numerous. They must surely be causing considerable concern to members of parliament who often have to sort out the mess, to registered public accountants whose clients they pinch and often let down and to the Taxation Office which has no option but to pursue the taxpayer knowing quite often that he has been the victim of such operators. My plea is that something ought to be done to require standards and disciplines of such operators. There should be some registration procedure, some proper code of ethics as happens to registered public accountants or at least a warning to unwitting persons that they could be at risk if they succumb to the advertisement and blandishments of such operators. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(10.32) —A report in the Australian newspaper of 11 May 1983 highlights a widely held view that unless there is an urgent and major injection of government funds into capital works programs thousands of jobs will be lost. The report claims that 9,000 jobs in the engineering construction industry were lost in the past 12 months and that a further 17,000 jobs will be lost unless State and Federal governments review their economic policies. It predicts a major decline at all levels in the engineering construction industry which includes roads, railways, ports, bridges, water sewerage and drainage facilities , power stations and mines. The engineering contruction industry is now suffering grievously the results of the Fraser Government's program of economic disarmament. There is a need in Australia to bring about urgently the co-ordinated, integrated and long-range development of the resources of the nation. The decision by the Chifley Government to proceed with the Snowy Mountains Scheme was an historic recognition of the significance to Australia of major capital works, developmental works. Following a visit to the United States of America by Dr Evatt and as a result of his appreciation of the accomplishments of the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Snowy Mountains scheme became a cornerstone in the Curtin Government's plan for post-war reconstruction. The development of irrigation projects and closer settlement was to the forefront of the Government 's plans. The great Labor Prime Minister, Mr Chifley, who set up the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority in 1949 stated; Our national productive capacity can be positively built up by public investment in developmental works in hydro-electricity, afforestation, soil and water conservation and transport development. The Snowy Mountains scheme was completed in 1973 by a Labor government. The Murrumbidgee Irrigation area, a beneficiary of the development of the Snowy Mountains scheme, has had a tremendous and beneficial impact on Australia's primary industries. The early completion of the Burdekin Dam will confirm, once again, the Hawke Government as a government fulfilling the historic needs of Australians, a government pursuing a robust, confident and organised policy of national development. This dam's completion will contribute substantially to the industrialisation and strengthening of the North Queensland economy. It will provide an assured water supply to more than 100,000 Australians who have been plagued by years of conservative government neglect in the development of water resources. It is helpful to reflect on the history of the Tennessee Valley Authority compared to the Burdekin Scheme. The Tennessee Valley Authority was plagued by interference by various interests in the United States of America over a period of more than 20 years. It was abandoned by two American Presidents. It was vilified at Congress. It was castigated in the Press. It was hindered at every direction by various interests in the American community and saved by the historic intervention of people like Senator Norris of Nebraska and other leading American influential politicians, including President Roosevelt. The Tennessee Valley Authority was made a reality in 1933 and brought to that nation the benefits of a major historic water resource scheme. The public management of our resources must be pursued by all governments. All governments must collaborate in the funding of public works programs and must develop and foster opportunities to increase jobs. The Burdekin Dam is such a scheme. The Burdekin Dam must be completed to realise-I repeat this-the historic aspirations of the people of North Queensland. Mr FISHER(Mallee)(10.36) —During the past few years there has been an enormous increase in the population in western Victoria of long-billed corellas and sulphur crested cockatoos. The population of long-billed corellas, in particular , has reached plague proportions and is causing widespread damage to crops, pastures, parks, gardens and recreation areas. The litany of sins that these birds have committed includes the demolishing of the judge's box at the Murtoa racetrack, pulling nails out of the roof of the Horsham grandstand and removing mortar from the Wimmera Base Hospital chimney and the chimney at the Stawell brickworks to the extent that falling bricks are now a hazard. As well, they have dug up softball pitches and lawn tennis courts and ruined malthoid cricket pitches. There has also been a major fire litigation case in Hamilton concerning a fire started after cockatoos chewed through an electric wire which burnt 1,200 hectares of farmland. The fire also caused losses to 15 people, burnt 1,000 sheep and seven cattle and destroyed 65 kilometres of fence, a woolshed, haystack, cottage and other sheds. This increase in pest species has occurred because of ideal breeding conditions in this region which contains areas of swamp and numerous river systems and also because of the protection they have enjoyed in Victoria for many years. Presently in Victoria the Wildlife Act of 1975 provides a maximum penalty of some $5,000 plus an additional penalty of up to $500 for every head of such wildlife taken or destroyed. All of us, particularly those in responsible positions, must ensure the conservation of any species threatened in any way and must seek ways to ensure that the effects of commercial exploitation are humane and controlled and that the illegal practice of interstate and international bird smuggling and trafficking stops. However, no government, State or Federal, should allow a situation to develop as it has in Wimmera in Victoria. It is now spreading to other regions where the economic viability of individual farmers is threatened with serious effects on the national economy. Grain is being eaten immediately it is sown as is grain being fed as dry feed to stock. At harvest time ripening crops are decimated and yield is seriously reduced. What can we do? My State colleague Bill McGrath and I have obtained permission for a professional bird trapper to work under the supervision of the Victorian Fisheries and Wildlife Division. His work is proving to be most useful in dispersing the flocks but his effectiveness is limited by a number of factors. His Victorian quota of 10,000 corellas will be harvested in a few weeks. He also has to pay the Victorian Government $1 a head which means he is paying up to $ 400 a day which is a very large burden for a bird trapper who also must meet the cost of licences, permits, fuel and grain. This operation will not be able to continue effectively or efficiently unless there is a change in the Federal Government's export control. In 1976 the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation tabled a report on the trafficking in fauna in Australia. One of the recommendations of this Committee, of which I was a member, recommended that the export policy on Australian fauna be relaxed to allow government-controlled export to individuals and institutions of wild trapped common and pest species of birds provided that such birds are trapped under the control of a State fauna authority and harvesting is based on sound conservation principles. The former Government did relax our export policy to some degree by allowing the controlled export to approved overseas recipients, such as zoos, parks, et cetera, but this has not been adequate. I now ask the Minister to review this decision. The present policy does not discriminate between rare and endangered species and pest species. Pest species are given the same export protection as our rare ones and so have the absurd situation of smugglers earning large sums for illegally sending abroad fauna which is being destroyed daily in Australia because it is a pest. By allowing such controlled exports, we would stop or at least stem the danger to our rare and endangered species and, at the same time, create an additional outlet for those species causing untold damage and hardship. If a sensible solution is not found, I am concerned that methods will be used either legally or illegally to reduce this plague population to the detriment of our wildlife and the credibility of rural people. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(10.41) —The funeral will occur tomorrow in Sydney of the late Adair Macalister Blain. He was the member for the Northern Territory for 15 years from 1934 until 1949. He was an Independent. He defeated the late Harold Nelson in 1934 to become a member of this House. The Nelson family got its own back in 1949 when Harold's son Jock defeated Mr Blain for the seat. In the 15 years that Mr Blain was a member of this House he spoke out strongly for the Northern Territory. He spoke about the constitutional development of the north and also about the need for defence and security in the north. I use the word 'spoke' advisedly because at that time the member for the Northern Territory had no voting rights in this House. In fact he was not even counted when it came to counting quorums or majorities in this House. That situation applied until 1958 when the member was finally given a vote on matters affecting the Northern Territory. Mr Blain served in the First World War in the 32nd Battalion of the Australian Infantry Force and he was twice wounded in 1918. He served again in the Second World War and, while still a member of this House, in 1942 he became a prisoner of war in Malaya. He was a surveyor by occupation. He worked at Cloncurry and Burketown in Queensland and he also did official survey work in the Northern Territory and in northern and central Australia. He was a true pioneer in the north and part of the territory's history. I offer my condolence to his wife and family. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.43) —I pay a compliment to the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) for his remarks regarding Mr Chilla Blain. Sir James Killen —Hear, hear! Mr CADMAN —My colleague, the honourable member for Moreton (Sir James Killen), endorses his remarks and joins me in our expression of appreciation to the honourable member for the Northern Territory. This evening, I wish to set some facts straight regarding comments of the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) concerning Sydney's second airport. The Major Airport Needs of Sydney Committee-the MANS Committee-that was established by the previous Government considered factors that it used to evaluate a decision on a prospective second airport for Sydney or the development of the Sydney ( Kingsford-Smith) Airport. The evaluation factors used by the MANS Committee were , in the environmental area, social and cultural factors, land use and development, geology and soils, air quality, water, flora and fauna and the noise factors. On technical areas it considered the number of new runways, the distance from the central business district by rail or road, bus travel times and rail travel times, conflict with defence facilities, conflict with other ground facilities, the effects on general aviation, safety factors and incidence of fog. Economic factors were also considered in the evaluation and they included the net present value, the net cost, economic timing of development and , in the financial area, the capital cost. All of those factors used by the MANS Committee led it to a conclusion which it set out in an abstract as a series of recommendations. The recommendations of the Committee were these: 1. Action should be continued and extended to protect and facilitate the maintenance of scheduled air services at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport . . . and generally to ensure that usage of available facilities accords with the Government's economic and social priorities. 2. A decision in principle should be taken to develop KSA by construction of a close spaced parallel runway and associated facilities east of the existing north-south runway. 3. An airport master plan, detailed designs and an environmental impact statement should be prepared with respect to such development so that technical solutions and their environmental and social acceptability can be finally determined. In regard to a second airport, the MANS Committee said this: As part of the current review of the Sydney region outline plan a contingent site for a curfew-free second major airport, together with potential noise affected areas, should be protected through at least retention of existing land use planning controls and with consideration of acquisition in cases of hardship . The sub-section of that recommendation was that Badgery's Creek-known as SW4-be the preferred site. The Minister has been consistently saying in the House that both the previous Minister for Aviation and the MANS Committee recommended that a second airport be developed for Sydney. That is not true. The MANS Committee certainly does not express that view and its recommendations clearly show that the first consideration it thought was responsible, given all the factors for evaluation, was that there be a close spaced parallel runway and that secondly-I quote the words again- . . . a contingent site . . . should be protected through at least retention of existing land use planning controls and with consideration of acquisition in cases of hardship. That is very clear. I believe the Minister has not given the House the full story. The matter of concern to residents of western Sydney is that all the factors used to evaluate the decision by the previous Government have been set aside. A political decision has been made and none of the evaluation factors concerning the environment, technology, economy or finance has been considered. The bases for the forthcoming decision by the Government on a second airport for Sydney are not known. The concern of the residents of western Sydney-I know that the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Gorman) shares my view-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.48) —Tonight, I address a few remarks to the House concerning the sunrise industries that today are very much a motherhood subject. I think everyone in the community applauds the growth of sunrise industries. We have a lot of nice words said in encouragement for them. They are to be encouraged because by and large they are industries that will not need any protection. They rely very much on the initiatives, the flair and the inventiveness of the people in our community. But it is wrong to think that all sunrise industries are necessarily high technology industries; they are in fact ones in which we have a natural advantage. Many of these could be developed in Australia today which would provide enormous employment prospects for people in the community. For instance, I did an exercise some years ago in my home town of Kalgoorlie when we were faced with large and rapidly mounting electricity bills because we have a diesel powered power station. Our investigation showed that we could generate the required 15 megawatts of power on one million acres of timber, mainly from eucalypts of the salmon gum variety. One million acres of salmon gum would have replaced the deisel bill which was $1.5m annually-today that bill is about $3m-and would have provided an enormous amount of employment for particularly the itinerant and the young who otherwise would be unemployed. Similarly, we could look at the future for eucalyptus oil. I believe that there will be a big market for that in the future. This is an area in which Australia has a natural advantage, and we could look at harvesting it much more efficiently than is done now. Other areas spring to mind, too. One was mentioned by the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) tonight-the controlled harvesting of Australian fauna. This is an industry about which I know something . I was involved in it for many years. The honourable member omitted to say that it was a Liberal-National Party government which introduced the legislation from which we now suffer. My estimation is that an industry of this nature would produce, conservatively, $30m per year for Australian export earnings, which the Government could tax at the rate of 100 per cent, so the Government could get at least $15m in tax out of it. Another area that should be looked at is the export of leather and the development of the leather market. There is a world demand for leather. It is a growing market. In Australia we have a leather, the kangaroo skin, which is the strongest and must durable leather for its weight in the world. It is a superb leather. It is very foolish that Australia is not looking at developing expertise in the manufacture and processing of kangaroo skins. It is simply not good enought to export them. Whilst there is certainly a market for their export as raw skins, this is an area in which Australia should be developing expertise so that we can sell to the world a finished product and get some of the labour and employment that is generated in countries such as Italy, France, India, and so on, which have the expertise. I am alarmed at the emotion that this subject generates. I find the behaviour of the sundry 'Save the Kangaroo' lobbies quite appalling. I think that the people concerned are emotional, misinformed and knowingly misleading in much of their material and propaganda. I have shot kangaroos. I know that, as a kangaroo shooter, I shot kangaroos to kill them as quickly as possible. It is not a job that I enjoyed, but I made very sure that the kangaroos did not suffer, and I can say with authority that there is simply no value in any commercial shooter of kangaroos wishing to inflict any unnecessary pain on the animal. For that reason, I deplore very much the showing of the film Goodbye Joey in the United States. It does immense damage to Australia as a nation. It shows the citizens of this country in a very bad and incorrect light and does enormous damage to our trade potential. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.53) —I want to take the time of the House tonight to bring to the attention of this House, this Parliament and the Government the plight of the sugar industry in Australia at the moment. Some people feel that the recent rains in eastern Australia, while breaking the drought, have redressed the damage that has been done to the sugar industry over the last 12 months and have improved its prospects over the next 12 months. At present the sugar industry in Queensland and northern New South Wales directly supports 7, 000 suppliers or more, and the flow-on effects of this to the service industries and the people who populate the towns and cities along the Queensland and northern New South Wales coast means that it is the major contributor to population growth in that area. Anything that affects the sugar industry detrimentally will certainly affect the future of those people in the decentralised areas of Queensland. At present, because of the drought that persisted last year, while a full crop was taken off, the prospects for the coming season would indicate that only about 80 per cent of the peak crop would be available to Australian producers. The prospects for the coming 12 months, as far as the planter is concerned, have been improved because of the rain. However, I want to deal with the aspect of the present world stock situation. World stocks are at record levels. The percentage of stocks held in relation to world consumption is also at a record level, of about 35 per cent or 36 per cent of annual consumption. I am very happy to know that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), and a whole team of sugar industry people from right throughout New South Wales and Queensland, are at the European Economic Community talks trying to establish a new International Sugar Agreement. I certainly hope that they have success, because that is the most vital factor that is available to the sugar industry to push prices back to a reasonable and economic level. The fact is that the EEC, particularly France and Germany, is undermining the sugar industry's situation throughout the world because of its regard to the subsidies that are paid, and the consequent dumping of the product on the world market is undermining the whole industry. When the Minister returns, I hope that he will inform the House that the propects of an ISA are valid, with the EEC as a member on Australia's terms and not on the terms of the EEC. There are other matters at which I believe the Government should be looking. A form commitment was given by the previous Government that an underwriting scheme would be entered into to assist farmers to get through the effects of the drought of the last season so that they can face up to the new season. Also, a pledge was given to increase rural adjustment funds so that more follow-on or follow-through funds would be available in the coming season for those farmers that were viable. I ask that the Minister, on his return to Australia, examine that commitment and look at what I feel was a tacit approval of his own to support the sugar industry in this way, remembering that any injection of funds into the pockets of the producer will have that follow-through effect on the cities and towns which are supported by the sugar industry. I was rather amazed earlier in the debate to hear the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) indicate that the Burdekin Dam project was, perhaps, under question. It was never under question under the previous Government. The agreement entered into in 1980 was a valid one. It committed funds of $6.1m for the coming year. The honourable member's suggestion that it is under threat is news to me. I certainly hope that he is not suggesting that this might be another victim of the razor gang approach to government. I hope that that is not the case. The previous member for Herbert was the man who was mainly instrumental in getting this project up. If honourable members want to be committed to water programs, why not look at the bicentennial water program? That was one of the things which could have been of great assistance to the sugar industry, not only concerning the commitment to the Burdekin Dam but also to other areas, such as Bundaberg, Kincham Dam, Proserpine and all along the coast where we are looking at the total situation of the sugar industry. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. The House adjourned at 10.58 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Hodgman to move- That this House reprimands the Minister for Defence for his failure to- (1) publicly reveal under what section of Commonwealth law the RAAF spy flights over Tasmania on 7 and 8 April 1983 were authorised; (2) reveal whether the cost of the said flights would be met by the Department of Defence or the Attorney-General's Department, and (3) indicate whether a full public apology, by the Hawke Government to the State of Tasmania, would be forthcoming. Mr Groom to move- That this House- (1) is of the opinion that, in a free society, there are grave dangers in accepting the notion that a person is guilty merely because of an associaton; (2) notes that there are many provisions of the Crimes Act which apply to espionage, associating with known spies and similar conduct, and (3) calls on the Government, if there is evidence of criminal activity, to prosecute the person in a court of law rather than encourage rumour-mongering by government Ministers and officials. The following paper was presented: Mr Barry Jones-Trade in technology-intensive product groups by O.E.C.D. countries per head of population, 1980-Chart, dated March 1983.