Wednesday, 18 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 Ministers: 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 workforce, 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 Hicks,Mr Lusher,Mr McVeigh and Mr Millar. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the requirement that pensioners and health care cardholders fill in a complex declaration when presenting prescriptions is causing distress to beneficiaries and inefficiencies in the distribution of medicines by pharmacists . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will immediately abolish the requirement that a declaration be completed by the pensioner and health care cardholder. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Campbell and Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the 26th January, 1788, is the date of first white settlement in Australia , and therefore marks the beginning of modern Australia, And this event marks the most appropriate date on which to celebrate our national day. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will determine that Australia Day is to be celebrated on the twenty-sixth day of January each year, and that a public holiday will be declared on that day, regardless of which day of the week is the 26th. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. 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 of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the current intention of Telecom Australia to increase the International Particular Person Fee and introduce a charge on the Ring Back Price service will : Substantially affect the ability of the manual assistance area of Telecom's operations to compete effectively with STD and ISD. Such pricing discrimination in favour of direct dialling and away from operator assisted calls will affect the future viability of a personalised, reliable manual assistance service The ramifications of such a pricing policy will also ultimately affect the employment of thousands of Telephonists and Supervisors currently working in this area Contravene the spirit of the current Prices and Incomes Policy which Telecom as a public authority should be a party to We the undersigned believe that the provision of a personalised telephone service is an essential component in any Telecommunications system. Australia has a long history of service from the manual assistance area and we cannot now allow Telecom's pricing policies to endanger the continuation of this service. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will call on the Government to intervene to stop Telecom's proposed charges increase and so ensure the future viability of Australia's manual assistance telephone network. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hand. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political , social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government Will act to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the introduction of a comprehensive student loans scheme will: 1. Restrict Access to Education-People from poorer backgrounds will be deterred from studying by the prospect of incurring large debts. These people, if they enrol, will be forced to amass loan debts. Richer students do not face this handicap. 2. Undermine the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme-TEAS should cover the basic living costs of students. Currently the scheme only assists 38% of full- time students and the maximum level of TEAS is a mere $49.47. Government statements indicate TEAS will be further downgraded if loans are introduced. 3. Disadvantage Women-Women students would be disadvantaged by a loans scheme as they have a lesser ability to repay loan debts, because on average women earn less and have a higher unemployment rate. 4. Disadvantage Mature-Age Students-Usually mature age students forgo income to study and already have large financial commitments. They could not return to study if it meant incurring substantial debts. 5. Distort Educational Choices-Mounting loan debts would force students into studying shorter courses or not continuing with post-graduate study. 6. Result in Massive Attrition Rates-Students will attempt to undertake extensive part-time work or overload courses to minimise their loans. Increased failure rates will result forcing students to 'drop-out' rather than continuing study and increase their debts. 7. Cause Administrative & Financial Difficulties-Overseas experience shows high default rates will occur on student loans. Government money will be channelled away from TEAS to paying off banks. The government will also bear the administrative burden of pursuing defaulters. Therefore, the proposed student loans scheme will have disastrous effects on tertiary education, which we believe benefits the whole community, not just the individual student. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The House of Representatives will reject the introduction of a student loans scheme. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Leo McLeay. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: That Federal funding of children's services which is currently almost 50% reduced in real terms should be restored forthwith to at least the 1975/76 level in real terms so that children's services are distributed more equitably throughout Australia. That current plans to impose a standardised means test throughout Australia on users of children's services does not recognise the differences of local areas with the potential to disadvantage the bulk of users in areas of economic need such as Marrickville and should be dropped forthwith. That the stated intention to use public funds to supplement private sector children's services which operate for profit conflicts with the community orientation of the Children's Services Program and should not be implemented. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Leo McLeay. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the railway crossing situated approximately 5 kilometres east of Port Augusta on highway one (the main highway between Adelaide and all northern and western centres of South Australia and continuing through to Western Australia) has once again been the sight of an horrendous accident. This accident has caused two, possibly three fatalities. Previous requests have been made by the City Council of Port Augusta for the construction of an overpass, so that this section of the highway no longer presents a danger to the motoring public and those involved in driving trains over this crossing. Permission for construction of this overpass has previously been refused and the situation has now become critical. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reconsider their previous decision and approve construction of an overpass at this fatally dangerous railway crossing to avoid further loss of life. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the lack of podiatry service for lower fixed income members of the community. Podiatry is an essential health service especially in preventing greater dependency of older people. It would be much more cost effective to maintain the mobility of older people through adequate and effective services than to force them into premature institutional care. The fees for repeated podiatry consultations to provide essential ongoing care are well beyond the means of pensioners. Considering that Department of Veterans ' Affairs pensioners are entitled to podiatry care, and this scheme is already operating successfully, we strongly urge that this service be extended to cover all pensioners. We believe this could be best achieved through including podiatry along with the existing concessions on the health care cards. This would enable a flexible system of care through private practice, community health or rehabilitation services. It would also be essential in negotiations with the Podiatry Association to ensure assistance would be available to the housebound and those in institutions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Allan Morris. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the lack of podiatry service for lower fixed income members of the community. Podiatry is an essential health service especially in preventing greater dependency of older people. It would be much more cost effective to maintain the mobility of older people through adequate and effective services than to force them into premature institutional care. The fees for repeated podiatry consultations to provide essential ongoing care are well beyond the means of pensioners. Considering that Department of Veterans ' Affairs pensioners are entitled to podiatry care, and this scheme is already operating successfully, we strongly urge that this service be extended to cover all pensioners. We believe this could be best achieved through including podiatry along with the existing concessions on the health care cards. This would enable a flexible system of care through private practice, community health or rehabilitation services. It would also be essential in negotiations with the Podiatry Association to ensure assistance would be available to the housebound and those in institutions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Simmons. 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 responsibility 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. by Mr Braithwaite. 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 respectfully showeth: Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; Alcohol is a factor in 50% 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 Les Johnson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Grey respectfully showeth: That the plan by the Australian Telecommunications Commission to withdraw public telegram facilities and downgrade telegram standards by: (1) planning to withdraw the 24 hour telegraph service at the Chief Telegraph Office in each capital city and in Canberra and Darwin, (2) closing country telegraph offices, (3) increasing telegram charges whilst downgrading the service, (4) withdrawing telegram operating facilities from a large number of suburban and country post offices, (5) generating serious delays in telegram delivery by reducing standards of service through centralisation of the network and reduction of operating and delivery staff, will reduce an available means of communications in commercial enterprise, deny the opportunity for people of Australia to make contact with family and friends in times of emergency, and civil or natural disasters, particularly for the 30 per cent of Australians who are not telephone subscribers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take measures to ensure the maintenance of an efficient, effective public telegram service to meet the needs of the Australian people socially, publicly, commercially and in times of emergencies and civil or natural disasters. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. 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-Holden's, respectfully show: 1. That the management of General Motors-Holden's has failed over a period of more than two (2) years to give any assurances that the Woodville Plant would continue in operation. 2. That a recent statement attributed to the GMH Managing Director, quote: ''the overall objective of our South Australian rationalisation plan has been to eliminate all productive activities on the Woodville site.'' This statement has not been refuted. 3. That the elimination of the Woodville Plant will cause enormous social dislocation, hardship and misery to the citizens of Woodville and South Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament of Australia will condemn this callous disregard for the citizens of Woodville and South Australia, and do all in its power to force General Motors-Holden's 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 calls on the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to exercise properly his ministerial discretion, without being subjected to improper pressures from others, and to forthwith issue visas to permit delegates from East Timor to visit Australia next week for important scheduled meetings with Members of this Parliament. Mr SPEAKER —Before calling for any further notices, I have noticed in recent days that members are once more introducing argument and comment into their notices. The object of notices is to put a motion on which the House can decide. Information and argument should not be included. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House congratulates the Government on the appointment of a Royal Commissioner to inquire into Australia's security and intelligence services, thus allaying the fears in the community created by the irresponsible attitude of the Opposition parties. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) the Government's policy of abolishing the investment allowance, and (b) that this policy- (i) will have detrimental effects on many small and medium sized businesses in Australia, and (ii) is creating uncertainty and striking at business confidence, and- Mr Dawkins-What are you going to do about it? Mr SHIPTON —I ask the honourable member to listen- (2) calls on the Government, in any proposed economic statement, to abandon this policy. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) undertakings solemnly given, believed and accepted by the Government and the Australian people have been, without reason, irrespon- sibly broken, and (b) the actions of the ACTU are widely publicised by the Government as threatening job opportunities, economic recovery and Government planning, and (2) condemns the ACTU for its breach of faith with the Australian community in regard to its undertakings given to the Australian Labor Party prior to the elections and also given to the Economic Summit. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That this House expresses its concern at the Government's lack of commitment to its pre-election promise to maintaining in real values local government's share of personal income tax collections; (2) notes local government's concern at this lack of commitment, and (3) recognise the contribution made to good government in this nation by the 839 local government authorities and its 8,700 councillors. Mr Ian Cameron proceeding to give notice of a motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's notice is out of order. I think he realises why. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The erosion of public confidence because of the growing list of broken Government promises. 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 STEELE HALL(Boothby)(10.8) —As this Government stumbles through its first three months of office, along a tortuous and crisis ridden path, there is a growing perception that the group of men and women opposite who now form this administration do not espouse the policies with which they went to the Australian people a few weeks ago. That perception is based on many manifestations that this Government has no intention of fulfilling the promises that it so clearly made at that time. One could say, if one were charitable, that it was simply a matter of incompetence. One could say to them or the Australian people that the Australian Labor Party had no idea of the responsibilities it was about to assume. However, if one looks at the performance of Labor around Australia one sees a real plan behind the system of simply promising the world in order to gain office. In fairly recent times the Government of Victoria changed. Mr Cain promised the earth to the citizens of that State. His policy speech contained many promises of a nature similar to that of those that we have seen made in the Federal sphere recently. Yet, when he got to office his first actions were to deny the validity of his promises on the basis that he could not perform under the conditions he found. One would have expected, therefore, that at the election at which the next State government changed the Labor leader of the day would have learned the lesson, that he would have looked to Victoria and said: 'I must be cautious because Mr Cain was unable to fulfil his promises'. Did Mr Bannon adopt a different attitude? No, he went to the South Australian people promising the earth. When he was elected he said: 'I cannot find the resources to fulfil my promises'. The very same thing occurred in the Federal election prior to March. The Hawke Labor Government promised the earth. When he got in he said that he could not find the resources. I am not so charitable as to say that the people opposite are simply incompetent. I believe that they are in government by design and deceit by promising to the Australian people those things that they full well knew they were unable to fulfil. This short record shows clearly that this is the fact. This party, which at the last Budget said to the then Government: 'You are not spending enough, you should spend more on a range of items across the Australian community', has, therefore, no base on which to say now that it cannot find the resources. The first major defect in the Government's program surrounds the National Economic Summit Conference, that height of political ascent at which the Prime Minister found the air so rarefied that it affected his judgment and at which he found the height so great that there was no one there with him. Certainly his main partner in making the Summit work, Mr Dolan of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, yesterday walked away from the Summit. He clearly walked away from the major promise that the Prime Minister made to the Australian people when he said that we will 'bring Australians together in a united effort until victory is won'. He went on to say: We of the Labor Party have already-well before the election, and well before the proposed summit-established the firmest possible basis for the necessary three-sided co-operation between governments, business and unions. In this House during the Summit he detailed his expectation of increases in wages in future years. Yesterday Mr Dolan made remarks which were reported in newspapers this morning, especially in the Australian. The Australian said: The decisions taken at yesterday's meeting of the ACTU Executive have put an end to consensus and to the prospect of a new era of employer-employee relations envisaged by the economic 'summit'. Worse than that, Mr Dolan has simply run away from the Summit back to the accord , the agreement reached between the ACTU and the Government before the election. One of the key provisions at page 9 of the accord clearly sets out the objective of the accord. It states: To protect the purchasing power of wages and salaries the adoption of a system of full cost of living adjustments will be strongly supported in tripartite consultations before industrial tribunals. There is no intention in the accord to support the arrangements and the proposals put forward by the Summit. So the first major promise to the Australian people by the Hawke-led Government has been disposed of by one of its partners in setting it up. One of the other major promises to the Australian people surrounds the matter of taxation. How well we remember the covering paragraph in the Prime Minister's election speech in regard to taxation in which he said: I believe the Australian people have had enough of election promises made only to be broken. I offer no fistful of dollars to be snatched back after the election. A few days after Mr Hawke made that statement he said that immediate reductions in income tax for almost six million Australian taxpayers would be made. Three days after he was elected he said: We will have to reconsider the whole of our program. Sixteen days later he said: If there has to be some delay of the tax cuts, it will not be because Bob Hawke has decided so. That is an example of his running away immediately from his responsibility in relation to tax cuts. Tomorrow, Australians will be treated to the spectacle not simply of the Government's failing to fulfil these tax cuts but to its increasing the taxation load on the Australian people. That is what they get for trusting the Government in relation to its promises a short three months ago. Then there is the asinine statement regarding the health plans of the Government , specifically Medicare. In Labor's program it is said: . . . Medicare . . . involves the replacement of the present crippling health fund contributions . . . It will mean, that nine out of ten Australians will pay less for . . . health . . . That statement was undercut a little later when the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), I think, reduced the figure to three out of four. If we listen carefully tomorrow to the exposition of the Medicare plan when it is presented to Parliament we will find that that is an absolute fiction. It is not possible to load up on one-tenth of the users of health care in Australia the cost of allowing nine-tenths of the population to have a lower health care cost. Any statistician or student of the Budget will tell honourable members opposite, if they do not know, that that is a mathematical nonsense. I refer now to another promise made by the Government, one relating to petrol. We remember clearly how the Australian public was deeply impressed by the Labor Party's election promise that: Labor will reduce the price of petrol by cancelling the January 1 oil price increase of $3.23 per barrel. This will have the effect of reducing the price of petrol by the order of 3c a litre. It will also reduce the Consumer Price Index by half of one point. Twelve days after he was elected the Prime Minister cut his promise in half by reducing the price of Australian crude by $2 a barrel. That was one of the early rejections of promises in which the Labor Party had used as its excuse for the devaluation of the Australian dollar. What did it say about devaluation prior to the election? It made a simple statement saying: 'We will not be devaluing'. How does it stand before our criticism of its failure to reduce petrol prices when it was its own action in breaking another parallel promise that resulted in its inability to reduce petrol prices? I turn now to the matter of retreaded tyres-perhaps a small matter for some people but one of great moment to those involved in the transport industry and those servicing the motor vehicle industry in Australia. Prior to the election the promise was made that the sales tax would be removed. Yet now we find that the promise has been rescinded. In fact, the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) when he was a member of parliament in Opposition wrote a letter to Mr Woodward, executive director of the Commercial Vehicle Industry Association of Australia, saying: In the interim we would continue to require that the Commissioner of Taxation takes no action to enforce payment of increased sales tax on retreaded tyres. Mr Bilney —It is the Opposition that needs a retread. Mr STEELE HALL —I turn now, especially for the benefit of the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney), to the matter of the Fleet Air Arm which the Prime Minister mentioned when he spoke to those people of north Queensland who have a particular interest in surveillance of the coastal areas of Australia. He said: We will ask the Royal Australian Navy to retain its fixed wing capability . . . What went wrong? The Prime Minister obviously forgot to ask the Navy to do so. In fact, he took the opposite view again. Having made that promise to the Australian people to secure some support for a defence policy, he embarked upon a defence policy that is exactly the opposite of that put to the Australian people. It is not just a broken promise; it is a 180-degree turn in direction. I turn to another statement in the policy speech concerning unemployment. It stated: For the sake of the one million and more Australians who face unemployment unless there is a change, those policies must be changed, and will be changed-by the Australian Labor Government after 5 March. Certainly policies were changed by the Australian Labor Party. They were changed in relation to development. There are thousands of people in South Australia and in other parts of Australia who would get jobs now and in the future who are to be denied jobs because of Labor's policy on uranium development in this country. The refusal of the State Labor Government in South Australia, with the full approval of the Federal Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), to deny the development of Beverley and Honeymoon in South Australia is a deliberate blow at the heart of the industrialisation of my State. But further than that, it is the death knell of uranium enrichment in Australia. At a time when we find that important customers around this world are turning to Canada and other countries for their supplies of uranium it is the most asinine and deliberately anti-development policy that any government could pursue in this matter. We come to the matter of fixed term parliaments, something that will be dealt with quite soon. This Government does not believe in frequent elections but what is it going to do? It will have a referendum, before the next Budget, that will cost $21m. It does not like taking people to the polls, does it? Within six or seven months the people will go back to the polls and it will cost $21m. Why does the Government not put that question at the next election? Why does it not do that if it meant what it said in relation to reducing the number of elections in Australia. I turn now to the matter of tourism. In its policy speech the Australian Labor Party said that it was going to increase expenditure on tourism, tourist promotion and low cost tourist accommodation. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) does not believe that there should be an airport terminal in Adelaide. He undersold the fauna of Australia internationally in his recent statements to such a degree that he has been carpeted by his leader. This is the Government which was going to promote tourism. One essential part of the election speech of the Government referred to probity. It stated: Labor in office will be committed to restoring probity in government, cutting away extravagance and self indulgence in public office, and establishing clear- cut decision making procedures. It said it would establish a clear-cut decision-making procedure. This morning's newspapers state: Uproar in Caucus as junior Ministers demand say. Is that clear-cut? Is it clear-cut that Richard Farmer was briefed about three or four days before the full Cabinet was briefed on the Combe affair? This Government has lurched from one crisis to another. Of course, the Australian public is becoming aware that it is not simply a crisis-prone government, it is a government which deceitfully misled the public in an election document which it had no intention of honouring. It gained a support in this community which it is now rapidly losing. I say to the Australian people that they must wait. As time goes by these broken promises will mount and will be counted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(10.24) —The last person who accused me of doing anything about airline tickets lost his seat. I suggest that if the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) carries on like that the same will happen to him. What has happened today is that parliamentary debate has been reduced to the lowest satire that Australia has ever seen. Obviously John Cleese is now the new official speech writer for the Opposition and the front bench is crammed full of the complete Monty Python cast. Just look at them-30 of them. All the 30 brilliant, new, talented, front bench members of the Opposition can come up with in this period of alleged crisis is the fact that there have been broken promises on behalf of this Government which is not even 70 days old. Today's exercise comes right on top of the spectacular debacle of yesterday. Members of the Opposition came in here hairy-chested, about to move a censure motion against this Government, and fell to pieces like the pack of cards that they really are. Why did they not have the guts to move a censure motion yesterday? Because they realised their case was based on a tissue of lies. And now they have come in here in a pathetic attempt to gain the political initiative. What does it come down to? I listened intently to the speech of the honourable member for Boothby. All it comes down to is a question of retreaded tyres. Here we have this new Opposition, which is also only 70 day old, and it is completely worn out. No one is more in need of a retread than the Opposition that sits in this Parliament today. If the only thing that is holding it back from having a retread is the fact that it might have to pay sales tax on it, I will talk to the Commissioner of Taxation to see whether he can waive the sales tax so that the Opposition can have the retread that it so desperately needs. We have had accusations about broken promises from the broken promise experts of Australian politics. There is one promise that we have not broken; there is one compact which we have kept intently with the Australian people, and that is to exorcise from this Parliament the most divisive government and the most divisive Prime Minister that this country has ever seen. The people of Australia will forever thank us for that great achievement of bringing to this country a government that can be trusted, a government that is going to set about achieving full employment in this country, a government which will be happy to be judged on its record. It will not have to explain year after year a deplorable record of lies and deceit, which was the hallmark of the last seven years of government in Australia. Let me remind the forgetful members of the Opposition of some of the promises which the broken promise experts made to the people of Australia. Let us remember that on 12 September 1978 the former Government said: Inflation at an annual rate of 5 per cent is within our reach by mid-1979. It will go on falling under the policies of this government. Then in 1980 it said: The Government's success in winding back inflation has been a pre-condition for the substantial progress in reducing interest rates. But what in fact happened? In June 1978 inflation was at a rate of 8.8 per cent. By 1979 it was 10.7 per cent and when the former Government was finally kicked from office the inflation rate had increased to 11.5 per cent or twice the average for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries . So there we have a promise of 5 per cent inflation, and what did we get? We got 11.5 per cent inflation. We were told in December 1977 that there would be a 2 per cent reduction in interest rates in the next 12 months. We were told this: . . . is a target that can and will be achieved-- Mr Porter —What about tomorrow? You are talking about six years ago. Mr DAWKINS —Oh, no. I know the Opposition does not like it but it is going to hear it anyway. Interest rates did fall tentatively by one per cent but then continued to rise. After the former Government promised to reduce them by 2 per cent they rose by 4 per cent. The greatest achievement of this Government, in 70 short days, has been to reduce interest rates already. If that is not the greatest mark of the confidence which the commercial community has in this Government then nothing else is. Then we have the great promise: Unemployment will fall from February and keep on falling. That was said in 1977. Unemployment continued to rise, until it has now reached 10.3 per cent, or over 700,000 people. And these people want to talk to us about broken promises! Let us get into something a bit more contemporary. Let us talk for a moment about last year's Budget. The Budget was one which was conceived in absolute deceit. The only problem for the former Government was that the gestation period was far too long. What the Budget of 1982-83 was supposed to do was to just hang together for one or three months in order that that Government could crawl back into office on the basis of either a September or a November election. That was the plan. The Budget was only ever supposed to last for one or three months in order that it could get the former Government over the election which it so desperately feared. What happened is that by early this year the Budget strategy began to crumble and the deceit on which it was based was exposed for all to see . What were we told in the Budget? We were told that the 1982-83 deficit would be $1.7 billion. What do we now know? We now know that the deficit for 1982-83 will end up being $4.7 billion-an increase of $3 billion in the deficit from Budget night until now. We were told that unemployment benefits would cost $1,567m. In fact they will end up costing us this year $2.27 billion. That represents an increase of $700m in the cost of unemployment benefits. That was a bit of deceit which was transparently clear on Budget night itself and was exposed for all to see by the present Prime Minister. The Budget of 1982-83 also included a home loan interest rebate which cost $ 100m in 1982-83 and would cost $230m in 1983-84. But that is just one of the absolute time bombs which was included in that Budget, a Budget which was not expected to last, which was calculated and designed to ensure that, whilst it looked attractive on Budget night, the cost of providing those promises was to be transferred into 1983-84 at least. The home loan interest rebate introduced on Budget night was to cost $55m in that year and $185m in the next year. Family allowance increases were to cost $250m this year and $375m next year. The tax cuts which were supposed to be the lure to con the Australian people into re- electing the former Government were to cost $1,500m in 1982-83 and $2.5 billion in 1983-84. The former Government had no intention of keeping with the Australian people the compact of the 1982-83 Budget. It was perfectly clear from Budget night on that it intended to abrogate the undertakings that were included in that Budget. What it hoped was that the Budget would be sufficient to get it over the election that it so much feared, and it would then have an opportunity, early in this year, to abrogate it and to recast it in a way more to its liking and a way more capable of proper achievement. I mentioned yesterday the sort of devices to which the former Liberal-National Party Government would have resorted if it had been given the task of sorting out the absolute economic shambles that it had created as a result of that Budget. What we would been presented with, at least at this time, had there been an election late last year, would have been tax increases of $15 a week for every taxpayer in Australia. That is the only way which would have been consistent with the approach which was followed by the former Government in relation to balancing the Budget. When there was a need to reduce the deficit, a need to bring the Budget more into balance, it resorted to increased taxes and year after year we were confronted with continual increases in taxes. Punishing rates of taxes were visited upon the Australian people by the former Government despite the fact that in November 1975 it said: Our reforms will give back to people money they earned by their own hard work and which Labor has taken away from them. In fact, in the seven dark Fraser years, total tax increased from 23 cents in the dollar in 1975-76 to 26c in the dollar by 1982-83. In the tax field, it said it would do something about tax avoidance. It said: We will move to close loopholes which permit tax avoidance. In 1980 it said: We are clamping down on tax avoidance. We have only to recall the disastrous sequence of last year with the presentation of the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. The report stated: This industry- It referred to the tax avoidance industry- has developed in Australia, particularly over the last five years, at a rate far in excess of any other industry and has brought with it profits comparable only to the heady days of the Victorian gold rush . . . The amounts involved are very large indeed, amounting to many hundreds of millions of dollars per year or more . The impact on the community has been very serious. This occurred under a government which promised to end tax avoidance loopholes, a government which pretended that it was clamping down on tax avoidance. We have had to wait for the new Labor Government to fulfil that particular promise and end forever the scourge of tax avoidance in this country. It will be with a great deal of pleasure that later today I will introduce into this House measures which will clean up the dreadful mess of the bottom-of-the-harbour scandal which prospered under the neglect of the former Government. I find it extraordinarily difficult to take seriously these sorts of allegations by the Opposition. What is being proposed to us in this matter of public importance is something which absolutely defies explanation. It is the most banal farce that we have ever seen in the Parliament. The case presented by the honourable member for Boothby absolutely defies any sort of reasonable explanation. He did not have a case. The Opposition is desperate for an issue to debate, it is desperate to find any vulnerability in this great Government that is managing the affairs of this country. I can tell honourable members that there are some very important promises which the Australian people do care about . They care about our promise to create 500,000 jobs in the next three years. They care about our promise to restore some sort of sanity to industrial relations. They care about the prices and incomes accord which will provide the basis for sustained economic recovery in this country. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(10.39) —We have just listened to a very weak defence on behalf of the Government by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). Once again, of course, the Government is attempting to blame the former Government for the problems which it is creating and the promises which it, as a government is breaking in this country day by day. This is a very important matter of public importance, if only to serve to remind the Government of the promises that it made prior to 5 March and the number of promises it is breaking day by day. The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) has listed a great number of them . The Government's record of broken promises has already unnerved many sections of the community which were led to believe that a Hawke Government would carry out its promises. As the honourable member for Boothby so aptly said, the Australian Labor Party's promises were given a degree of credibility when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), prior to the election, said: I offer no fistful of dollars to be snatched back after the election. The Hawke Labor Government was elected after promising, on 16 February, immediate reductions in income tax for almost six million Australian taxpayers. Yet, three days after the Labor Government was elected the Prime Minister said: we will have to reconsider the whole of our program. Then on 21 March the Prime Minister said on the Mike Walsh Show: If there has to be some delay of the tax cuts, it will not be because Bob Hawke has decided so. It will be because the community, through their representative bodies essentially agree that it is part of what has to be done. Then, of course, we had the National Economic Summit Conference. It was used as a forum to tell the Australian people we were in a recession-as if they did not know-and used to excuse the Hawke Government from any of the promises it cared to break. Do honourable members remember the promise to cut fuel prices by 3c a litre? What happened to that bold promise? What happened to the 3c a litre price cut? We were told that Labor is committed to the maintenance of family allowances. On 16 February the Labor Party leader made that commitment in his policy speech. He said that Labor was committed to the maintenance of family allowances. yet, less than three weeks after the election the Prime Minister said: I've said to all my Ministers that everything has got to be examined. He refused to say whether family allowances would be retained or would not be means tested. Press reports now indicate that taxation allowances for certain sectors of the community are likely to be abolished. We have been told that the investment allowances are to be axed. If that Government wants to create more unemployment in this country I cannot think of a better way to achieve it. Press reports indicate that the farmers are to be singled out by having some of their taxation concessions removed after having suffered one of the longest and worst droughts this century. These hard-won concessions are supposed to offset the disabilities that have been occasioned to the primary industries of this country as a result of the tariff structure which we are told is designed to protect manufacturing industry and to protect jobs. I think the feeling was summed up this morning in the Australian Financial Review which indicated that farmers are likely to be the victims of the min-Budget cost restraints. What about the promises that were made to the farmers of this country during that election campaign? In the great election speech which was made at Griffith in New South Wales we were given an assurance that the farming community of this country would not be attacked. Of course it will be attacked as it was by the Whitlam Government in those three dreadful years. We are warned that the taxation rebates on housing interest rates presently enjoyed by millions of Australian home buyers will be axed. What about the Government's housing bond policy? There are already indications that Cabinet is about to renege on this policy. Then, of course, there is the classic case of the promised removal of sales tax on retreaded tyres. On 23 February the new Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) informed Mr Woodward, the Executive Director of the Commerical Vehicle Industry Association, that a Labor government, recognising the disruptive potential of a sales tax on retreaded tyres, would support appropriate legislative action to restore the previous taxation position for retreaded tyres. Now the Prime Minister quite blatantly has walked away from this promise. He blandly blames the deficit he has inherited from the previous Government. On 11 February the Age newspaper captioned an article, 'ALP 500,000 job offer. Hawke pledges tax cuts on lower, middle incomes'. That refers to a 500,000 job offer from the Australian Labor Party. Not one damn job has been created. In fact, the Government has done everything in its power to stop jobs. Mr Hodgman —Tasmania. Mr HUNT —It has tried to stop jobs in Tasmania on a dam. It has interfered with practically every program. What has happened to the Bicentennial Road Development Program? Not one shire in my electorate has received this year's allocation for its local road program. What is the Government doing about these programs? What is it doing about the Darwin-Alice Springs railway? It is mute on that issue but it was not mute before 5 March. It is walking away from one jolly promise after another. Where are those half a million new jobs? Where are the tax cuts? The Government gives us a sob story that it inherited the problem. It talked about a projected Budget deficit of $9.6 billion that came to hand in early February-March. There are four good reasons why those figures could not be taken as a true guide to the final shape of any responsible Budget. Firstly, the Estimates at that time of the year are notoriously unreliable. Secondly, there is no way that a Liberal-National Party Government would have tolerated a $9.6 billion deficit. Thirdly, Labor's new-found concern-it is a new-found concern-for Budget deficits flew in the face of its electoral promises. The Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot be a humbug and a hypocrite and at the same time try to blame other people for policies that it has followed and pursued for as long as I can remember. This is a high expenditure Government. It is not afeard by Budget deficits. It has promoted and advocated them. Fourthly, Labor made its pre- election promises with reckless lack of concern for the current state of the economy. Since the polling day it has sought to retreat from promise after promise behind a smokescreen of blaming the former Government and the National Economic Summit Conference. That was the cleverest fraud and act of deception in my political career. If the Government is looking for something from which to gain credit, that is about the only thing it could be given credit for in its three months in office. The Government has attempted constantly to blame the previous Government. It has learned that from Nifty Wran in New South Wales. He has been a classic, but all the chickens are coming home to roost on the top of his head. I hope they do a good job on him too. But the Prime Minister and his Ministers assured Australians that the National Economic Summit Conference would achieve the degree of responsibility that Australians are looking for on the wages front. But what has happened? Yesterday the Australian Council of Trade Unions resolved to demand a non-negotiable claim for full wage indexation from the March quarter this year and it will demand a catch-up. This decision has put an end to the promise of consensus, reconciliation and rehabilitation-the so-called new era of employer-employee relationships. We were told that the prices and incomes accord with the unions would ensure responsibility. What a lot of hogwash. How long does it think it can go around this country trying to convince the people that it is fair dinkum. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(10.49) —I wonder whether in the history of the Parliament there has been a more cynical matter of public importance raised by any Opposition. The wording of it is: The erosion of public confidence because of the growing list of broken Government promises. One would be forgiven for believing that those words had been directed against the previous Government. I was interested to see that the person chosen, conscripted, to raise the matter of public importance this morning was the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). He is a newcomer, a fledgling clean-skin, to the front bench of the Opposition. I wonder why one of the former Ministers on the front bench was not given the responsibility and the opportunity to raise such a matter of public importance. Was it because they are too closely identified with the deception, the fraud and the falsifications of the previous government? They would have made it a burlesque indeed had they raised this matter of public importance this morning. So it was left to one of the new recruits on the front bench, supported of course by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), who is a former Minister. I believe that while he was a member of that Government he probably tried to distance himself as far as he possibly could from those frauds and falsifications. Those are the very people who, during the time of the previous Government, were led by a man whose name we see blazoned across walls in the suburbs of the cities of Australia-'Fraser lies'. He is the person to whom the front page of the Illawarra Mercury referred. The whole of the front page was taken up with three words-'Lies, lies, lies'. Those are the people who, with cynical hypocricy , have the audacity here this morning to raise as a matter of public importance the question of the growing list of broken Government promises. Let it go on the record that to a very large extent those promises-if there have been any broken promises, and if there are to be any broken promises-were based on the assumption that the information which had been given by the previous Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), who is the present shadow Treasurer, could reasonably have been expected by the present Government to be statements of substance. The honourable member for Bennelong shakes his head. Who was the person in Australia with the responsibility and the authority to speak with some basic understanding and knowledge of the Budget deficit that might be projected for next year? If it was not the Treasurer in the previous Federal Government who could it have been? The previous Treasurer indicated that the Budget deficit for next year would be in the vicinity of $6,000m. I have indicated that this is well documented, and on some future occasion we can debate it more adequately. The former Treasurer said that the Budget deficit would be in the vicinity of $6,000m at a time when he knew that it would be at least $8,000m. He had been informed as early as February this year by the Department of the Treasury that it would be approaching twice what the projected deficit was for this year at that time; that is, about $4 billion. The projected deficit for 1983-84 was at least $8, 000m when the former Treasurer used the figure $6,000m. It was reasonable to expect that the Opposition could have accepted the words of the former Treasurer and that it could have accepted the former Treasurer as a man of truth, a man of substance and a man of some credibility. The Opposition could have expected to base its undertakings to the Australian people on the assumption that that information, that projection made by the former Treasurer, was a projection of substance. It proved not to be. In the face of that let us not forget, and let no member of the Opposition bench ever forget, that as the rumour started to circulate and the evidence came forward that the $6,000m figure was not one on which we could place any credence at all, prior to the election on Saturday 5 March the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was sufficiently honest with the Australian people to make this statement, which I would like to put on the record: If we get into Government and we have the National Economic Summit Conference and the people of Australia find out that Mr Fraser and Mr Howard haven't been telling the truth-that the Budget deficit is very much higher . . . and there is consensus at the Summit that there would have to be some modification of our programs, then obviously we would accede to that. He went on to say: I haven't got the capacity to say what modification there may have to be, because whether there would have to be depends on whether Mr Fraser has been telling the truth. Now we know that the former Prime Minister was not telling the truth. After Saturday 5 March we found out that the projected Budget deficit for next year was to be in the vicinity of $9.6 billion not the $6 billion that had been referred to by the former Treasurer even at the time that he knew it would be a minimum of $8 billion. In the light of that, it was understandable that the Prime Minister would seek, and would receive, the endorsement of all of those sections and interests of the Australian people that were represented in this very chamber during the Summit Conference. Peak councils of industry, peak councils of trade unions and all major sections of the Australian community represented in this chamber endorsed that proposition that the Prime Minister put forward. So well might we ask these members on the Opposition benches: Who in heaven's name do they represent in the Australian community? Certainly they do not represent the people who were represented at the Summit Conference. Perhaps they represent themselves. Perhaps they speak for themselves. Certainly, they have given no evidence since they have found themselves in Opposition, that they speak with any degree of sincerity or credibility for any section of the Australian people. The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), to his continuing embarrassment, was conscripted by the leaders of his party to raise this matter of public importance. There was no enthusiasm in the presentation of his case. How could the honourable member for Boothby, a man who has a creditable background, stand up in this Parliament and make the claims he did, knowing that he belonged to a political party now in Opposition, which over seven years had made a cumulatively increasing number of promises to the Australian people and had repudiated almost every one of them. The honourable member for Boothby did not raise that matter of public importance on his own behalf. He was conscripted by the Peacocks and the Howards, who wanted to distance themselves from such a proposition because had they raised it-bearing in mind that they were so closely identified with the previous Government and its deceptions and falsifications- the whole procedure would have been a greater burlesque than it has proved to be so far. This Parliament and the Australian people can dismiss the proposition put forward by the Opposition this morning as a miserable attempt to suggest that after a period of some 70 days all of the undertakings that have been given should have been put into effect. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —(Hon. Les Johnson)-Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr Dawkins —Not again! Mr HOWARD —Yes, again. And the honourable member will go on hearing it because he does not like to. I will go on. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —During the course of his speech the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) made the totally dishonest, misleading and untrue statement-- Mr Uren —I think the honourable member should withdraw that. Mr HOWARD —I will not withdraw it because what I am saying is true. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It is not in order for the honourable member to describe another honourable member as having been dishonest. Mr HOWARD —It is apparently in order to describe in this House the former Prime Minister of this country as having been dishonest, but it is apparently not in order for somebody on this side to use the same language. With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like more consistency in the attitude of the Chair on language of that kind. The honourable member for Hunter-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! the honourable member cannot proceed along those lines . Mr HOWARD —Well, the honourable member for Hunter used a misleading-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Is the honourable member seeking the attention of the Chair? Mr HOWARD —I am, sir. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Are you taking a point of order? Mr HOWARD —No, sir. I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Uren —Did he withdraw the word 'dishonest'? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Leave is not granted. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr HOWARD —In other words, the Government is denying me the opportunity of correcting a false statement. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Uren —The honourable member knows the forms of the House. He can make a personal explanation, but we will not give him leave to make a statement. If he wants to take the procedures-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is not now seeking to make a personal explanation. He has concluded that matter. Mr HOWARD —I have not, sir, with respect. I would like to make a personal explanation because I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed with his personal explanation. Mr HOWARD —Thank you, sir. In the course of his speech, my colleague the honourable member for Hunter made the totally incorrect statement that the promises of the Labor Party in the recent election campaign were based upon a statement that I had made to the effect that next year's Budget deficit was likely to be in the order of $6,000m. The truth is that all of the promises of the Labor Party is the last election campaign were made on 16 February which was a full five or six days before any qualified reference was made by any member of the former to a figure of $6,000m. The honourable member for Hunter, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) all know that that line of argument is totally dishonest and misleading. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented in the statement just made by the former Treasurer and wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —The honourable member may proceed. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The premise upon which he based his personal explanation is without substance. I did not claim that the former Opposition had based its election promises on the figure of $6,000m. Mr Howard —Oh, you are not claiming that now? Mr ROBERT BROWN —I am not claiming that. Mr Howard —The Treasurer did so at the Summit; your Treasurer! Mr Robert Brown —That was the maximum-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member-- Mr ROBERT BROWN —I know the matter is not to be debated. I am not debating it, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Bennelong is introducing the debate . I am simply trying to explain the way in which I have been misrepresented. The honourable member for Bennelong claimed that I had indicated that the promises of the present Government were based on a $6 billion deficit. I am quite aware of the fact that the election undertakings were given at a date prior to the former Treasurer using that figure. But the $6 billion figure referred to by the former Treasurer was the maximum that had been referred to until that time. It is still true that the present Government based its election promises on the assumption that the projected deficit for 1983-84 would almost certainly be less than $6 billion. Mr Howard —Produce the evidence. You haven't got any. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The discussion is concluded. Debate resumed from 17 May, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.4) —Last night, when the Broadcasting and Television Amendment (Election Blackout) Bill 1983 was debated, the Opposition put forward a proposal not to apply the blackout to advertising. That was a matter of some astonishment for the Government. Even having regard to the standards set by the Opposition it appeared almost certain that there would be a bipartisan approach on this issue. The Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters, in a research paper commissioned by the Federation in March 1981 and distributed widely within the industry, supported strongly the blackout being abolished but with the retention of the ban on paid advertising. The proposal of the Federation was endorsed without qualification by the following: Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations; Mr McDonald, International Press Institute; Rupert Public Interest Movement Incorporated; Professor Henry Mayer, Professor of Political Theory, University of Sydney; Dr Patricia Edgar, Senior Lecturer, Centre for the Study of Educational Communication and Media; Latrobe University; and the Media Studies Department, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. There were also other endorsements of the proposals put forward by the Federation but there were some qualifications about some of them. The people I listed earlier did in fact endorse the proposal that there should be a retention of the ban on paid advertising. The paper stated quite clearly that a licensee shall not at any time between the end of an election period and the close of the poll on the day on which the election is held broadcast or televise an election advertisement. The Opposition has again adopted a one-off position. Its motives must be questioned, having regard to the appallingly deceptive standards set by its advertisements in election campaigns. In particular I just want to refer to one advertisement-the infamous wealth tax advertisements which were run by the Opposition. It would have been delightful for the Opposition but not for anybody else if those advertisements had been able to continue without any period of blackout. A final indication of the extraordinary standards of the Opposition is revealed by the views of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), now the Leader of the Opposition. On 26 January 1982 he issued a Press release on the election blackout which stated: The Federal Member for Kooyong, Mr Andrew Peacock, welcomed the move by the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters to lift the pre-election black out on politicial news and comment. 'The continuation of the black out is an insult to the intelligence of Australian voters'. Commenting on the Federation's report 'a proposal to end the election black out ' Mr Peacock said that the Australian people should not be denied radio and television political comment in the two days preceding an election. Mr Peacock welcomed the Federation's compromise proposal which would allow news and current affairs broadcasts but continue the ban against advertising through the electronic media. Mr Howe —Peacock said that? Mr DUFFY —That was the present Leader of the Opposition. He stated that on 26 January 1982. It is worth repeating the final comment: Mr Peacock welcomed the Federation's compromise proposal which would allow news and current affairs broadcasts but continue the ban against advertising through the electronic media. Therefore, it is quite clear why it was somewhat of a surprise last night-even having regard to what we expect from honourable members opposite-to come into the chamber and find that the Opposition intends to move an amendment at the Committee stage to remove the blackout in respect of advertising. When speaking last night the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) indicated that if he suffered a disadvantage because of something that occurred during a campaign-I assume that he was referring to campaign material generally, news, comment or something that occurred on the radio or television-he would not be able to reply . He said that under this proposal he would be able to buy time to reply. Unfortunately, that seems to me to indicate that what is behind the proposal is to lift the ban on advertising. It is all very well for those parties, such as the Liberal Party and the National Party, with coffers full, to talk about buying time to reply. It certainly does not apply to the Government, nor to the Australian Democrats, and it is an appalling situation. The Opposition stated that the money would be used on advertising to redress what was deemed to be a wrong during the campaign. Last night the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) indicated quite clearly that that is not so easy for people to do, other than members of the Liberal and National parties. Last night he went through in detail what advertisements were in fact booked during a campaign by the then Government, which is now somewhat depleted and in opposition. In fact the time slots were taken up to such a stage where if somebody wanted to reply by advertisement it would have been very difficult to find a time when anybody would have been listening to the radio or watching television to hear what was said. It is disappointing that on this issue the honourable member for Murray conceded and was quite open about the fact that many in Opposition have doubts about lifting the ban-the Opposition can not adopt a bipartisan approach. We heard what it thought of the Bill. We have heard what the Leader of the Opposition thought about it as late as January last year. This morning I think we heard of one instance of what this Government has done or should have done. Since 1949 the Opposition has been in government in this country for 30 years and there has been considerable criticism from all kinds of people about this matter. In fact the criticism was so strong that we had reached the stage where there would have been an inquiry in relation to this matter. The infringement of civil liberties by this ban should not be tolerated in a democratic society. The fact of the matter is that prior to the last election the Human Rights Commission 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. After 30 years in government, since 1949, those opposite did nothing about this matter. This Government has acted quickly and it is indeed disappointing that we are going to have to argue the question of whether the blackout provision in relation to advertising should be removed. In addition to the amendment which will be moved in the Committee stage by the honourable member for Murray, there will also be an amendment moved by the Government, which is necessary to tidy up one aspect of the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 3 (Interpretation). Mr LLOYD(Murray)(11.15) —I move: Clause 3, pages 1 to 3, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Broadcasting or televising of political matter or controversial matter ''3. Section 116 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting sub-sections (4) and (4A); and (b) by omitting sub-sections (6) and substituting the following sub-section: '(6) In this section- ''election'' means an election of members, or of a member, of- (a) the Senate or the House of Representatives; or (b) a House of the Parliament of a State; ''election matter'', in relation to an election, means matter of any of the following kinds: (a) matter commenting on, or soliciting votes for, a candidate at the election; (b) matter commenting on, or advocating support of, a political party to which a candidate at the election belongs; (c) matter commenting on, stating or indicating any of the matters being submitted to the electors at the election or any part of the policy of a candidate at the election or of the political party to which a candidate at the election belongs; or (d) matter referring to a meeting held or to be held in connection with the election; ''election period'', in relation to an election, means the period that commences on the day on which the writ for the election is issued and ends at the close of the poll on the polling day for the election; ''licensee'' means the holder of a licence within the meaning of Part III B.'.' '. This amendment, in effect, would remove all restrictions on the electronic media for the whole election period between the issuing of the writs and the close of the poll. The difference between our amendment and the Government's Bill is that the Government legislation lifts the ban on the electronic media only for news and commentary; it does not do so for advertisements. So it is still not possible for advertisements to be placed on the electronic media between midnight on the Wednesday and the close of the poll. This brings with it several other complications, including requirements for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal still to determine which radio or television stations can or cannot do certain things during those final two or three days of an election campaign. The Opposition amendment completely clears all of this doubt and removes all those sorts of inhibitions and complications from the Broadcasting and Television Act. The Opposition moves this amendment for the following reasons. Mr Kent —Because it has $500m to spend. Mr LLOYD —The honourable member should just listen and he might learn something for a change. Mr Kent — Not from you. Mr LLOYD —It was Labor policy, exactly, in 1980 to do this. So he should be careful before he starts putting his foot in his mouth, in the way that some Ministers have been doing. If we compare what is available to the print media and what is available to the electronic media, we find that the only fair course is to lift the ban on the electronic media completely so that they are as unrestricted as the print media. Any newspaper can take any advertisement, print any news or make any comment right through an election period. With the Government legislation the electronic media will still be disadvantaged. One hears in the debate comments about double standards and hypocrisy. But let us look a little at what the Australian Labor Party has been doing in this situation. I acknowledge quite freely that on both sides there have been differences of opinion as this debate has developed, particularly over the last few years. But looking at the Labor position in 1980, one finds that the Leader of the Labor Party, the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), stated quite clearly that he was opposed to the lifting of the ban. As recently as 1980 that was Labor Party policy. It was stated in 1980 by the Labor Party that once public funding for elections came in that party would be in favour of lifting the ban completely, which is exactly what we are recommending in this amendment. So, when we are talking about being bipartisan, let us look at that situation, and let us look at the position of the Australian Democrats, who are also in favour of completely lifting the ban on the electronic media. The point about paying for advertisements has been made. I remind honourable members of one thing: That in the Broadcasting and Television Act there is no provision whereby a person who is maligned in news or comment on the electronic media in those last two days can be granted time to reply. The only requirement in the Act is that reasonable opportunity over the whole election period be given to those parties, politicians, or candidiates represented in the previous House. That means that it could be claimed by a station owner that someone has been given a run in an earlier stage of an election period and there is no specific requirement to provide equal time, or any time, for that candidate to reply. The point has been made about the so-called coffers of the parties on this side . The point here is that if a person is not given that automatic right to reply surely in desperation he has one last opportunity, and that is to buy time. Anyone who has been so maligned in such a tight situation would, I am sure, make certain that he could buy time. The honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) has made the point that booking schedules can be tight. I acknowledge that. Nevertheless, this amendment provides an opportunity for someone so maligned to have some comeback because there is no automatic comeback provided in this legislation. To sum up, the reasons for our amendment are as follows: First, if one is fair dinkum about really lifting the ban on the electronic media and putting it on an equal footing with the print media there is only one thing to do, and that is to accept this amendment, which lifts it completely-which was Labor Party policy also at one stage. Secondly, because an automatic right of reply is not given in the legislation to somebody who is maligned or disadvantaged in some way through news and commentary issued in the last couple of days before an election, allowing advertising as well provides at least a potential fall back position. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(11.20) —I will speak to the matter very briefly indeed. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), in his address to the House this morning, referred to a Press statement of mine last year and, as a consequence, sought to indicate that the Opposition was being two-faced and hypocritical on this matter. I want to point out that the statement that the Minister read to the Parliament which was issued by me, as I recall, early last year, was in fact correct. I did welcome the move by the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters as a compromise in a difficult circumstance in which very few people were prepared to go as far as we are going in moving this amendment today. But I did it as a first step. My views on this issue go back into the mid-1960s, both in my own party's councils before election to this Parliament, in the coalition party room in 1966 and indeed, for further corroboration so far as this House is concerned, to a debate on the Broadcasting and Television Bill in this House on 1 May 1969 when I said, among other things: I therefore put it to the Minister that the ban on the broadcasting of election matter during the 3 days prior to the close of the poll is outmoded. I went on to talk about what one can read in newspapers, and said: All-- Not just comment-- that pertains to the electoral battle that is going on. I said: Frankly, I believe that this legislation belongs to a bygone era. I think it is a negation of the principle that news should be unfettered. Then I took the matter beyond news, and said: . . . it is an absurd piece of legislation which debars television and radio stations from fulfilling their role of bringing current news and information on all major issues of the day to the public. I urge the Minister to consider whether the Act can be amended in this regard before the next Federal election. I do not need to go further on this matter. My arguments last year, both in public and in the party room, were predicated on a twofold viewpoint-that I had long argued for unfettered utilisation of advertising, news, comment and the like in radio and television. But if this could not be achieved by agreement between the parties, I would accept the compromise that, for the first time, had been suggested by the Federation as acceptable to it, one that I understood at that stage was acceptable to the Australian Labor Party and, as a fall back position, to the Australian Democrats. The Australian Democrats' view had been until then similar to mine. So I have sought the thrust of this amendment before , both in the Parliament and in the party room. We do support the Bill but go further and seek total freedom, not only for comment and news but also advertising. No accusation of double standard or hypocrisy can be directed at me. This has been a long time coming and I have been in a position to so influence my colleagues as to this particular point of view that we are moving this amendment today, As I say, my fight for the amendment goes back to the 1960s and I strongly support it. We support the Bill but also support the amendment because, if one is genuine in seeking to lift the ban and equate the print media with radio and television, it should be lifted in toto. Furthermore, it provides for greater freedom for the individuals concerned . Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.24) —Briefly, I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) for clarifying his Press statement but nevertheless acknowledging that that is what he said. He said that he welcomed the compromise proposal that would allow news and current affairs broadcasts but would continue the ban against advertising through the electronic media. If in fact it was the view of the honourable member at that time that advertising should not be subject to the ban, as far as I am concerned, his statement should have indicated that. It did not indicate that at all. It indicated precisely what I have said it indicated. I accept what the honourable member says about what his position was, but that is not clear from the Press release, which stated precisely what I have said it stated. Mr Peacock —Go back to the 1960s. Mr DUFFY —The Leader of the Opposition referred to a debate in this Parliament in 1969 from which he read extracts. The implication in that speech in respect of advertising I thought was a little subtle but it may be that it is necessary to read the whole of the debate. I close on this point: That Press release indicated quite clearly what I thought was clear support for the Bill without amendment. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(11.26) —The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), in his second reading speech, referred to the blackout as an infringement of our civil liberties which should not be tolerated by a democratic society. He referred to it as an abrogation of free speech. He referred to Australia as a democratic society with a mature electorate and responsible broadcasters. Suddenly, however, he denied all that in the legislation as far as advertising is concerned. He said: 'Right, we cannot have this infringement, this abrogation of commentary. But, by God, we are going to have it as far as advertising is concerned'. I do not see the reality of the distinction. I am sure the Minister would agree that many commentaries are at least very similar to advertisements and are camouflaged advertisements. Surely he would agree that on many occasions some advertisements have been more informative than commentaries. There must have been many occasions in the Australian Labor Party's history in elections when it took the view-it may well have been a correct view-that the advertisements which it placed were more informative and more accurate than the commentaries on its policies. Certainly, that has been the case on many occasions from the Liberal Party's point of view. So the distinction between commentary and advertisement is not one that can be maintained. Certainly, as the Minister said, there have been some appalling advertisements in the history of political advertising but surely he would agree that there have also been some appalling commentaries in the history of commentary. If the blackout restrictions are an intolerable abrogation of the rights of a mature electorate and responsible broadcasters then they are equally intolerable for advertisements as for commentaries. To some extent the Minister relied on the support he was getting from a number of the media groups. He cited the Federation of Australian Commerical Television Stations, the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters, the Public Broadcasting Association of Australia, the Australian Newspapers Council, the Australian Journalists Association and so on. Yet the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters, in a footnote to its proposal, notes that the Public Broadcasting Association, the Australian Newspapers Council and the Australian Journalists Association reject this distinction. They go along with the proposal of FARB which the Minister has adopted, nevertheless, they reject the distinction which the Minister has incorporated in the Bill. I would be surprised if the other supporters of FARB, Professor Henry Mayer and Dr Patricia Edgar agree with it. As I indicated in my speech last night there is something to be said for the status quo. But, if we are going to change then we should change consistently and equally for advertisers and commentators. Let us take seriously the Minister 's words about getting rid of an infringement of our civil liberties which should not be tolerated, getting rid of an abrogation of free speech and acknowledging a democratic society with a mature electorate and resposible broadcasters. Let us make the change consistently and equally for commentators and advertisers. There is no fundamental difference between the two. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(11.29) —In this Committee today I have heard a number of comments that, unfortunately, we have heard time and again in the House and outside in the industry. I would call them airy-fairy nonsense. While some of what the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), said sounded okay, in the practical world of the industry, it was just nonsense. I will elaborate on that as we go along. The Melbourne Age today carries the headline: 'Opposition switch on election blackout'. The article states: Liberal and National parties have done an about-face on their attitude to the election blackout, and are now urging its total elimination. One must ask why. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has put his point of view but the question 'why?' can really be answered by looking at the money that is involved and how much money people have to throw into paid political advertising. For example, during the last election the previous Government got desperate and we saw two-minute advertisements with Malcolm Fraser being the sole participant. In the last week of available time the then Government ran two -minute advertisements in prime time. generally speaking, two minutes is the entire advertising time in one break. The cost of those advertisements throughout Australia would have amounted to tens of thousands of dollars. But, of course, the conservative parties are able to dig deep into their slush funds and bring out money for such emergencies. It did not help them on that occasion, but we have seen it time and again. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) referred to the wealth tax advertisements in the 1980 election campaign. Of course, in 1977 the Liberal- Country Party Government even ran an extra half-hour show on the Wednesday night . That would have cost the Government in excess of six figures, without any exaggeration, just to make sure that it retained office. Mr Coleman —So you don't believe in civil liberties? Mr CHARLES —I will get to that in a minute. There is more to come. When talking of paid political advertising I must raise the question of whether we should in fact have paid political advertising at all because, as the Opposition knows, Australia is one of the few countries in the world that allows paid political advertising. The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) nods his head so obviously he agrees. Why should the Opposition parties, because they have more money than any other party, be able to fill the airwaves with a whole lot of drivel? The latest figures I have relate to the 1980 election campaign. On 15 October-three days before the election-the Melbourne Age ran an article, which was accompanied by a graph, headed 'Liberal commercials on Melbourne TV'. I repeat that they were on Melbourne television only. In an INSIGHT article it was stated: However, INSIGHT obtained a copy of the Liberal advertising booking schedule for Victoria between 28 September and 18 October. The document, prepared by D'Arcy-MacManus and Masius, shows the extent of the Liberals' campaign. The Liberals have also booked heavily in daily newspapers. They have taken nine full-page advertisements in 'The Age' at an estimated cost of $38,000. Similar full-page advertisements in the 'Sun' the 'Herald' and the 'Australian' will cost about $35,000 for each paper. On the subject of the electronic media it refers to television and the graph accompanying the article. The article states: On television, Melbourne's three commercial stations will have shown more than 190 'spots' of 60, 30 and 10-second duration before the blanket ban on political advertising comes into effect from midnight. The metropolitan television campaign will end up costing the Liberals nearly $200,000. That was $200,000 in 1980. It would probably be $300,000 now. The honourable member for Murray tries to equate television advertising with advertising in the Press. Any dummy knows that television advertising is much more profitable for political propaganda. Why do sponsors, whether advertising politics, political parties or jams for that matter, want to put their advertising on television and not in the newspapers? It is because television is much more effective. That was the sort of money spent in 1980 and, as I have said, it would probably be more like $300,000 now. In fact 192 spot commericals were put forward by the Liberals in Melbourne alone. Twenty-eight per cent of those were of 10-second duration. What great monumental policy points were put forward in those 10-second commericals? The answer is absolutely none. What is the point of them-absolutley none. If one has the money one can just plaster people with a whole lot of emotive issues. Why does the Opposition not wish to have current affairs and news programs discussed at length and a debate of the real issues of the day? As the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) said yesterday in his speech at the second reading stage, advertising will not correct deception. If we are to correct deceptions which occur at the last minute we must look at news or current affairs programs. For example, if there were a deception on a Wednesday the following process would occur: First of all, the commerical would have to be made; then it would have to be slotted in. In the practical world one does not front up to the Channel 9 network on a Friday morning, unless it is heavily on one's side-it might be possible but I would not think so-and say: ' Can you slot these half a dozen one-minute commericals into your transmission tonight?' That is nonsense. All the slots are booked out. According to the rules of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal the channels are allowed to show only so much advertising. Unless they elbow out some jam or vegemite commercials, which I do not think the sponsors would like, one does not get a run. As I started off by saying, there are certain practicalities that come into this whole argument in the practical world of television. This Government is aware, unlike the Opposition, that television is the most effective means of advertising and putting across one's point. The Government, with the Minister, has proposed a Tribunal inquiry regarding a fairness code. That inquiry will be announced in the foreseeable future by the Minister. He has spoken about this before in this chamber. I am quite sure that with that fairness code and with allowing news and current affairs programs to run right up until the day of the election-I believe they should be allowed to run right up until election day-we will have a system unequalled anywhere else in the world. I do not believe we should be able to bombard people with paid political time, depending on the resources that one has, right up until the day. In fact, I have doubts about whether we should allow it at all. The honourable member for Wentworth spoke about appalling advertisements. They would be the fault of the party. If they are appalling or wrong the party or its agency which put them forward would be to blame. Mr Duffy —Like the wealth tax. Mr CHARLES —That is right. Just to reaffirm my point regarding paid political advertising, many countries in Europe, that is, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Netherlands, West Germany, France, Norway and Denmark-virtually all of the European countries-while admitting that they have various systems, do not allow paid political advertising. They all have effective rules and regulations in regard to news and commentaries and what they will allow the various parties to do and how long the slots will be. The system is geared in what would be termed a fairness code. The Minister has announced that an inquiry will take place before the Tribunal soon. I welcome that. I believe the legislation before the Committee is fair and will give everyone a fair go. It is time it was put into place. We reject the amendment put forward by the Opposition. Mr ADERMANN(Fisher)(11.39) —I have spoken to my colleague the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). He knows that I cannot support the amendment, nor can I support the Broadcasting and Television Amendment (Election Blackout) Bill that is before the Committee. I will not be doing anything remarkable, such as crossing the floor or trying to get notoriety, because I accept that it is very much a matter of opinion. I have accepted and respected the opinions of both the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and the Government and also members of the Opposition. I see a danger in the matter of last minute deception. I see it as being much more dangerous with the electronic media than with the newspapers. I have a feeling that I cannot disabuse myself of the view that electronic media , particularly television, have attained an unfortunately and undesirably disproportionate influence on political and election matters. I think that this happens more through political public affairs segments and radio phone-ins than advertising. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee but I just want to put a simple point of view. I am sure that the blackout, as well as being regarded by the viewing and listening public as a merciful relief for a couple of days, is on balance more desirable for the purpose of quiet reflection. I would support the retention of the blackout. I privately see this as something of a safeguard. I am a director of a broadcasting company and probably my view is not in accord with the general views of broadcasters and televisers. However, this is my own private and honest view and I am bound to express it. Therefore I cannot support either the amendment or the Bill before the Committee. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(11.42) —I think that I need to make a couple of points with respect to paid political advertising. The honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) has already spoken to a degree about this. Perhaps I should simply elaborate a few points. I think that one of the emphases that we need to get across is that one of the main goals of advertising is to change people's judgments and perceptions. If we look at that in the context of an election campaign we have to ask the serious question: Why do those opposite wish to go on changing people's perceptions and judgments right up to the day of an election? Is it because they want to do something to change their performance or the image of their performance in the minds of the electorate? I think that is a very clear issue to which we have to address ourselves. We have no doubts on our side that there is nothing wrong with allowing the print media and the electronic media to have a free exercise of debate right up to the time of an election. Our concern is that the electronic media should not be used to change peoples' perceptions right up to election day. I really wonder why those opposite seem to be so concerned to do that. The second thing to consider is that we ought to recognise, as the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann) mentioned, that members of the public themselves perhaps have a right not to be bombarded right up to election day. I am sure, having spoken to many electors, that people breathed a sigh of relief when advertisements went off the air because it meant that at least they could get back to looking at regular television programs without a large amount of advertising being inflicted on them. It is also interesting to reflect that during the recent Federal election campaign the then Government spent a substantial amount of money on election advertising. The Committee will recall that during that time we also had the tragic bushfires in Australia. We might reflect that if the then Government had not had that opportunity to spend money on advertising it might well have diverted some of its resources to relieving the distress of some of the people involved in the bushfires. I know that we in the electorate of Stirling made a decision to help those people rather than spend more money on advertising. I am sure some people in the electorate were rather pleased about that. I think we really have to ask the question: Is it not a continued misuse and misdirection of resources to allow paid political advertising right up to the day of an election? Bearing in mind my earlier comment that we have to recognise that first of all advertising is designed to change people's perceptions, should we allow that to occur right up to the day? Is there something wrong with the performance of a party if it needs to work at changing people's judgments right up to the election day? It might be better to allow the media freely to develop an analysis of the way in which a party is performing. I think the second point that has to be established is that the electorate perhaps has some right to be able to say: 'We would like to be free from being bombarded, at least for the last few hours before an election'. I think that very often in this place we work on the assumption that members of the public out there like to hear everything we say and know everything we do. I think we realistically ought to recognise that sometimes they would be much freer and much happier if we were not bombarding them with election material. Therefore, to wrap up my comments, we on this side are quite happy to allow the normal public affairs radio and television activities to continue but we wonder why it is so important to allow people's judgments on political matters to be bent and turned right up to the last minute. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Lloyd's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr Rocher) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Andrew, J. N. Katter, K. C.Anthony, J. D. Killen, Sir JamesBraithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Dobie, J. D. M. Peacock, A. S.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Robinson, IanFife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Street, A. A.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W.Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Johnson, LesBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Fry, K. L. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Hayden, W. G. Macphee, I. M. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.55) —I move the amendment to clause 3, circulated in my name, as follows: Page 2, lines 5 and 6, omit the words 'in a substantial part', substitute 'in a part'. This is a drafting matter. The amendment is needed to cover a possible loophole which could exist in regard to Senate elections and some large rural electorates where radio and television coverage extends over only a small part of the electorate. The amendment closes the loophole so that the Bill applies to Senate elections and those large rural electorates in the same way as other elections. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(11.56) —Just as we do not oppose the Bill generally, we certainly do not oppose this amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 11 May, on motion by Mr Uren: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(11.58) —I note that the debate will shortly be interrupted so I do not intend to speak at length now. I just point out at this time that the Bill we are to discuss, the Christmas Island Agreement Amendment Bill 1983, is one to which the Opposition has no objection. I often hear people commenting about the way in which the proceedings of this place are conducted and they all too often observe the confrontation and dispute that takes place. From time to time they ask us whether there is anything upon which we agree. I am pleased to observe that this is another of the many Bills which proceed through Parliament which has a measure of agreement from both sides. When I am able to resume my remarks I will explain why the Opposition agrees so readily to this Bill. Debate interrupted. Mr PEACOCK —My question is to be directed to the Prime Minister. I am prepared to wait for a little time, Mr Speaker, until the Prime Minister fulfils his obligations and enters the House. WAGE INCREASES Mr HOWARD —I address my question to the Treasurer. Does the Government's economic strategy depend on restraining wages, said to have been agreed at the National Economic Summit Conference? Did the Prime Minister assert on 17 April that this meant limiting this year's wage rises to 3 to 4 per cent, which Mr Dolan now dismisses as a figment of the media's imagination? Does the demand by the Australian Council of Trade Unions for a 2.2 per cent rise for three months together with full indexation for the remainder of 1983 destroy the restraint involved in the Prime Minister's proposed 3 to 4 per cent rise? What would be the impact of what the ACTU is now demanding on the Government's economic and unemployment strategy? Mr KEATING —The Government has put its position very clearly on a number of occasions, and I think that the latest occasion was yesterday, when the Prime Minister was questioned at Question Time about where the Government stands on wages policy. We have said, firstly, that we would return to a centralised wage fixation system and at the case in June we will be putting views to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commisssion on that basis. We have said that any increase in the latter part of calendar year 1983 should be limited to a basis of between 3 and 4 per cent. That was the Prime Minister's position yesterday. It will remain his position and the Government's position today. I see nothing necessarily inconsistent between that objective and the statements by the ACTU yesterday. Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —Not necessarily inconsistent-and also stressing that there must be acceptance of the Summit principle that any increases outside the national wage case be strictly confined. Concerning catch-up, I answered the Deputy Leader of the Opposition last week by saying that any-- Mr Howard —I was not talking about catch-up. You do not understand the question. I did not ask about catch-up. Mr KEATING —The honourable member asked me about the ACTU's 2.2 per cent. I have made it quite clear-- Mr Howard —That is not catch-up; that is current. Mr KEATING —That is current, exactly, and it is not necessarily-- Mr Howard —The Treasurer does not know what he is talking about. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bennelong will cease interjecting. Mr KEATING —I thought that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition could understand precisely what I have just said. Mr Howard —You are the person who does not understand the catch-up. Mr KEATING —I said that the 2.2 per cent is not necessarily inconsistent with a 3 to 4 per cent increase in calendar year 1983, as expressed by the Prime Minister yesterday. That is what I said about the current, and I repeat it. As to the catch-up-which the honourable member may not have asked me about but which I shall indicate anyway-let me just say this: I made it clear last week about the catch-up that any increase in real wages will depend on the economy's capacity to pay it. I indicated in that answer that when scenario A was put into the modelling, any catch-ups in that respect would be delayed until 1985. Mr Howard —So you support catch-up? Mr KEATING —This is important. I wonder why I have to repeat it two or three times. Will the honourable member please listen? What I am saying is that any increase in real wages will be predicated only on the capacity of the economy to pay it. That is what I said to the honourable member last week; that is what I have just said again. Mr Howard —What about catch-up? Mr KEATING —An increase in real wages is about the catch-up. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the Treasurer not to take any notice of the supplementary questions. Mr KEATING —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition apparently does not know the difference between an increase in real wages and the maintenance of real wages. In terms of an increase in real wages, the catch-up will need to be delayed until there is a clear capacity in the economy to pay it. I simply indicate again that in terms of scenario A, in terms of that modelling exercise, when we looked at the catch-up there, it said quite clearly that it could not be contemplated until 1985. Mr BALDWIN —Is the Minister for Science and Technology aware of any attempts to quantify the employment creating potential of government assistance to high technology industries? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for Sydney for his question. I have been preoccupied for many years about the impact of high technology on employment. Several points need to be made. First, most of the high technology industries are not in themselves large employers but, as in the mining industry, which is a perfect analogy, the major impact on employment is in second and third order effect, through expansion in directly related employment and indirectly through wealth creation, raising levels of discretionary income with its impact on service employment growth. The second order employment effects of high technology industries are generally estimated in Australia as being of the order of between 4 : 1 and 6 : 1. I was at the offices of Nucleus Ltd in Sydney recently. It has done a quite precise measurement and its calculation is that it is a 4 : 1 ratio; some other companies suggest a 6 : 1 ratio. The third order effects are far more significant. High technology industries, which often have growth rates of between 40 per cent and 60 per cent per annum, even in the mature periods, make an enormous contribution to overall gross domestic product growth rates. Sweden and the Netherlands, for example, are high technology nations with very limited raw materials or natural resources compared with Australia. Nevertheless, Sweden has a GDP which is 54 per cent higher than Australia's and-- Mr Shipton —Access to European markets. Mr BARRY JONES —Yes, but there is competition in Europe. I mean, it has been known to have one or two-odd high technology products from Germany, France and Italy! We have to take that into account. The Netherlands GDP is 26 per cent per capita higher, with significantly lower unemployment. After seven years of economic ruin brought about by those people opposite our greatest problem is to convert our static economy to a dynamic economy. Many Australians felt very comfortable in the 1950s and they felt that we should keep Australia in the 1950s. That is exactly what the Opposition's policy is-- Mr Hodgman —That is not Liberal policy. Mr BARRY JONES —Or in the case of Tasmania, in the 1930s. But we cannot secure our future by trying to stay 30 years behind our industrial contemporaries. High technology is a vital factor in restoring dynamism and economic health. If we fail to develop and export our own high technology industries we will become increasingly dependent on imports. This would have disastrous impacts on our trade balance, the value of our currency and employment generally. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. As a consequence of the Treasurer's answer to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, which clearly indicated a catch-up, I ask: Has the Prime Minister also seen Mr Dolan's call on behalf of the Australian Council of Trade Unions for a 2.2 per cent increase for the March quarter followed by similar full quarterly increases for the remainder of the year? Is the Prime Minister aware that this call has been criticised already by the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce, the Confederation of Australian Industry, the New South Wales Chamber of Manufactures, the Victorian Chamber of Manfactures and the Victorian Employers Federation, and indeed was described by one industry spokesman as 'unadulterated stupidity and madness'? Put shortly, will the Government be supporting the claim by the ACTU or is its so-called accord with the unions now in ruins? Mr HAWKE —I am very much indebted to the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I have seen the reports in the media of what are purported to be decisions of the ACTU. I have seen also the criticisms by people, including those to whom the honourable gentleman has referred. The third part of his question embraces the phrase 'unadulterated stupidity' concerning the position of the ACTU. Let me very briefly make it clear to the Leader of the Opposition-I had hoped that he would have understood from my answer of yesterday-that the position of the Government will be determined by the Government, not by anyone else. The position of the Government in respect of wages policy will be clearly in line with the fundamental premises which I outlined to this House yesterday. For the purpose of reminding the Opposition, and hopefully for its understanding , I repeat what they are: Firstly, an insistence upon a return to a system of centralised wage fixation; secondly, a position that will be put that any increase in 1983 will have to be a very small increase-I adhere to the position that I put that that should be of no more than the order of 3 per cent to 4 per cent, at the end of 1983; and thirdly, as I said yesterday, in respect of any increases outside national wage cases, the increases should be strictly confined and within the control of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission . In addition to that, the Government's policy is clearly based upon the view that, largely because of its accession to power, there are increasing signs of confidence in the community, of a move to positive economic growth as against the negative growth which characterised the last 12 months of the previous Government, that it is important in that situation that any wage movement be minimal so that we will be in the best possible position as we go into 1984 to increase economic growth, to increase the capacity to create more jobs and to get a more equitable distribution of income in this country. In respect of that issue, which seems still to be totally beyond the comprehension of the Opposition, let me say that the question of any catch-up, which is referred to as being of the order of 9.1 per cent is, as far as this Government is concerned and as I understand it for as the ACTU is concerned, very much on the back- burner. There is no perceived room in the foreseeable future for that catch-up figure being implemented. That is the Government's position and, as I understand it, it is the position of the ACTU. Finally, I make the point which I made in this House yesterday. As against the clear, coherent, equitable, workable wages policy of this Government we are still confronted with chaos on the other side of the House. I ask that the Leader of the Opposition take advantage of the opportunities that are being put to him to state whether the wages policy of the Opposition is that of the shadow Treasurer, which calls for a return to the free play of market forces and which resulted in the chaos and the wages explosion after the middle of 1981; or the alleged policy of the shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Mr MILDREN —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the recent closure of the Kyneton abattoirs with serious effects upon employment opportunities in Kyneton and on the economy of Kyneton? Has the Minister's attention been drawn to newspaper reports which indicate that the management of the abattoirs considers that the closure resulted largely from a failure to gain a United States listing? Will the Minister please outline the reasons for this? Mr KERIN —I and the Government share the concern of the honourable member for Ballarat with respect to the closure of the Kyneton abattoirs. I know very well of the work he has been doing, mainly on behalf of the meat workers in his electorate who have been affected by this decision. It is a similar concern to that expressed by my colleague the honourable member for the Northern Territory in respect of the same set of circumstances which occurred at Tennant Creek last year. I spoke with the manager of these meat works before the elections. Also, to my knowledge he has had many, many discussions with officers of my Department since. He is well aware why approval was removed by the previous Government and why the Kyneton meat works have not been relisted as export works for the United States of America. I have personally reviewed that decision and I stick to it. It is not my intention to back down on any of these delistings in terms of the policy established by the previous Government. When a high official of the United States Department of Agriculture was in Australia recently, he confirmed to me that that is the wish of the United States. I point out to the House that whereas 50 to 60 per cent of our meat exports go to the United States, Australian meat amounts to only 4 per cent of that country 's imports. It is pretty obvious that we are not indispensible to them. If we do not delist these firms as a result of the findings of the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry, it is quite clear that the United States will take action. The gentleman concerned, Mr Williams, has appealed to the High Court. The appeal was not upheld. The Government will relist those abattoirs only if Mr Williams complies with the procedures that are well understood by him. Mr MACPHEE —I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations: Is it not a fact that the wages pause froze the March quarter consumer price index figure so that it could not be part of the catch-up referred to by the Prime Minister? Is it not a fact, therefore, that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is highly unlikely to accede to the application from the Australian Council of Trade Unions for the passing on of the 2.2 per cent? In those circumstances what will the Government do to support the Arbitration Commission against what Mr Dolan describes as a free-for-all to put the Arbitration Commission out of business? Mr WILLIS —The claim by the Australian Council of Trade Unions for a 2.2 per cent increase is unlikely to be heard by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission until after 30 June because the Commission has already declared a six months wages pause. In those circumstances we must expect that that application will be heard and considered some time in July or August. If it were granted, it would not be paid in full until August. The Government has made it clear and absolutely beyond doubt that its policy is that wages will increase by no more than 3 to 4 per cent in the course of this year. It is quite clear that the March quarter increase of 2.2 per cent can be part of the basis for that 3 to 4 per cent rise. To that extent we have no problem. But we will have a problem if there is any suggestion of increases beyond 3 to 4 per cent. We are not aware that that is the case and, on that basis, we believe that the application by the ACTU for the 2.2 per cent rise is in accordance with the Government's policy. There is no suggestion by the ACTU of pursuing a catch-up in any way this year. Indeed, I note that in its decision yesterday it states that the application for a 9.1 per cent rise is to be pursued over a period, consistent with the progress of economic recovery. As everyone in this House is aware, at present there is no economic recovery. We inherited an economy in a state of virtual free fall. In the next few months we expect to have arrested that free fall. We will then begin a gradual recovery and certainly, in the context of that gradual recovery, we will not be able to afford an increase in real wages for some time. That is the position we have articulated quite clearly on previous days and we do so again today. It remains our position and the House should accept now that there is a clear wages policy on this side, which is in no way upset by yesterday's decision of the ACTU. It contrasts markedly with the chaos of the wages policy on the other side of the House. Mrs KELLY —My question is to the Prime Minister. Last week's closing communique of the meeting in Paris of the Finance Ministers of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has been widely interpreted as signalling a move away from the 'fight inflation first' priority that has marked such gatherings in recent years and towards an emphasis on economic stimulus and job creation. Does the Prime Minister regard this outcome as vindicating the economic priorities of the present Government? Mr HAWKE —The OECD document to which the honourable member referred is indeed a profoundly important document. As distinct from the situation that obtained with the previous Government, this is not a doctored document. It in fact supports the policies of this Government. The communique certainly signals a move away from what has tended to be the policy in the past of 'fight inflation first' and in that respect it endorses the approach of this Government. But it does not do it in any simplistic way. I will put it this way: In the first place the communique indicates that the first priority must be to increase employment; it gives second place to a reduction in inflation; it gives third place to the necessity to eliminate structural rigidities in the economies of the OECD; and, in the fourth place, it gives importance to the need for additional aid and assistance to developing countries. In particular, the communique has some very sensible things to say about a steady medium term policy framework, about the balanced use of macro-economic and structural policies, about the need for labour market policies, the lack of which was a very distinguishing characteristic of the seven years of the previous Government, and of the need for social consensus. One very important point that the communique does make is that in those countries of the OECD which are seeing a move back to the inflation levels of the 1960s there is very much greater scope for an emphasis on policies which will expand production. Unfortunately, as a result of the inherited policies of the previous Government, this country finds itself in a position where the inflation level is about double that of the average rate of the OECD. Therefore, the capacity of this Government to initiate such stimulatory policies with the degree of confidence that others may do is restricted. Nevertheless, I conclude my answer by saying that with a due sense of our responsibilities towards, firstly, the need to increase employment and, secondly, to reduce inflation, this Government will be taking those policies which are very much in line with this very sensible outline of policy priorities contained in this undoctored OECD document. Mr HODGMAN —I preface my question to the Prime Minister by making it quite clear that it is not alleged that he was personally aware of these matters at the time that they occurred. Has the Prime Minister now been provided with information that the expelled Soviet KGB agent Ivanov had provided, or had attempted to provide, substantial financial assistance to certain organisations in Australia? Will the Prime Minister, pursuant to paragraph (d) of the letters patent, refer these matters to the royal commissioner, the Honourable Mr Justice Hope? Mr HAWKE —In the light of the announcement that I made yesterday about the reference of all the circumstances surrounding Mr Combe and the expulsion of Mr Ivanov I believe it is not appropriate that I should, in respect of that matter or any matters dealing with the royal commission, deal with the question raised by the honourable member. But let me say this: I am sure that the honourable member will appreciate and, I hope, accept the answer that I put. If the honourable member has any concern-I do not understand the details of his question-about the issues to which he referred he should raise them with the royal commission. I give him this undertaking: If he should find in respect of the matters which apparently concern him that the royal commissioner indicates that he is incapacitated by any weakness or absence of specific terms of reference that would enable a consideration of such matters, I ask him to approach me and if any action is necessary to enlarge the terms of reference I will consider it. Mr FRY —I direct my question to the Minister for Finance. In view of the fact that in less than 200 years the European occupants of Australia have succeeded in destroying about two-thirds of our natural forests, including most of the natural habitats of koala bears, which are important to our tourist industry, will the Minister undertake to review the guidelines for the taxation deduction presently allowed for the clearing of natural forests which I believe provides an undesirable incentive for the continued destruction of our forests? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question. He will be aware that the last Labor Government did act to deal with the taxation treatment of land clearing. There is an important question of not wanting to discourage the further development of agricultural land in this country, but at the same time not providing a taxation incentive for the indiscriminate and wanton destruction of important parts of the Australian bushland. I think they are important questions that have to be addressed. The honourable member quite rightly drew attention to the fact that the taxation system through the allowances for these kinds of expenditures does have an effect on the rate and extent of clearing on particular properties. As I indicated before, the last Labor Government did act to ensure that a balance was returned to the taxation impact of these sorts of actions. In the light of the honourable member's question, I would be happy to have a further look at the matter he raised to see whether further action is required to prevent the sorts of circumstances about which he is talking. Mr PEACOCK —My question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, follows through the line of answers given earlier. When the Prime Minister spoke of 3 to 4 per cent, was he not contemplating the passing on of the June and September quarter consumer price index towards the end of the year? If the March quarter 2 .2 per cent were to be included, surely the 3 to 4 per cent would become 6 per cent? Mr HAWKE —Well, one always has optimism in this life, so I will try again. I repeat to this House that it will be the view of the Government, put in the forum where it should be put in detail, and that is before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, that there should be in calendar 1983- that is distinct from financial 1983-84, so that there is no difficulty in understanding-a minimal wage increase which we say should be no more than of the order of 3 to 4 per cent. How that will be done will be a matter for decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. There is no doubt what the position of this Government will be. It will put that position clearly and without equivocation. Whatever may be put by anyone else, including the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which submission by the ACTU or someone else may have the result of some increase in late 1983 or beyond that, is a matter for them. But I say again unequivocally, that the position of this Government to that Commission fully put will be that we will not be wanting an increase and we will be arguing against any increase which involves an increase in wages in 1983 beyond the order of 3 to 4 per cent. I have said this several times. I think everyone in the House, with the possible exception of the Leader of the Opposition, has understood it and, hopefully, he now will. Mr KEOGH —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. What is the Government' s attitude to the signing of the Lebanese-Israeli agreement and the rejection of it by Syria? Mr HAWKE —As distinct from the obvious differences we have in the area of wages, I preface my answer to this question by again saying, as I did on 11 May when I answered a question in respect of the Lebanon, that I believe that what I say in respect of this question will receive general endorsement in this House. As I indicated on 11 May, the Government welcomes the conclusion of the agreement between Israel and Lebanon. I would on this occasion, as I did then, pay very considerable tribute to the United States Secretary of State, George Shultz, for the work he has done to achieve that agreement. I believe that it is an encouraging sign that President Gemayel has been able to achieve a very considerable degree, apparently, of unity in the quite disparate forces which operate in his country to enable the achievement of the signing of that agreement between Israel and the Lebanon. Although we all recognise that the agreement falls far short of a representation of a full normalisation of relations between Lebanon and Israel, I think all members of the House would recognise that it represents a significant advance which we all welcome. With respect to that part of the honourable member's question which referred to Syria, I think everyone-whatever may be his emphasis of view in regard to the tragic position in the Middle East-would recognise that Syria has legitimate interests in this area. On behalf of the Government I express regret that at this stage the Government of Syria seems set, according at least to its public statements, to undermine the agreement that has been reached between the Lebanon and Israel. The Australian Government hopes that the Government of Syria will think again about this issue and see virtue for itself and for all countries in the area in trying to move towards a position in which there could be a removal of all forces from the Lebanon; that is, Israeli forces, Syrian forces and armed Palestine Liberation Organisation forces. Mr Peacock —We are in absolute agreement. Mr HAWKE —I am very glad to see the signs of agreement from my friends in the Opposition that this view represents a bipartisan position. It is a sine qua non for the achieving of what we all want to see very particularly; that is, the establishment of conditions in the Lebanon that will enable the tragic people there to resume a normal and peaceful life. Mr LUSHER —I direct my question to the Minister for Transport. Is the Australian National Line threatening union bans against three non-conference lines operating on the Australia-Asia route unless those three lines reduce their cargo share and limit their discounting of conference rates? Does this action by the Australian National Line represent Government policy? Mr PETER MORRIS —The matter to which the honourable member referred concerns, I think, discussions which have taken place between non-conference line operators and some of the conference line members and other discussions which have taken place with representatives of the sea-going unions and non-conference line operators. The discussions between the non-conference line operators, the lines the honourable member mentioned, and the conference members are normal commercial negotiations; they are not matters for involvement of or participation by this Government. They are not new discussions. From time to time conference line operators and non-conference line operators meet to discuss terms of trade and trade matters. The Government has no direct part in the discussions. In fact, I advised the Chairman of the Australian National Line prior to a meeting a couple of weeks ago that we expected that it would be conducting normal commercial negotiations on these matters in accord with normal commercial principles. Mr STAPLES —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. I draw his attention to articles in the Canberra Times on 13 May and the Melbourne Sun on 16 May 1983 which relate to the need for emergency accommodation for homeless young people. Is the Government aware of the crisis facing homeless youth in this country where, of the 12,300 requests for emergency shelter in the past 12 months, no more than 5,000 requests were able to be met? When funding for the Youth Accommodation Services Scheme expires in 43 days time on 30 June, what does the Government intend to do about it? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for Diamond Valley for drawing the attention of the House to one of the tragic by-products of the 750,000 unemployed we were bequeathed by the previous Government. Difficult economic and social questions face the Government in relation to these matters because we have, at the same time, to provide resources both for creating jobs and for welfare support for the army of unemployed. Many of those 750,000 unemployed were in full time employment but suddenly, often after a lifetime in work, found themselves out of employment. Many of the unemployed, of course, are young people coming straight from school. The cost of unemployment to this country is not only the cost of the vast unemployment benefit bill but also the cost of crime, vandalism, drugs and broken families. All that is part of the cost this Government faces in this matter. This applies particularly to many young people who have come into the community with a sense of hopelessness because it cannot provide what they might have expected. As I have said, we have a difficult task. We have to provide resources for job creation and balance that against welfare provision to meet the needs of the unemployed. The national evaluation report on the Youth Services Scheme was presented to the Government in April. The report evaluated the Youth Services Scheme, which is the prime scheme for providing emergency accommodation and other crisis assistance for homeless youth. The national evaluation report was received by the Government in April. We immediately forwarded it to all States for comment. It will be tabled in this Parliament tomorrow. We will be taking immediate action, in the light of that evaluation, to provide the most effective resources for supporting the people to whom the honourable member for Diamond Valley has drawn our attention. Mr SPENDER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence Support. In the administration of his Department, has the Minister implemented the Government's decision of 2 May in relation to ministerial dealings with lobbyist Mr David Combe? When was the Minister informed of the real reasons for that decision and, in particular, the involvement of, and the Government's reliance on, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation? Does the Minister support the Government's reliance on ASIO in making that decision? Does he support the Government's decision? Mr HOWE —I missed the first part of the honourable member's question. Mr SPEAKER —Will the honourable member for North Sydney repeat the first part of his question? Mr SPENDER —I will keep going, Mr Speaker, until the Minister tells me that I have reached the part of the question that he heard. In the administration of his Department, has the Minister implemented the Government's decision of 2 May in relation to ministerial dealings with lobbyist Mr David Combe? Does the Minister want me to keep going or has he got the rest of the question? Mr HOWE —In answer to the honourable member's question, it is my understanding that that decision has been implemented. I will certainly check with my Department to ensure that there are no inconsistencies. But my understanding is that the decision has been implemented. Mr Peacock —Will you advise us? Mr HOWE —I will. Mr Spender —What about the rest of the question? Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Minister appears to have heard only the first part of the question. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The Minister can answer a question to the degree he wishes. He has done so and has resumed his seat. Mr REEVES —Can the Minister for Aviation advise what progress has been made on proposed arrangements for the introduction of regular air services by Royal Brunei Airlines between Brunei and Darwin? Mr BEAZLEY —The honourable member has raised this question with me on a couple of occasions, as have indeed the Northern Territory authorities. I am pleased to be able to advise that the Australian Government has approved the establishment of a Royal Brunei Airlines scheduled service between Brunei and Darwin. The service will operate under arrangements agreed with the United Kingdom Government, which has responsibility for air services to Brunei as that country has not yet reached full independence. I am advised that these arrangements are well advanced and that they will be formally agreed to in the very near future. I understand that Royal Brunei Airlines is proposing to begin operations about mid -year using a Boeing 737 aircraft. Royal Brunei Airlines will, of course, need to satisfy the normal operational requirements and standards for scheduled international air services to Australia. I hope that the necessary technical details of that can be finalised quickly. Royal Brunei Airlines will join Qantas Airways Ltd and Garuda Indonesian Airways in operating international services to Darwin and will assist the development of international travel and tourism to and from the Northern Territory. Mr HOWARD —Does the Treasurer agree with his colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, that so far as the ownership of our mineral resources is concerned Australia is being taken to the cleaners by the Japanese? If so, as the Minister responsible for foreign investment policy, what does he propose to do about this state of affairs? Mr KEATING —For many years in this country there has been concern about the general level of foreign investment and ownership of Australian resources. Indeed, the whole impetus for the development of a foreign investment policy gives permanent recognition to that fact. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the fact that in some industries, particularly the coal industry, there is a significant level of foreign ownership. That is true. When the last figures were published I think it was about 62 per cent, given the fact that foreign investment participation figures were not published regularly by the former Government. Mr Howard —Japanese? Mr KEATING —In some mines, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition interjects, Japanese investment is quite high but across the industry generally it is quite modest. In terms of foreign investment what has to be viewed is the overall benefit to Australia, whether it would have developed without foreign investment at the pace at which it has developed and whether the economic benefits are sufficient to compensate for the loss of control of Australian resources. On balance it is the view of the Government that foreign investment has accelerated our development as a nation, including development in the mineral industry, and that there is no reason why properly and appropriately structured foreign investment proposals cannot be accepted by Australia for the future ongoing development of industry. It is true, of course, that the resources industry is going through a very difficult time with the downturn in world markets. That is reflected in prices and returns and the industry is languishing. But I think, overall, the contribution by foreign investment is significant. It is also true to say that there has been a degree of bipartisanship between the former Government and this Government in foreign investment policy which has been conducive to the best interests of Australia, especially through the mineral industry. That does not detract from the point my colleague made about the very high level of foreign investment. Australia embarked upon doing something about that high level of foreign investment many years ago, in contrast to, say, Canada, which overnight decided to do something about the alarming level of foreign investment and dislocated its investment policies and foreign investment in that country. That has not happened here. There are benefits to be gained from foreign investment. Appropriate structuring between local and foreign investment is, I believe, still appropriate. Those remarks are entirely consistent with the views put by the Deputy Prime Minister. Dr CHARLESWORTH —I ask the Minister for Science and Technology whether he is aware that a technological directorate is in the process of being established by the new State Government in Western Australia. Does he believe that such State- based projects should be integrated as part of a national technological directorate to ensure that Australia's technological development occurs in a consistent way? Finally, is the Minister considering the introduction of tax incentives for investment in high technology industries along the lines employed by the film industry? Mr BARRY JONES —I could just answer yes, yes, yes, but I think the House would feel cheated. I am aware of what is being done about the Western Australian technological directorate and it is, to coin a phrase, an example of co- operative federalism to get the States in the act. If we are to develop high technology awareness in Australia, we cannot do it by centralising it. We must do it on a co-operative basis. I am glad to say that State governments of Australia-and not just Labor ones-are doing a good job in this area. The Western Australian Government should be commended, and particularly the Deputy Premier, the Honourable Mal Bryce, who has taken a very keen interest in it. I shall be discussing the matter in Perth on 9 and 10 June, when we have a meeting of all the Commonwealth and State industry Ministers and technology Ministers. As to tax incentives, the final determination of that will be for the Government. A variety of procedures is being examined. I hope to be able to make a comprehensive recommendation to the Government about the Espie report-' Developing High Technology Enterprises in Australia'-the Australian Scientific Industry Association report, the Australian Science and Technology Council report and a number of other options. I hope that we shall be able to say something very early on in the spring session. Last night Sir Frank Espie and his Committee met members of the Cabinet. The Minister for Finance, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and I spent a very productive evening discussing the Espie report. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members, I present the 1981-82 annual report of the Legal Aid Commission of the Australian Capital Territory. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs 1981-82 annual report. The report also covers those matters on which a report is required pursuant to section 12 of the Immigration (Education) Act 1971. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of honourable members, I present Volume 4 of the Studies of Tertiary Student Finances- Evaluation of Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme: An Investigation and Review of Policy on Student Financial Assistance in Australia. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Recombinant DNA Monitoring Committee report for the year ended October 1982. This has nothing whatever to do with the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Mr SPEAKER —I am well aware of what DNA is. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on its inquiry into commercial television translator stations at Foster, Victoria. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Deputy Prime Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The Deputy Prime Minister may proceed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —As is well known, in the Press and media in recent days a view has been expressed that I had suddenly announced a change of Government policy in respect of our initiatives in Kampuchea. I want to place on record statements that have been made in this House, and I thank the Opposition Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) for giving me leave to tender a number of statements that have been made. They are very short, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member is tabling them, is he? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. Mr Peacock —Make sure that Bill Hayden sees them. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He is not here at present. Mr Peacock —Tomorrow. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. Anyway-if I may continue without the honourable member's help-I am anxious to say that, as is known, I explained yesterday that I had met Son Sann of the Khmer People's Liberation Front, and following that meeting I made a statement in Bathurst that he agreed that some initiative could well be taken by Australia; and Mr Hayden is going to Hanoi in the near future. I explained that this was not a new concept, and that I had discused it over a period, and in fact I had discused it not only with Japan but also with the Association of South East Asian Nations, Vietnam and others. Perhaps I may explain that I would be about the only Minister or ex-Minister in this House who has ever visited Hanoi. Perhaps I may also correct another point. In 1980 I was party spokesman for foreign affairs in this House and I visited the refugee camps in Thailand and Kampuchea. I also spoke to all the ASEAN foreign ministers and to the Vietnamese Foreign Minister. There was never any opposition to the suggestion that there be withdrawal of all armed forces from Kampuchea and that there would need to be some United Nations peacekeeping or supervisory force to allow free elections. Mr Thach, the Foreign Minister of Vietnam, confirmed that he would be prepared to withdraw from Kampuchea provided that Pol Pot was disarmed. The following is a Hansard extract of one of a number of statements I made in the House of Representatives that year. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to incoporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- 28 August 1980 I refer honourable gentlemen to the statement made by Khieu Samphan, who was the President of the Pol Pot regime. As recently as March this year, he expressed his warmest thanks to the Government and the people of Australia for helping to mobilise opinion in respect of Kampuchea. I have been inside the refugee camps of Kampuchea. The people there certainly do not like the Vietnamese. But their No. 1 enemy is Pol Pot. Where is the guarantee that, if the Vietnamese forces leave Kampuchea, somebody else will save the remnants of the Kampuchean people from Pol Pot? Is it not a fact that in the absence of any preventative force Pol Pot will again swarm over the remnants of his people? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —In 1981, still as the party spokesman for foreign affairs, I visited Japan. On 9 July that year I spoke to the Japanese Foreign Minister, Mr Sonoda, and suggested that there could be an Australian initiative along the lines that I have mentioned. He encouraged such an initiative. He, of course, was then about to attend the International Conference on Kampuchea which was to be held in New York in the following week. It is a matter of record that during 1981 the Japanese Foreign Minister, Mr Sonoda, had canvassed the possibility of an international peacekeeping exercise in Cambodia. This can be confirmed from the Japanese Foreign Affairs Department. Shortly before my meeting with the Japanese Foreign Minister, I had held a meeting with the Austrian Foreign Minister, Mr Pahr, in the course of which he was fully supportive of an Australian initiative along the lines that I have mentioned. Shortly after that meeting, Mr Pahr left for New York to chair the International Conference on Kampuchea, to which I have referred. It is a matter of record that the outcome of that Conference was a declaration by the international community which called for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Kampuchea under the supervision and verification of the United Nations Peacekeeping (Observer) Group. The following is the relevant section of that report. I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON KAMPUCHEA New York 1981 (a) An agreement on cease-fire by all parties to the conflict in Kampuchea and withdrawal of all foreign forces from Kampuchea in the shortest time possible under the supervision and verification of a United Nations peace-keeping force/ observer group. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is also a matter of record that the declaration was supported by all the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations and by Japan. The next Hansard extract is of August 1981, which was a statement made by me shortly after I returned from that trip, in which it will be noted that there is a clear reference to an Australian initiative with Japanese support. I seek leave to incorporate the extract in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- 18 August 1981 Further, in the spirit of peace in the area, will the Minister urgently consider an Australian initiative, I suggest in concert with Japan, to promote negotiation rather than confrontation between Vietnam and the Association of South-east Asian Nations and thereby lay the basis for a peaceful settlement in Kampuchea? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Further, in 1982 I made speeches in the same vein, as evidenced by the following extracts which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard. Leave granted. The extracts read as follows- 9 March 1982 I was in Japan last year and talked to the then Japanese Foreign Minister, who said that he would welcome some initiative by Australia. Perhaps, with Japan, we could play a role in lessening the tension between China and Vietnam. What about the proposal for a demilitarised zone between Kampuchea and Thailand? 28 April 1982 The real issue is to get peace and stability in the region-a process in which China can certainly play a leading role. In fact, with China and Japan, we can do much to stabilise the whole of the region and bring peace between China and Vietnam. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It will be noted that there is specific reference to an Australian initiative in co-operation with Japan. I should like to place on record that I was responsible also for the party's policy in relation to Kampuchea and that policy is a matter of record. It includes the point that Australia should continue to lend its support to international efforts aimed at decreasing regional tension-- Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I understand all the detail that the Deputy Prime Minister is putting down and it will be of interest to a number of honourable members to have this information pulled together. I simply want clarification on the point of misrepresentation. Is it misrepresentation of the Press alone or is it misrepresentation by the Press and the Foreign Minister ? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Only the Press as the honourable member would know. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Prime Minister has set the scene. Mr Hodgman —He said he didn't know anything about it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is not misrepresentation. This misrepresentation comes from the fact that it has been reported that I had not made any earlier announcements other than at Bathurst. Mr Peacock —He said he had never heard of it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Perhaps you should discuss that with him. Might I just finish what I was saying? Mr Peacock —I think you ought to do it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I would be pleased to do it. I want to make this final point. I have also mentioned the idea outside the House. On 24 April 1982 I addressed a foreign affairs and defence seminar at Kelvin Grove College of Advanced Education in Brisbane, where I said: Australia could take the initiative in working to defuse the powder keg of Indo -China. In this perhaps we could work with Japan in trying to get the combatants to the conference table. I thank the Opposition for giving me leave to incorporate those other documents in Hansard. Ministerial Statement Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —by leave-I wish to inform the House of the Government's decisions concerning Australia's immigration policy and the size and composition of the 1983-84 immigration program. Preamble The Government has reaffirmed the nine principles underlying migration policy. In summary these are: 1. The Australian Government alone decides who can enter Australia. 2. Migrants must provide some benefit to Australia, although this will not always be a major consideration in the case of refugees and family members. 3. The migrant intake should not jeopardise social cohesiveness and harmony in the Australian community. 4. Immigration policy and selection is non-discriminatory. 5. Applicants are considered as individuals or individual family units, not as community groups. 6. Suitability standards for migrants reflect Australian law and social customs . 7. Migrants must intend to settle permanently. 8. Settlement in closed enclaves is not encouraged. 9. Migrants should integrate into Australia's multicultural society but are given the opportunity to preserve and disseminate their ethnic heritage. Overview The question of immigration intake is always potentially controversial, especially during times of economic recession. It has been argued that immigration can be stimulatory at any time as new arrivals create extra demand for goods and services, particularly in the construction industry, Conversely, it can be argued that to take large numbers during severe economic recession, when there are few jobs available, simply adds to unemployment and creates extra strain on budgetary outlays. The Labor Government's policy will be to steer a middle course, rejecting demands for a massive reduction in intake and at the same time preventing major increases until the Government's economic policies stimulate recovery. For 1982-83, the original estimate of between 115,000 and 120,000 has already been revised downwards to between 90,000 and 95,000. The migration program for 1983-84 will be held to a ceiling of between 80,000 and 90,000 visaed migrants, with no growth proposed for the triennium unless economic conditions improve sufficiently. Within this ceiling our strong commitment is to the reunion of close family members of Australian citizens and permanent residents, and to refugees. Family Migration In 1983-84 I expect the approval of between 51,000 and 57,000 migrants in the family migration category. Family migration categories A and B; that is mainly spouses, minor children, parents and fiances, are expected to be between 26,000 and 29,000 and sub-category C, which we will retain; that is, brothers and sisters and non-dependent children, between 25,000 and 28,000. The former Government had introduced a points assessment system under which brothers, sisters and non-dependent children of intending sponsors are assessed before allowing sponsorship and which is used when making final assessment at overseas posts. The Government intends to restructure the points system to eliminate its more discriminatory features. Points for English language and occupational demand have been dropped for family selection purposes, but points will still be allocated for arranged employment. The separate Occupations in Demand category will be retained. I will return to this later. Other minor adjustments to the points system will remove to some extent an inbuilt bias in favour of highly skilled English speaking and financially well off migrants. One of the more telling points made by the ethnic communities has been that under the former Government some people were more entitled to family reunion than others. I will ensure that the category C intake does not exceed 28,000 for 1983-84 by controlling visa issue. I am sure that the new points system will be more acceptable to the ethnic communities of Australia than allowing the former Government's unfair bias to continue without moderation. The Government will keep the points system under review. Refugees The Government has reaffirmed its commitment to a refugee policy based on humanitarian objectives. In 1982-83, from an assisted intake of 16,000, 12,200 are expected from Indo-China, 3,500 from Eastern Europe, only 100 from Central and South America and 200 from other regions. The special humanitarian intake will number 1,050 for this financial year. The Government proposes a refugee and special humanitarian program ceiling of 20,000 for 1983-84 to be administered within an agreed budgetary limit. Further, there will be a greater diversification of refugee sources. It is unacceptable for instance that only 100 out of 17,000 in 1982-83 should be from Central and South America, when there are already 300,000 refugees in Central America alone. Persons from totalitarian regimes in that part of the world are not receiving adequate representation in Australia's humanitarian programs. To achieve this diversification the Government will maintain flexibility. Within an overall ceiling of 20,000 refugees we are planning for 16,000 assisted passage places with a refugee and special humanitarian component of approximately 15,000 and 1, 000 respectively. Of the 15,000 assisted refugee passages, and whilst retaining flexibility, we are considering the very approximate intake of 10,000 Indo- Chinese, recognising the continuing reduction in the number of boat refugees; 2, 500 East Europeans, recognising the continuing reduction in the number of Poles seeking resettlement outside Europe; and 2,500 from other areas, including Central and South America and the Middle East. We are planning to have 2,000 unfunded refugee places in contingency reserve and 2,000-including the program of 1,000 assisted passages-for the special humanitarian program. This latter category is a special category with relaxed intake criteria for people in human rights difficulties, who may have family links with Australia but are outside the scope of assisted refugee entry. Unlike the refugee program the special humanitarian program-this is important-can in extenuating circumstances be applied to people in their own country. It was originally established by the former Government partly to help those with human rights difficulties in the Middle East, and greater emphasis will also be given to its use in Central and South America and other areas from now on. I stress that these figures should be regarded as ceilings but remain most definitely flexible. The Government made an election commitment to place greater emphasis on seeking political solutions to refugee situations. This aim will be vigorously pursued. Labour Shortage and Business Migration The Government believes that less reliance should be placed on the migration program as a source of skilled workers. Much more emphasis is needed on training and retraining of Australians to fill skilled vacancies. Skilled migration will continue to be needed to fill gaps for some time but the Government will develop a manpower planning approach to ensure that economic recovery is not held back by skilled labour shortages, and conversely, that immigration does not become an alternative to Australian training and retraining programs, particularly for adults. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and I will look for alternatives to the recruitment of skilled workers overseas, based on manpower planning. This approach will emphasise the training and retraining of Australians. In the meantime, the Government will continue to accept some skilled migrants in the occupations in demand sub-category. The employer nomination scheme will also be continued while the new mechanism is being developed. Under this scheme, employers who have a satisfactory training record and who have carefully tested the Australian labour market may nominate overseas workers to fill specific vacancies. One year ago it was estimated that in 1982- 83 about 25,000 people would migrate in the occupations in demand sub-category. The figure will now be closer to 16,000 to 19,000, and for next year it will be about 3,000 to 6,000 people including dependants. There will probably be only about 2,000 to 2,500 workers. In other words, only about 2,500 workers will migrate in this category next year. This will be a maximum. The business migration program will be continued. I believe that this program has considerable potential to create employment and boost economic growth which far exceeds the small size of the program. Some 2,000 business migrants and their families are expected in 1983-84. However, previous policy made it easy for people with nothing more than money to be accepted in this category. I have removed a concession that allowed to migrate wealthy people who did not intend to set up a business. I have placed a lower limit of $250,000 capital on the business migration category and have given priority to businesses with employment or technology improving potential. Other Measures These policies complement measures that I have already taken which have been designed to lessen the impact of immigration on unemployment while still maintaining a commitment to family reunion and assisting refugees. I have already removed a concession granted by the previous Government to wealthy people between the ages of 55 and 65 which allowed them to migrate provided they had significant amounts of income or capital. These persons were a potential addition to the labour market and it could be inferred that it was possible to ' buy' permanent residence in Australia. I have already prevented working holiday makers in Australia remaining permanently on the grounds of their qualifications and/or employment prospects alone. I have closed a loophole under which large numbers of temporary residents could remain, on the ground that they were irreplaceable to their employers. Only those applicants who can establish beyond doubt that they are irreplaceable will be allowed to change status from temporary resident to permanent resident in this category. That is the way it ought to be. I have already supported the intensified efforts of my Department to locate and remove from Australia prohibited immigrants and others found working without authority. It is estimated that there are 50,000 to 60,000 illegal immigrants in Australia and that 10,000 to 15,000 per annum become illegal immigrants. That is very serious in a situation of high unemployment, when they have no right to stay here. Independent and Special Eligibility Migration The Government will make no change to the independent and special eligibility categories. Numbers in these categories will be small-under 1,000 in each category. Trans-Tasman Migration The Government has reviewed the entry of New Zealand citizens under the trans- Tasman travel arrangements, which allow for the free flow of people between the two countries. This review was prompted by concern about unemployment. In coming to a decision the Government considered both the costs and benefits of the present arrangement. Suspension of the arrangements would have serious implications for trade, foreign policy and other national interests and would be inconsistent with the recently signed Closer Economic Relations Agreement. Accordingly, the Government will allow for the continued visa-free entry of New Zealanders under the trans-Tasman travel arrangement, which recognises the special relationship which exists between the two countries. The requirement for New Zealand citizens to produce a passport before entering Australia will also remain. However, entry under this arrangement will be closely monitored to ensure that it remains in Australia's interests. General In determining the size and composition of the immigration program for 1983-84 and the immigration policy needed to achieve this objective, the Government has addressed the twin dilemmas of short term economic difficulties versus long term benefits of migration and benefits of family migration versus possible unemployment and settlement difficulties. The decisions the Government has taken are balanced decisions. The Government recognises that there are costs, both financial and social, but there are also benefits. It is these benefits which the Government has sought to maximise at an acceptable cost. In determining the size and composition of the migration program the Government is backing Australia's future. We have tried to balance the various competing and conflicting interests. We recognise that the economy is in recession but we also recognise that we have humanitarian obligations to people who are far worse off than we are. Concentration on short term problems should not obscure the longer term, when we and our children will reap the benefits of a larger, more culturally diversified Australia. I believe that the changes I have outlined, which will take effect from tomorrow, will make Australia's immigration policy fairer, and more consistent with Australia's future needs. I trust it will be well received by the migrant communities. I will be sending to honourable members an information paper setting out in more detail the changes I have outlined. I present the following paper: Australia's Immigration Policy and Program-Ministerial Statement, 18 May 1983. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(2.27) —I am honoured to speak in the Parliament for the first time in my capacity as shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. As I informed the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) when I rang him to congratulate him on his appointment to the Ministry and to advise him that I was to be his shadow, the Opposition will endeavour to maintain a bipartisan approach to the question of Australia's migration policy. I indicated to my friend the Minister that from time to time we would find ourselves in disagreement and that on those occasions I would, to quote the words of Sir James Killen, 'endeavour to engage in robust debate on the subject but without personal acrimony or bitterness'. It is in that spirit that I respond on behalf of the Opposition to the statement of the Minister. As will be clear from my remarks, there are matters within the statement with which the Opposition concurs; there are matters with which we strongly disagree. Speaking generally, I believe it can be fairly said, on the basis of the statement just given to the House by the Minister, that Australia now has a more authoritarian, a more rigid , a more discriminatory and certainly an anti-English-speaking migration policy. The statement contains a major shift which the Opposition views with grave concern. There are two particular matters to which I wish to advert before referring to it in detail. Firstly, notwithstanding the Government's assertion that it has sought a middle course, it is putting migration into reverse gear. Secondly, the Government has already indicated, through the statements of the Minister, that it will take away one of the essential elements of a proper migration policy for this country; that is, the exercise of ministerial discretion in appropriate cases. Indeed, it is fair to say that on statements made to date, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has effectively abolished the exercising of his personal ministerial discretion. I now turn to the preamble and indicate that the Opposition applauds paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9-that is not a bad go at consensus. But we do express reservations about paragraph 2 in which the Australian Labor Party, through the Minister, now proclaims that migrants must-I emphasise the word 'must'-provide some benefit to Australia, although this will not always be a major consideration in the case of refugees and family members. With the greatest of respect, we contend that the use of the word 'must' instead of the word 'may' confirms the proposition which I have just put, that is, we are now moving into a very authoritarian and rigid migration regime. I will continue to argue in this Parliament-I do have a personal regard for the Minister-that the Minister has acted very wrongly in the initial stages of his ministry in cancelling out the question of ministerial discretion. I will say more on that later. The Government in its statement says that it will steer a middle course as to the size of the intake. The Minister was kind enough to point out to me that, in fact, there is a reduction; that the intake is down some 5,000. This goes directly against one of the most significant submissions put to the National Economic Summit Conference by the Housing Industry Association of Australia whose spokesman, Mr Kirkby-Jones, in a most impressive address to the Economic Summit, said that there were very strong arguments for increasing the migrant intake on the basis that it would provide a major stimulus to the economy and, he went on to say, to the building industry in particular. Mr Deputy Speaker, as a former Minister for Housing, you will know, as Mr Kirkby-Jones pointed out to the Economic Summit, that migrants have a higher per capita rate of home ownership in this country than Australian born citizens. In other words, members of the migrant community, on a per capita basis, have been able to get into housing and have been more committed to getting their own homes. Mr Kirkby-Jones in his submission, which was one of the best submissions put to the Economic Summit, made this point. I have to say that whilst the Minister indicated later in his statement that he will be co-ordinating with other Ministers-of that I certainly approve-this policy seems to cut across some announcements that may come out tomorrow in relation to our housing industry. If what I read in the newspaper is correct, migrant home owners will be the hardest hit. I am puzzled as to why, before the statement which is to come out tomorrow night, we have found effectively that the submission of the Housing Industry Association has been rejected. The Opposition does not quarrel with the statement of the Minister on family migration except on a humanitarian basis. I ask the Minister to take into account that in some families cousins can be closer than brothers and sisters. It is precisely that case where I believe there should be ministerial discretion . But in relation to the categories, and I accept this as a continuum, the Minister is effectively saying that brothers and sisters, non-dependent children -I am referring to sub-category 'C'-and no more will be accepted. I can assure the Minister there would be many cases in which, if he were only prepared to exercise his ministerial discretion, he would recognise that some cousins-I do not say all cousins-may be in a closer relationship, one to the other, than siblings. The Opposition objects strongly to the decision by the Government to drop points for English language in relation to family selection purposes. I have to ask the Minister: What is he on about? Why is he writing into his policy in the first several weeks of his term of office a deliberate anti-English speaking bias against prospective migrants? That is what he is doing. Let there be no misunderstanding about it. I am not surprised that the Minister has taken this approach but I am surprised that it has been done in such a blatant manner. What does he have against the proposition that one of the bases of the establishment of a multicultural society and the assimilation into our community of Australian citizens is enhanced if those citizens have a capacity to converse in the English language? I could understand the Minister saying that he has altered the weight, but he has dropped it. It will be accepted in the migrant communities that in so doing this Government is saying that it regards that in the past there has been a bias in favour of English speaking migrants and the Government now intends to turn that around. It has said as much as that because on page 3 of its statement it alleges an inbuilt bias in favour of highly skilled English speaking migrants. The Government now intends to go against English speaking migrants and those who are highly skilled. The Minister went on to say-I believe it was a most unfortunate and inaccurate statement-that one of the more telling points made by ethnic communities has been that under the former Government some people were more entitled to family reunion than others. I reject that. If honourable members opposite check the files of their predecessors they will find that no member of the Parliament made more representations to Ministers for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs than did the honourable member for Denison. It is a matter of record. Our Government can be proud of the fact that it had fine Ministers in the portfolio of immigration and ethnic affairs during its term in office. I deeply regret that the new Minister cannot start his ministerial career without making a totally baseless and inaccurate allegation which is totally rejected by the Opposition. Again, the Minister used unfortunate and inflammatory words when he referred to the former Government's unfair bias. I suggest that the former Government had one of the best and most accepted immigration policies. Its policy was recognised on a bipartisan base as a proper policy. The present Government now intends to go out into the market place to defame it unfairly. Australia has a reputation unparalleled in receipt of refugees from all parts of the world. As a former Minister reminded me today, unfortunately Australia cannot take them all. He said-I hope the present Minister will accept this-that one of the most important criteria is that we take as many as we can but we recognise the manner in which they are taken must be conditioned on the basis of Australia's interests, our humanitarian concern and the individuals concerned. I have to say-the Minister has made it very clear to this Parliament-that in the Minister's period of office fewer refugees will be accepted from Asia and more from Central and South America. Let me talk about Central and South America for a moment. The Opposition and I are extremely concerned that there are some 300,000 refugees in Central and South America. We are all considerably concerned about the continuing war and the guerrilla tactics. The problems in that continent are enormous. Effectively, the Minister has said that he will see to it that instead of only 100 people coming from Central and South America in 1982-83 the figure will be considerably increased. Depending on how many are accepted from the Middle East that figure could go from 100 to 2,000. It may involve people who are genuine refugees; it may also involve people who are not. The Opposition and I are extremely conscious of the situation in South America. I ask the Minister to exercise the greatest care in allowing people into this country from that continent. The Minister is dealing with something which has the potential to prove extremely serious, if not explosive, within our Australian community. The Opposition supports the move by the Minister contained in page 4 of the statement in relation to the special category concerning the relaxed intake criteria for people in human rights difficulties who may have family links with Australia but who are outside the scope of assisted refugee entry. I think the Minister will know that the former Government was moving somewhere along the line towards achieving that result. I congratulate the Minister in this respect because I, as he will find out from his files, have been involved in such cases. Mr West —Yes, that is right. Mr HODGMAN —I repeat: Where the decision is good it will be approved. But I caution the Minister in relation to South America. I do not need to say much more in relation to that. The Opposition strongly opposes what the Government will be doing in relation to the cut-back in the number of people who will be permitted to migrate under the occupations in demand sub-category. The Government will be cutting back the number of migrants in this very special category by over 70 per cent. If that is not putting migration into reverse gear, I do not know what is. We do not agree with the decision of the Minister in respect of the business migration category. The Minister blandly and unfairly talks about wealthy people who migrate. He is to place a lower limit of $250,000 on the capital of people in the business migration category and is to give priority to business with employment or technology improving potential. The Minister has already taken away, abandoned and destroyed forever his capacity to approve ministerially a change of status in relation to those people who are in Australia as working holidaymakers. Let me quote what he has now done. He prevents working holidaymakers in Australia remaining permanently on the grounds of their qualifications and/or employment prospects. In other words, an employer might have been looking, in some cases for years, to employ a young man or woman with certain qualifications. I have one case before the Minister at the moment involving a Rhodes Scholar from the United States of America. Under this Minister people on working holidays will have to return to their home countries and formally lodge an application for permanent resident status. Last year 1,000 out of 15,000 applications were approved. This Minister has started off on the basis that he will not exercise his ministerial discretion. As we have seen from Press reports today, when he does exercise his ministerial discretion he is subject to improper pressure from others who force him to reverse his decision. The plain fact of the matter is that the Minister is the Minister. He is being paid to administer his Department . There are cases in which he can exercise a discretion. There are cases in which he can bring a bit of justice and humanity into what would otherwise be a rigid and authoritarian regime. The Minister has the right to issue visas, nobody else. Never again let it be seen that the Minister is rolled by his Cabinet colleagues after having issued visas because that is not a proper exercise of ministerial discretion. Mr West —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that we are discussing Australia's migrant intake and the matters raised by the honourable member are not relevant to the subject before the Chair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HODGMAN —The Minister knows what I am talking about. Not only will he not exercise his discretion in many areas but also he is prepared to have his ministerial discretion interfered with by improper pressures. We are disappointed that we have a Minister who has started on that basis. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Mr Humphreys) adjourned. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Mr Speaker has received advice from the Opposition Whip that he has nominated Mr Hawker to be a member of the Standing Committee on Road Safety in his place. Appointment of Members Motion (by Mr West)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act 1948, Sir James Killen and Dr Klugman be appointed as trustees to serve on the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust. Appointment of Members Motion (by Mr West)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964, this House appoints Mr Porter and Mr Reeves to be members of the Council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, and to continue as members until the dissolution of the 33rd Parliament. Debate resumed. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(2.50) —Before the debate on the Christmas Island Agreement Amendment Bill 1983 was interrupted because of Question Time I had made some short observations. I said that the Opposition had no objection to the passage of the Bill. I made some positive comments about our willingness to agree to legislation of this sort without confrontation and dispute. The Bill's purpose is to wind up the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission and to terminate the Christmas Island Agreement with New Zealand. The Bill contains a schedule which sets out an agreement between Australia and New Zealand dated 22 November 1982. I guess that because the purpose of this Bill is to put that agreement into effect, honourable members would appreciate why one so readily agrees to the Bill. The agreement was negotiated between representatives of the previous Government and the New Zealand Government to implement a program announced earlier by one of the Ministers of the previous Government. Honourable members no doubt will be aware that on 8 March 1981 the former Minister for Administrative Services, my colleague the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman), announced decisions on the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry into the Viability of the Christmas Island Phosphate Industry. The main developments that he outlined on that occasion were the disbandment of the British Phosphate Commissioners and the establishment of a wholly Commonwealth Government-owned mining company as managing agents for the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission. The company that was set up to undertake that task on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia was the Phosphate Mining Co. of Christmas Island Ltd. He also announced at that time that the disbandment of the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission would proceed ultimately and also the relinquishment by New Zealand of its right to extract phosphate and its related rights under the Christmas Island Agreement operating at that time. The Minister then stated that New Zealand would retain its right to purchase up to half of the total Island phosphate output at the same price as it is sold to Australia. He went on to say that Australian manufacturers would assume responsibility for purchasing phosphate rock and for shipping it to Australia. The agreement also provided that stockpiles of phosphate rock at Australian and New Zealand manufacturers' plant on 30 June 1981 would become the property of the respective governments. The legislation before the House will give effect to the objectives announced at that time. It will bring to an end the role of the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission, as was then foreshadowed, and the Commission's assets on the Island will pass to the Phosphate Mining Co. of Christmas Island Ltd. The Phosphate Mining Co. of Christmas Island Ltd will then be able to mine in its own right rather than as a managing agent as has been the case. As has been previously announced, it is to do so on a non-profit basis but it is expected to operate commercially. The Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) stated in his second reading speech that agreement in relation to the future operations of the island, phosphate marketing and related questions, is close to being reached. I assume that the agreement about which the Minister spoke will deal with the distribution of the assets of the Commission and arrangements for future purchases of phosphate. Unlike previous agreements which have required legislative intervention to give them force and effect, this will not, as I see it, be the case now with the anticipated exchange of notes that the Minister indicated would be the way in which the agreement presently being negotiated would be put into effect. The Minister has stated that the agreement will begin to operate when this legislation is proclaimed. In effect, the proclamation of this legislation seems to be dependent upon such an agreement being negotiated and concluded. Whilst the Bill is said to be dependent upon a concluded agreement without any statement of intention, I would certainly ask the Minister, who is not here at this time, to give an assurance to the House that the agreement will be reported to the Parliament because I think honourable members should be aware of the agreement as this Bill is conditional upon it. I join the Minister in extending thanks to the previous Commissioners. He mentioned, in particular, Mr Morris Timbs, A.O., a man known to many of us, Mr W . D. M. Bremner, C.M.G. and Mr W. G. Marston, O.B.E. On behalf of the previous Government and Opposition I extend thanks to them for their work in relation to the Commission. When the previous Christmas Island Amendment Bill was before the House in 1981, the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin) raised a number of questions. Honourable members would be aware that the honourable member is now the Minister for Primary Industry. When he spoke on that occasion, he raised a number of questions relating to phosphate stockpiles, their size and value, and the cost of phosphate to manufacturers and thus to farmers and graziers. He noted at that time that some increase in price under the new arrangements was inevitable. He also made some observations about the effects of the bounty on the continued use of phosphate. I would like to quote for the benefit of honourable members the speech the Minister for Primary Industry made at that time, because it may be interesting to him in his present capacity. In Hansard, of 10 June 1981, at page 3451, he is quoted as saying: The Government has gone along with the recommendation to pay a bounty but it has not kept up its value. It could easily keep up the value if it wanted to, if it was fair dinkum, by paying a percentage or by indexing the bounty to take inflation into account. I am sure that the honourable member for Werriwa, the Minister for Primary Industry, will well recall that quote. Implicit in it is a commitment to an increase in bounty and a suggested way in which that might be taken into account . It will be interesting to see what approach the honourable member takes on this issue now that he is in Government. The honourable member for Werriwa also noted Australian Labor Party concern about the Christmas Island work force. He did not do other than draw attention to the problem and at that time he did not suggest any solutions. I simply note that neither has the new Minister for Territories and Local Government mentioned this matter in his speech, but it is one on which I would like the Minister to keep the Parliament informed. I would also like him to take a continuing interest in it and to ensure that the question of the future of the labour force is addressed. I note that it has been a matter of considerable concern to the Australian Labor Party from time to time and I think its record in government needs to be noted as much as its expressions of concern when it was not in government. Finally, the honourable member for Werriwa at that time mentioned a number of environmental matters, including the Abbott's booby bird. It has been a matter of some notoriety from time to time that whenever Christmas Island is referred to, questions of this sort are raised. Whilst the Minister for Territories and Local Government is not in the House, I would certainly like to note what I know of his personal concern about environmental matters. From time to time I have admired his very considerable interest in matters of heritage at home. The Minister has been known to express a view about Parramatta Park which is of interest to people in the western suburbs of Sydney. I was somewhat surprised, therefore, knowing his interest in environmental and heritage matters and the like, that his personal concern did not run into his address on this occasion and that he made no observations. I simply note that the Minister in his second reading speech has not referred to those issues, although they were covered in considerable detail in the 1981-82 report of September, of the Phosphate Mining Co. of Christmas Island Ltd. Honourable members who might be interested in questions relating to the environment and what was being done, if they would like some further information on it, should refer to that report. The former Minister for Administrative Services, in a statement made on 1 November, said that provision was being made to protect the Abbott's booby bird and other Christmas Island fauna and flora. In the Senate Estimates Committee concerned with the Department of Territories and Local Government, questions were also addressed on this matter. Some indication was given as to the nature of the program of monitoring the booby bird and its habitat and the work that was about to be undertaken by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service . In view of the interest that has been expressed in these matters from time to time, I would like the Minister, when addressing questions relating to Christmas Island in future, to give attention also to these very important matters. Mr GEAR(Tangney)(3.2) —In rising to speak to the Christmas Island Agreement Amendment Bill, it is my understanding-I was not a member of parliament at the time, having only been elected on 5 March-that this is unfinished business from the previous Government. As the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) has rightly pointed out, the legislation is not controversial. I am glad that he used the word consensus; it is a word that is gathering momentum with every day. It is also my further understanding that the Bill is basically just a machinery motion to facilitate the transition of the management of the Christmas Island phosphate deposits from one management structure to another. In my short speech I will consider a few points-the purpose of the Bill, some of its effects, or more correctly, non-effects-and I will finally stress the importance of its passage. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the winding up of the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission and the termination of the 1958 Christmas Island Agreement with New Zealand. The Bill enables the agreement to come into operation on a date to be specified by proclamation. Following much consultation between the governments of Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, the previous Government, on 5 March 1981, announced a series of wide ranging decisions concerning the future of the phosphate industry . The changes will occur in two stages. Firstly, the Christmas Island Agreement 1958 and the enabling legislation were amended in June 1981 to enable the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission to employ managing agents other than the British Phosphate Commissioners. In July 1981 the Phosphate Mining Co. of Christmas Island Ltd, a company wholly owned and controlled by the Australian Government, took over the mining operations as the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission's managing agent. Secondly, with the enactment of this Bill, the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission can be wound up and the Phospate Mining Co . of Christmas Island can continue to mine in its own right. These changes should occur around 30 June this year. Consistent with this intent, I believe, a memorandum of understanding has been reached with New Zealand. The three points basically covered in that agreement concern the distribution of assets between Australia and New Zealand; the agreement by New Zealand to share unforeseen liabilities with Australia; and the agreement by both countries to accept a guaranteed tonnage in the 1983-84 financial year to assist the transition. This agreement has been reached notwithstanding the fact that both countries have significant stockpiles of phosphate. I turn now to some of the effects or possible non-effects of the Bill . There is no change in the price of the product. No unemployment will be created by the transition. The previous administration was handled by three part time commissioners. There will be no effect on the workings of the Island. There are about 10 to 15 years left in which to mine A grade phosphate. That period can be lengthened if the A grade deposits are mixed with B and C grade deposits. There will be no additional cost but, conversely, several million dollars in revenue will be raised as a result of this Bill. In closing my remarks, I stress the importance of not delaying the Bill. For that reason I will not fully take up the time allotted to me. If this legislation is not passed by 30 June there is a possibility that auditing and company structure problems may ensue. My colleague, the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), will outline a few points about the company structure and the industrial relations aspects of the Bill. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(3.7) —I am pleased that the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear) and the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) referred to the nature of the work force at Christmas Island. The Government, in a spirit of bipartisanship, has to look at the work force when it is considering the management of the Island. Obviously, there have been considerable tensions in the past. What one might call almost a feudal mentality prevailed on the Island because management tended to have a large say in what went on and the work force was consulted very little. I emphasise that at this point in the transition phase we as a government will be concerned to ensure that there are appropriate consultative processes. Under the current arrangements on Christmas Island the three Christmas Island Phosphate Commission members are joined by a representative of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and a representative of the farmers. This is to ensure that there is effective participation at the management level on Christmas Island. I emphasise to the House that the Union of Christmas Island Workers needs to have a far greater involvement in the operation of Christmas Island than has been characteristic in the past. We must recognise also that to ensure the effective management of Christmas Island we must have consultative processes. It is pleasing to note that during the last visit by the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) to Christmas Island he encouraged the establishment of weekly meetings between management and the work force on the Island. It is to be hoped that that pattern will continue so that an effective relationship can be established between workers and management. One of the concerns we had, particularly in Western Australia because we are geographically closer to the region, was that tensions had developed in the past. The Union of Christmas Island Workers had a number of grievances that it wished to raise. It is to be hoped that the future arrangements will be more effective. I take up a point raised by the honourable member for Dundas. I think it is important that this Parliament should be involved and should know what is going on in relation to Christmas Island. I do not think it is sufficient for us to say simply that we should go ahead with this transition arrangement. We should also make sure that we follow up this legislation so that we as a parliament, and therefore the people of Australia, know what is going on at Christmas Island . I am particularly concerned to ensure that we have an opportunity to be briefed on the industrial relations aspects. The honourable member for Dundas raised an important point about the conservation aspect. Perhaps we should consider referring that matter to a committee of the Parliament. It might be appropriate to do so at some future date. During this transition period we as a government-the Government recognises that it is carrying forward some measures of the previous Government-should facilitate these things. In winding up, I want to emphasis two points: First, we ought to ensure that under the current arrangements industrial relations activities are improved and, that a more enlightened climate is established for industrial relations. Second, we should reflect on the fact that the conservation aspects which have been pointed to are also important. 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. Debate resumed from 11 May, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed). Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(3.12) —The Opposition supports the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1983 which is before the House. I will indicate towards the end of my speech one reservation that the Opposition has. I point out that had the Opposition still been in government I would have proposed legislation of this nature in this session. The Industrial Relations Bureau is the first matter I wish to raise in relation to the Bill. Essentially, the Bill restores the pre-Industrial Relations Bureau position and does not diminish the rights of individuals under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, including those which were inserted by the Bill which set up the Industrial Relations Bureau. In that regard, it is noteworthy that at paragraph 4.9 in the first annual report, of 1977-78, the Director of the Industrial Relations Bureau said: Apart from changes to procedures to meet internal administrative arrangements, the policies of the Bureau in relation to securing the observance of the Act, regulations and awards closely followed those of the former Arbitration Inspectorate. Presumably the transition will be equally smooth in reverse. No doubt the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) will assure the House of that. It is worth dwelling for a moment on what are the rights of individuals under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I do so by reference to the last annual report of the Industrial Relations Bureau which, at pages 19 to 21, lists those rights under the present legislation. It is worth reminding the House of what the Director of the IRB said in the report. When referring to those who have most frequently been drawn to the attention of the IRB, he said: S.5 prohibits employers from dismissing or disadvantaging employees because of particular activities associated with their organisation membership, their award rights or their refusal to participate in industrial action. S.132A prohibits discriminatory action by an organisation against an independent contractor who does no belong to the organisation. S.140 specifies the requirements to be met by the rules of organisations including the requirement that they shall not impose on members conditions that are oppresssive, unreasonable or unjust. S. 141 provides procedures whereby members can act to secure the performance and observance of the rules of their organizations. S. 144 prescribes the entitlement of employers, or persons desiring to become employees, to be admitted and remain as members of employee organizations. S. 144A provides procedures whereby an individual with a conscientious belief against membership of any organization may obtain a certificate from the Industrial Registrar and be protected from victimisation. There are two or three more sections of particular relevance. Section 145 prescribes procedures for members of organisations to resign their membership. Section 159 entitles members of organisations to apply for an inquiry by the Federal Court into alleged election irregularities. Section 188 prohibits victimisation by organisations of employees who refuse to participate in industrial action. Those sections, which are summarised very compendiously and accurately in the Director's last annual report, indicate the range of matters handled by the Industrial Relations Bureau. These will, of course, continue to be handled by the Arbitration Inspectorate. I hope that the Minister will give the House an assurance that the people on whom rights are conferred by those sections will be able to resort to the Inspectorate just as they were to the Bureau. I will come back to one matter but wish to refer the Minister especially to page 21 of the same annual report, where reference is made to some of the cases which come before the Bureau in relation to those sections. I refer in particular to the case of an owner-driver who alleged: . . . that an organization threatened that industrial action would be taken against a newspaper company, with which he had a contract, because he would not join it. His contract with the newspaper was subsequently terminated. I will be suggesting that the protection afforded by the Act is itself inadequate. It is another area to which I would have given attention by proposing a Bill to this session of the Parliament. I will come back to that, but I ask the Minister to assure the House that people will be as free as hitherto to exercise their rights under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, although in practice they will now approach the Inspectorate instead of the Bureau, that the Inspectorate will try to assist these individuals, as did the Bureau. I am sure it will but I ask the Minister to assure us of that. I also seek his assurance that the phrase in the second reading speech, that this Bill '. . . will not give the Inspectorate the intrusive role that the Bureau had in respect of the internal affairs of registered organizations' does not mean that an individual's entitlement to redress under the Act as it now stands will be reduced in any way. I am sure that is the case, but I believe a lot of people who have placed great reliance upon the provisions of the Act would draw comfort from the Minister's assurance. I also ask the Minister to seek to resolve with the National Labour Consultative Council the weaknesses in the law which were identified by the Bureau in its annual reports. There are several but I refer in particular to the plight of independent contractors. Shortly before losing office I had discussions with the Director of the Industrial Relations Bureau regarding the inadequacies of section 132A. The Bureau drew attention to that in its last report, presented to the Parliament in October 1982. At page 25 thereof it observed: One hundred and fifty-four complaints and enquiries were dealt with by the Bureau in 1981-82 from persons who either claimed that they were not employees but were being coerced into joining an employee organization or who wished to know the protection afforded to them by the Act. Section 132A purports to provide a measure of protection, against discriminatory action by employee organizations, for independent contractors who meet the definition of, and, who do not belong to an employee organization. The difficulties and limitations associated with its application were commented on in some detail in the Bureau's 1979-80 Annual Report. Although the Bureau continued to be able to secure relief for some complainants , especially sub-contractors who could demonstrate that they were themselves employers of labour, the Bureau's experience in 1981-82 was of continuing difficulty in obtaining a resolution of problems brought to it that satisfied complainants and enquirers. The Director of the Bureau made a similar observation in the previous year at page 17 of his annual report: From information tendered and enquiries made it is apparent to the Bureau that the incidence of dissatisfaction amongst 'independent contractors' or 'self employed' persons concerning unions enrolment overtures is very much higher than is reflected in the number of individuals who have approached the Bureau directly. I have spent some time on this because, as the Minister knows very well from his own experience, certain sections of the Australian community are particularly anti-trade union. If one traces the reason for that, one finds that they have had adverse experience in what they regard as the abuse of union power. One substantial section is made up of those who believe that they are self-employed and ought not to be induced to belong to a trade union. There are also others, such as the victims of the recent shearers' strike. Each of those cases represent the ugly face of trade unionism and it makes it hard for the Minister, and for me as well as a supporter of trade unions, to explain the situation away and, above all, to explain why there is inadequate protection. I draw it to the Minister's attention, not to embarrass him but to point to a genuine grievance which the law, as it now stands, does not adequately meet-one which I was determined to try to correct. I therefore ask him to look at that matter with a view to trying to correct the situation during the Budget session. By way of giving the Minister further information I refer him to the 1979-80 annual report, in which the Bureau reported at length on the technical aspects of administering Section 132A. I refer him to pages seven to 10 of that report and ask him to raise the matter with the NLCC as soon as possible and to come back to the Parliament in the Budget session with legislative changes designed to overcome the weaknesses exposed by the Bureau. It might be useful if I were to cite to the House a case described at page 8. It serves to provide an example of the problem. The relevant passage states: X operated his own business which involved the buying of bricks on a demolition site, cleaning them and either re-selling them on site or removing them for subsequent sale. He employed several persons on a casual basis to assist in the cleaning work. X was not himself engaged in the demolition of the building (that was performed by another firm-Y). X was approached by an organizer of a building industry union and told that unless he, X, joined the union, the site would be closed down. X refused and the employees of Y walked off. X then paid the union subscription by cheque but subsequently stopped payment of it. The site was again 'closed' until X paid for himself and one of his employees in cash. X sought the Bureau's advice. Investigations by the Bureau raised considerable doubts as to X's status in relation to the definition of 'eligible person'. Even if X had been an employee, it was not apparent that, having regard to the particular nature of his activities, X would have been eligible to join any organization including that represented by the organizer who had approached him. Other difficulties of an evidentiary nature were also revealed. Before these technical questions could be resolved, X indicated that he did not wish to pursue the matter and declined to assist the Bureau any further in its inquiries. The fact that someone in X's position did decline to pursue the matter further indicates the degree of frustration which people, who are entitled to use sections of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which are designed for their protection, will feel when they in future will have to approach the Industrial Arbitration Inspectorate. I believe that there is in the law a major deficiency which needs to be corrected. I do not criticise the Minister for not correcting it in this Bill, but I believe that he ought to do so in the next parliamentary session. I also draw the Minister's attention to a most important observation at page 14 of the 1978-79 annual report of the Bureau: The essential problem, however, is the reluctance of the trade union movement to accept the principle involved, i.e. that independent contractors or self employed persons should not be forced to join employee organisations. It is the Bureau's view that the resolution of the problem in the long term can only be achieved by dialogue with the union movement and employers. Initiatives to establish such dialogue have been taken and are meeting with some success. It would seem from the 1981-82 report, a report of three years later, that those negotiations and dialogues did not meet with enough success. Were I the Minister still, I would have raised this matter with both the National Labour Consultative Council and the departmental review of industrial relations which I had instigated. Now that the new Minister has handed that review to an NLCC committee, I ask him to request that committee to give high priority to this matter and to recommend legislation prior to the completion of the examination of the whole Act. I do not believe that the public interest should be imperilled in this regard by waiting for the completion of a review which might well take another 18 months or two years. The problem is urgent. All independent contractors, owner-drivers and other self-employed persons are entitled to have their position clarified and protected from the coercion to which they are so often exposed by union organisers to join unions even when they are not strictly eligible to do so. I must say again that one of the deficiencies in the law-as I recall, it is section 141-is that it really just does not give protection to a member of the public who is complaining about coercion to join a union, even where the union rules are such that a person such as him would not be eligble to be involved. I think that that section confers a right only on someone who is already a member of the union, not on a member of the public who is under coercion but who is not a member of the union. That is clearly a deficiency which ought to be tidied up at the same time. As it stands, section 132 (1) (a) is quite unsatisfactory. It is pleasing to see, from paragraph 3.25 of the 1981-82 report, that the Bureau successfully pursued the Transport Workers Union to the Federal Court. However, not all individuals are as courageous as the one involved in that case, and few are prepared to stay the complicated legal obstacle course which is now facing them. Owner-drivers suffer serious intimidation, discrimination and disadvantage. For example, I have had people come to me, as have other honourable members, including the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), complaining that because they are owner-drivers, they go along to a warehouse to pick up some goods which they are to deliver under a contract of service, and the storeman and packers give priority to the loading of vehicles which are driven by Transport Workers Union members. Even if there were a more expeditious and effective remedy than is now provided under the law, there would still be that lack of co-operation and discrimination against them by another union, which has talked from time to time of amalgamation with the Transport Workers Union. I think that the Minister, in supervising the other aspect of this Bill, the amalgamation provisions, really ought to look at the rights of people who are not, strictly speaking, employees or employers and recognise that ancilliary protection has to be there for them against intimidation and bludgeoning of that character. It simply means that small business people cannot operate their businesses successfully if they are discriminated against, even for 24 hours, in terms of the loading and unloading of goods in that kind of case. So, as a matter of public interest, the Act ought to be amended in order to ensure that first, independent contractors are given protection from action taken against them by anyone on the basis that they are not members of a registered organisation. In theory, this should apply to both unions and employer organisations but I doubt that employer organisations pursue them in this fashion, and so in practice it is likely to apply only to unions. Secondly, independent contractors who are not employees should be precluded from membership of employee organisations but be able to join employer organisations where the rules so provide; and, thirdly, independent contractors who are actually deemed eligible to join an employee organisation by virtue of section 132 (4) should have the same rights as other employees regarding conscientious objection to union membership under section 144A. Again, this is one of the anomalies, like the other section to which I referred , which I think is section 141. Clearly, it is an oversight by the government of the day and the drafters but it is a matter that the Minister could pick up. Section 144A as it now stands, especially in conjunction with with section 132 ( 4), is deficient in its protection of conscientious objectors even if the rules cover their situation. Moreover, I believe that consideration should be given by the Minister and the NLCC to legislating for a special category of registered organisation for the independent contractors who are neither employers nor employees in a technical sense. Perhaps I should say in passing that as some of the self-employed people actually incorporate themselves as private companies, they can be said to be technically employees of their own companies. I recognise that that is one of the difficulties that government and legislative draftsmen have in remedying this situation; but there will need to be another of those tripartite conferences, which seem to be the order of the day for Ministers with this portfolio, to try to come to the best solution possible. The Minister would be aware of the unsatisfactory nature of section 132, section 132A, section 144 and section 144A. The problem really begins with section 132. As section 132 (1) (a) of the Act presently stands, an organisation of employers is capable of making provision within its membership for persons who are independent contractors engaged under a contract for services. This class of person is not an employer and not an employee, and as section 132 (1) ( b) and (c) of the Act presently stands, an organisation of employees is capable of admitting to membership persons who describe themselves as independent contractors but who are, in fact, engaged under a contract of service. A person of this class is an employee. Section 132 (4) of the Act enables employee organisations with branches in any or all of the States of New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland and Western Australia, whose rules make appropriate provision, to recruit to their membership persons deemed employees for the purposes of those respective State industrial codes. The entitlements can differ from State to State and, in some instances, would include persons entitled to join an employer organisation under section 132 (1) (a) or section 132 (2) of the Act. I make that point for the record for the Minister's guidance because I believe that he, as Chairman of the Federal-State Ministers for Labor Conference, is very well placed with four Labor governments and an extremely constructive Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in Queensland, to rectify that situation. It cannot be beyond the wit of those Ministers, who traditionally are non-party-political in the way in which they handle things, to resolve that situation. It is not a major issue in industrial relations, but it is a major irritant to the people affected by it. The limited and restricted entitlement to membership of an employee organisation provided for by section 132 (4) is the cause of both confusion and pressure for further legislative change. It creates inconsistencies between the membership of the separate branches of organisations; it causes inconsistencies within branches of organisations; and in certain branches of an organisation it gives an entitlement to membership to a person who has an entitlement to be a member of an employer organisation under section 132 (1) (a) or 132 (2) of the Act. It also may be varied by widening or narrowing by amendment of State legislation which may or may not accord with the wishes of the Federal organisations concerned and may have effect without the consent of the registrar having being obtained and without interested organisations even having an opportunity to object. This is a highly technical area. I apologise to the House in one sense, for boring honourable members with that kind of detail. But we get rare enough debates here, and it seems to me that if we are looking at the abolition of a bureau designed to protect people, we should also look at ways in which the law is deficient and ways in which the new Arbitration Inspectorate can be given more authority to act to resolve these matters. The independent contractor problem looms largely in the building and construction industries and in the transport industries with those who work on the tools or are owner-drivers. Essentially, the problem is one about industrial coverage. As the Act currently stands, independent contractors may, where the rules so provide, join an employer organisation. They cannot join an employee organisation except where there is a potential entitlement arising under section 132 (4) of the Act by virtue of any relevant State legislation and where there is an entitlement under the rules of the organisation. Irrespective of restrictive legislative prescriptions, most employee organisations will tend to ignore those prescriptions in respect of persons who work on the tools or who are owner-drivers, regardless of whether the contract is one for service. Some even ignore the fact that a person working on the tools or the owner-driver is an employer. I recall the Director of the Industrial Relations Bureau informing me that many employer organisations and employers openly aid and abet the employee organisations in this kind of behaviour. That again is a very unfortunate outcome if members of these registered organisations find a collective interest in excluding rights that one would have thought, as a matter of natural justice, ought to lie to a very small segment who are genuinely self- employed and neither employer or employee in the sense that the registered organisations' coverage normally admits. Part of the problem is due to the nature of the industries and the growth in the number of independent contractors both of and for service. Another aspect of the problem is the difficulty of distinguishing between contracts of and for service and, like so many other matters in this complex area-it is complex in areas of both law and human behaviour-this problem is now firmly on the table of the Minister, not myself. I am sorry for his sake that it is so but, if he thinks that I can be of assistance to him, I would be very pleased to help. Let me assure him again that the matter is urgent and of great economic significance to the multitude of independent contractors throughout Australia. I say multitude because they are growing but they are still not of such significance that the registered organisations will suffer by not being able to get coverage of them. I should mention one other matter in respect of individual rights. Amongst the sections of the Act to which I have referred is section 188, which in fact provides protection for people who have decided to work in accordance with the award and not abide by a union direction not to work. I would suggest strongly that in strikes such as the recent shearers strike the Minister satisfy himself that the Arbitration Inspectorate has the authority to give protection to those people. In the last few minutes available to me I turn to the second portion of this Bill which concerns the amalgamation of unions. I wish to propose, and then briefly talk to, an amendment to the motion for the second reading. I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Government should adopt the unanimous view of the all-party Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation which recommended in October 1982 that in elections where the membership is consulted on mergers, at least 25 per cent of the membership of each union should be required to record a vote, and of those voting, at least two thirds should be required to vote in favour of the proposition or that an alternative could be for at least 25 per cent of the total membership of each union to vote in favour of amalgamation, provided that those voting in favour constitute a majority of the votes cast'. The Opposition does not oppose the concept of facilitating legislation to make amalgamations between registered organisations easier but it brings this amendment before the House because it wishes to see the maximum feasible involvement of rank and file members of the organisations, whether they are employee or employer organisations. One of the criticisms that has been made for many years, and rightly so, is that under the current law it is extremely difficult to get 50 per cent of the enrolled membership actually voting. There are also deficiencies in respect of rolls and I commend the Minister for correcting those in this Bill. The Australian Council of Trade Unions, in its evidence before the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation, drew attention to the fact that the report of the Coombs Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration and the report of the Jackson Committee to Advise on Policies for Manufacturing Industry pointed up the multiplicity of unions and the need for reductions in the number of unions and the need for trying to find some community of interest in the amalgamations. The ACTU, at page 41 of its submission, also pointed out the difficulties that the present legislation placed in the way of people with a community of interest actually coming together. Therefore, the Opposition supports very strongly the easing of the current restrictions. I must say, speaking personally, that it is legislation which is long overdue and I welcome it. I recall calling for legislation of this kind not only long before entering this Parliament but also in my maiden speech. I quote from page 41 of the submission of the ACTU. It states: Other amalgamations, where a way around the s. 158N requirement was not available, simply have been prevented from taking place. The most recent example of an amalgamation being stymied by the present provisions of the Act is the proposed amalgamation between the Australian Textile Workers' Union and the Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation. Despite the fact that there is a clear 'community of interest' between the two unions and that over ninety per cent of those members who voted in the ballots conducted in each union supported the amalgamation, the amalgamation cannot proceed because the s. 158N requirement (that at least 50 per cent of the members must vote in the amalgamation ballots) was not met. The return rate of ballots from the members of the Textile Workers' Union was 34.7 per cent and the return rate in the Boot Trade Employees' Federation was 44.5 per cent. This provision is important because of the mergers which are now in contemplation and I understand that the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia and the Australasian Society of Engineers face a similar situation. What was proposed ultimately by the Senate Select Committee in its report of October last year would not be an obstacle to the two major mergers that are currently prohibited by the existing legislation but which would be facilitated by this legislation. It would have the benefit of enabling more people to participate in the decision making. I refer the Minister to clause xii of the summary of observations, conclusions and recommendations, paragraph 9, of the Senate Select Committee report. It is quite clear that the Committee believed that there should be greater rank and file participation. The Committee put forward two options to the Government and in this amendment the Opposition puts those two options forward for debate in this House. I should say that in most organisations, whether they are companies or registered organisations under this Act, there is usually a requirement for more than the simple majority for the dissolution of those organisations. I think, if my memory serves me correctly, that even the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union has a requirement that it can only be dissolved with a majority vote of two-thirds of its members. On that basis I would have thought that the spirit of the Senate committee report, an all party committee comprising an independent member and members of the Australian Democrats, the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party, was appropriate and I commend this amendment to the House whilst still supporting the second reading of the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Cadman —I second the amendment. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(3.43) —I speak in support of the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill. The overall intent of the legislation is to improve industrial relations in this country after years of industrial mismanagement by the now Opposition. The legislation is to be commended for two aspects: Firstly, for abolishing the Industrial Relations Bureau, a mechanism introduced to attack the trade union movement and working people; and, secondly, for easing the restrictions on union amalgamations. This Government was elected on the promise that it would repair the serious industrial damage inflicted on the trade unions by the previous Government. The IRB legislation was one of the many pieces of vicious legislation introduced by the Fraser Government to restrict the rights of trade unions and trade unionists and to limit the opportunity for working people to better their lot in the bitter class strugle of industrial relations. The IRB reflected the general attitude of the government of the day. Indeed, had the previous Government been a football umpire, I would suggest that the score of the employers would have been 100 and that of the workers nil. According to that Government, the bosses were correct in every industrial dispute over the past seven and a half years. That Government launched an attack on the unions and their membership through legislation, through the activities of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission at wage hearings, by its redirection of the Australian economy from the public to the private sector, by its substantial pay-as-you-earn tax increases, by its substantial decreases in taxation of the wealthy and the private privileged class and the use of public funds to bolster the private sector. It reinforced the attack on wage earners by introducing an arsenal of legislation aimed at decapitating the trade union movement. It backed this up by creating an atmosphere of fear and distrust, and by painting the trade union movement as the bogy of not only our industrial life but also of Australian society. This lie finally lost its effectiveness in March this year. The Australian people saw through the layers of fabrication and recognised the rottenness and corruption of the perpetrators, that is, the spokespeople for business and that government that used the term 'militant trade unionism' to justify their attack on living standards. Incredibly, every social ill from unemployment to the economic crisis, to the Government's disastrous record of failure, was labelled the fault of the militant trade unions. The spokespeople for business and government attempted to make the word 'business' synonymous with everything good and decent in society and the word 'unions' with all that is bad. The Liberal Government deliberately attempted to divide society, to turn worker against worker, to tell the most disadvantaged of the work force, of the unemployed and of welfare recipients that their problems were caused by their fellow workers in the unions. This divide and conquer tactic worked for just so long. It came from a government that talked of national unity while it plotted to undermine that unity for the interests of national and international capital. The tactics had two purposes: Firstly, to perpetuate government for the incompetents who administered the shambles; and, secondly, to divert attention from the real issues and from the real cause of the economic woes and personal misery, the capitalist system which the Opposition espouses as the salvation of society. We know that has proved to be wrong. Yet, as part of its tactic to create that myth, the Government introduced the arsenal of legislation, from the IRB to the use of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act to the draconian fines and penalties for normal industrial action. It is interesting to note that one of its activities, an attempt to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation, cost the taxpayers of this country nearly $2m. I am reminded that that was unsuccessful. People on the opposition side of this chamber wasted that $2m. I point out to the House that their spokesman was not interested enough in this legislation to be here when the debate commenced. As we all know, the bosses have given the workers nothing over the years. It is senseless to suggest that workers will improve their lot without industrial struggle. Despite the Press barons' and conservative spokespeople's attempts to decry talks of class struggle as old-fashioned and Marxist, the facts remain that the class struggle exists. In Australia in a period when the bosses were backed by their party's Government and when that Government worked to create division and to slander hard-working militant union officials and union membership, those militant union officials and union members remained the strongest allies of the working class under attack. The IRB was part of that attack. Yet it is significant that none of the draconian, horrific legislation worked. That is the extraordinary part. The Government introduced the major plank of Fraser's platform and ideas and it did not even work. It gave the Government the opportunity to launch its dishonest attacks on worker organisations but did nothing to prevent workers continuing their struggles. Further, it did nothing to solve one industrial dispute. The Labor Party and the labour movement attacked the IRB bitterly when it was introduced. I commend this Government for maintaining that opposition now that it is in government and for undertaking the removal of the IRB as the first major step in improving industrial relations in this country. This legislation returns to the tried and proven system of an arbitration inspectorate. The inspectors will be responsible only to the Minister. State and Federal inspectors will have reciprocal powers as they ought to have to facilitate their role for the good of all. Under this legislation inspectors will have the power to obtain documents and information from the cause of most industrial disputes, the bosses. It will be within their power to intervene in the running of a company, to see that workers are being paid adequately and that conditions are proper and in accordance with the law. The second aspect of the Bill repeals legislation designed to limit the power of the unions. In many cases desirable amalgamations which would increase the industrial power and muscle of working people have been retarded by legislation deliberately designed to ensure the amalgamations were frustrated. This again was a product of Fraserism. This legislation will not mean that every union or group of unions wishing to amalgamate will automatically do so. They will have to prove a community of interest under one of five headings. But if they can prove that community of interest then the procedures for amalgamation will be facilitated to the benefit of all members of all the unions involved in the amalgamation. The legislation also attempts to overcome anomalies in the rolls of those eligible to vote overcoming aspects of the present system which allows non- members of the affected unions to vote. I draw the attention of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to the need to monitor the voting system very closely and to conduct ballots in a manner ensuring improper practices cannot occur. Recent experiences in some unions have disclosed unscrupulous disruption, lies, rorting and cheating by the previous Government's neo-fascist supporter, the National Civic Council. If honourable members want proof of that I suggest they will find that proof in the New South Wales courts. There is plenty of proof of involvement by this group-the National Civic Council -which propped up the previous Government. It interfered in trade union ballots. The sooner society wakes up to the role of that organisation the better we will all be. As I said, I urge the Minister to ensure that these threatening, unscrupulous tactics are not able to be employed in amalgamation ballots. Another sensible aspect of the Bill is its simplification of the procedures when more than two organisations are involved in the ballot and one organisation opposes amalgamation while the others support it. Under the present legislation, the whole question is thrown back to a ballot. But in future, the organisations supporting amalgamation will be allowed to amalgamate on the result of the first ballot. I point out again that the spokesman for the Opposition was late for the commencement of this debate. A quorum had to be called to wake him up and get him into the House. I commend the Minister for introducing this legislation. It is a Labor Government initiative. It is encouraging, after years of legislation by our predecessors which attacked working people, to see the process being reversed by a government with genuine industrial relations at heart. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(3.47) —The Government has introduced amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. There is no doubt that the Australian Labor Party has given plenty of notice of its intention in regard to these matters. I refer the House to statements made in the 1982 platform of the Australian Labor Party which clearly indicates the current Government's intention to move in the way that it has. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis ) in speaking to the National Economic Summit Conference also gave clear indications that the Government intended to move in certain areas to make amendments of the style that we see in the House today. In his speech to the Summit, the Minister said: The prices and incomes accord places considerable importance on supportive policies as well as those related directly to prices and incomes. The Government is well aware of their importance to the accord and in the limited time it has been in government has taken action to implement a number of them. Thus in regard to industrial relations policies, we have already announced our intention to legislate in May to abolish the Industrial Relations Bureau and to greatly facilitate the amalgamation of trade unions. I am pleased to say that both these actions have been unequivocally endorsed by the employers represented on the National Labour Consultative Council as well as by the ACTU. This is one promise that has been kept; this is not another retread exercise. In fact, the Government has kept these two promises because the Australian Labor Party is so close to the union movement-in fact, at senior levels it is controlled by the union movement-that it has no choice but to fulfil the commitments laid down in the platform. The Minister, in his speech to the Summit , was seeking support for the policies announced by the accord and the policies set out for the Summit. In fact, one could say that by abolishing the Industrial Relations Bureau and making easier the amalgamation of unions, the Australian Labor Party is fulfilling part of an obligation it made to the union movement in order to gain its support for moderation in union activity and consensus in matters of wage claims so that the Government's policy that wage claims should not rise by more than 3 to 4 per cent for the rest of this year could be endorsed. Of course, that has been proved fallacious. The endorsement of that policy by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Labor Party has been falsely based. In the Minister's speech to the Summit he said: However, I ask them- That is, the employers- to bear in mind that the unions too are entitled to be irritated by a policy that imparts restraint on wage claims-yet they have agreed to do so. They have not agreed to do so and that has been proved in the past day or two. The Minister then said: The Government regards the maintenance of real wages as a key objective but recognises that in a period of economic crisis as now applies that this will be an objective over time. Of course, that objective is now current. That objective is being pushed on with by the ACTU and constituent groups within the Australian union movement. From the beginning of the IRB in 1977, the Australian Labor Party has consistently opposed its provisions. Almost from its beginning, I would say, the employers have also opposed some aspects of the Industrial Relations Bureau. Of course, now in office, the Government has moved to legislate to take away the IRB and to improve the prospects of amalgamations of unions. In 1977 the then Government introduced the Industrial Relations Bureau to be the third arm of industrial relations, of conciliation, to assist aggrieved persons and to create an awareness of obligations under the law-of both employers and employees. To a large extent the IRB has been successful in those approaches. The Industrial Relations Bureau was also to have powers to refer matters directly to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Those powers were never provided for it. It would have been beneficial to the Industrial Relations Bureau if it had had the strength that was originally proposed for it. But employees and employee organisations have seen the Industrial Relations Bureau as an opportunity for the law to be enforced in areas where they prefer the law not to be enforced. The spokesman for the Opposition, Mr Macphee, in fact enunciated some of those areas, particularly in the subcontracting area where the union movement, particularly the militant unions, did not want to see the enforcement of law as it stands in those areas to assist subcontractors. In fact employers saw the Industrial Relations Bureau as purely an inspectorate which was more tough, more solid, more exacting and more demanding than had been the inspectorate under the registrar of the former arrangements for conciliation and arbitration. They have consistently said that the Industrial Relations Bureau has not filled the purpose for which it was formed. They too have rejected the Industrial Relations Bureau as a proper avenue for effective industrial relations. The Minister has moved to resolve these outstanding matters-this dissension and these difficulties-by abolishing the Industrial Relations Bureau. When the Minister returns to the chamber I would appreciate his being informed of my concern regarding outstanding matters for the Bureau. I understand that these are four current award matters outstanding, one to be filed and eight more which will be filed before the end of the financial year. I note that the Minister in his speech said that he will have discretion as to whether they will be concluded. I take it from that that he will select those which should be concluded. Of particular concern in this process of winding up the Industrial Relations Bureau are the matters outstanding in regard to the legislative aspects of its work. There is one matter which involves an offence under section 5 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act concerning which action has been commenced against an employer. There is another matter under consideration concerning the Australian Public Service Association Fourth Division officers in Queensland on which the IRB, in order to move to assist aggrieved persons, has taken up the cause of the victimisation of a group of individuals who would not participate in industrial action. In both of these matters I hope that the Government will move forward and have them resolved before the IRB eventually disappears from the industrial relations scene. On the matter concerning the Australian Public Service Association, the coercion that can be placed on individuals-threats, intimidation and other work place practices-is something that all Australians deplore. It would be most satisfactory indeed if the Industrial Relations Bureau could bring this matter to a conclusion which is in favour of those that have been victimised and those whom it is seeking to assist in their aggrieved state. The spokesman for the Opposition, Mr Macphee, has spent some time dealing with the problems that the abolition of the Industrial Relations Bureau will create. He mentioned in particular sections 140 and 141 and the problems of sections 132A, 132 (4) and 188. There is no doubt in my mind that the matters concerning private contractors and subcontractors, people who have their feet on the first rung of the business world as self-employed, need to be specially dealt with and protected. It seems that the prospect of large employers and large unions being able to trample over these people, sometimes by coercion, is disastrous for the well-being of many Australians. The protection that is needed for individuals is clearly enunciated in the report of the Commissioner, Mr Justice Winneke, that he provided for both the Commonwealth and the Victorian governments entitled 'Report of the Commissioner appointed to inquire into activities of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation'. I wish to read some extracts from that report because they clearly indicate the activities of organisations such as the BLF and the way in which they can put pressure on and coerce individuals- small individuals, perhaps one or two men, part of a team, subcontractors, working in a way that they have chosen, seeking and wishing not to be interfered with by people such as Mr Norman Gallagher. At page 26 of the report, the Commissioner states: Following his conviction in the Supreme Court of Victoria for refusing to answer questions, Gallagher was again required to attend before the Inquiry and give evidence. On this occasion, he challenged the validity of the requirement but at the same time asserted that even if he was compelled to attend he would refuse to co-operate. This attitude displays an arrogant contempt for the processes of the law, an attitude which the evidence given before the Inquiry reveals as being carried into the administration of the affairs of the Federation. On page 28 the Commissioner also states: . . . they exhaust the legal processes- He is speaking of the BLF- (and no doubt the people who participate in them) in pursuit of what they assert to be 'their rights'. When, at the end of the day, the processes have been of no assistance, they help themselves by direct action and in defiance of the very processes which they have been so keen to employ. It is important to indicate the nature of the work place of sub-contractors, the pressures to which they are subjected and the sorts of difficulties that they have in being real individuals in a place of contest and conflict. At page 35 of the report the Commissioner said: firstly the lengths to which employers within the building industry have been prepared to go for the purposes of accommodating Gallagher's personal interests and, secondly, the clear determination by Gallagher not to 'put his hand into his own pocket' in respect of any expenditure incurred, or to be incurred, in the construction of those houses. To me that is a man who has ratted on his mates. He has no principles whatsoever in regard to the union movement, his colleagues or his associates. Those are the sorts of people that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Melbourne ( Mr Hand), supported. He left no doubt at all that in regard to the Industrial Relations Bureau and the assisting of aggrieved persons he had no time whatsoever for anyone but people such as Mr Norman Gallagher who, I repeat, did not 'put his hand into his own pocket in respect of any expenditure incurred, or to be incurred, in the construction of those houses'. They were his own homes. That is the sort of climate in which many sub-contractors in the building industry have had to work. In 1980 I followed with interest the processes of an inquiry into the building industry in New South Wales. That inquiry was conducted by an eminent person, one well versed in the whole field of industrial relations-Mr Justice Burns. It was instigated by the Minister of the day under pressure from the Builders Labourers Federation, to examine the sub-contracting industry in that State. The eminent figure came to the conclusion that sub- contractors should not and could not belong to unions. It was a very firm finding and one that, despite the pressure that was being placed on it, the New South Wales Government had to observe. I quote from a statement made within the last few days regarding Mr Justice Alley's criticism of the pressures that are brought to bear on people within the building industry. The statement reads: Mr Justice Alley strongly criticised the B.L.F.'s industrial record- This is a case, considered within the last few days, which was concerned with the turmoil, strife, standover tactics and intimidation that had been created- and the overall damage it had inflicted on the building industry. The statement noted: the Commission had been given information that more than 100 sites had been affected by 516 bans, including 285 on 34 Victorian sites in the seven months to March. Mr Justice Alley went on to accuse the BLF of grossly abusing the right to strike, breaking award undertakings, ignoring the Commission's decisions and operating in conflict with the policy of economic recovery expressed by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Federal Government. That is a clear indication of the sorts of people who can get involved in the industrial relations scene and who can, in fact, make it impossible for the sub-contractor to continue his business. One has only to consider the position of bricklayers, wall and floor tilers, landscapers-any sub-contractor, even earth moving sub- contractors with equipment worth perhaps $200,000-who are coerced and stood over until they join the union. It was only these processes that the IRB sought, by way of some aspect of its activity, to alleviate. I appeal to the Government and to the Minister to make sure that individuals who are aggrieved and who do suffer these difficulties have a proper outlet to vent their grievance and are allowed to enter the industrial relations field in their own right. Another area of which I know the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) is well aware is that of the trucking industry. I refer to the techniques that are used by large freight forwarders, in combination with the Transport Workers Union of Australia, to coerce owner-drivers, forcing them to do indescribable things. Let me elucidate. A time limit is set for drivers travelling to and from Brisbane. Unless they comply with the time limit they get no more loads from the freight forwarder. It is, in fact, a licence encouraging people to kill themselves. The coercion about which I am talking is entered into by the Transport Workers Union and large freight forwarders. The fact that the strike at Razorback was pursued so strongly by sub-contractors and owner-drivers was on the basis that they did not wish to be coerced into belonging to the Transport Workers Union. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations should follow the suggestion of the Opposition shadow spokesman in regard to this matter. I feel that there is need to look at section 88E of the Industrial Arbitration Act of New South Wales with a view to ensuring that States' rights are not carried to a stupid extreme, whereby they can override the wishes of the Federal Government. That, together with the Moore and Doyle decision, is the basis of much of the strife in the transport industry of Australia. It all commenced in New South Wales. The effective encouragement of people to go into the work place, to make a commitment of their own resources by way of finance, their own time and the time of their families, to the extent that they provide services that are desired by all sections of the community, clearly indicates that they need support. They need to be properly accommodated. They need to be able to carry out their business without fear of intimidation, without fear of organisations-whether of employers or employees-ganging up in such a way that they cannot act as normal, free people. I conclude by indicating that the Government should immediately respond to the recommendations put forward by the Opposition in relation to sub-contractors and self-employed individuals who are neither employees nor employers, as our industrial law sees them at this point. They need assistance; they need protection. Otherwise I believe that we will have a nation, not of people who seek to improve their way of life and that of their families, but rather of employees. If that is the objective of the Australian Labor Party it should say so clearly. If it is not it should move to amend the Act. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(4.13) —I rise to support the Government in introducing this legislation and to oppose the amendment moved by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee). The honourable member, in opening-I jotted down a couple of his remarks-said that he too would have introduced this Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill. It seems strange to hear such a statement from one who is now the Opposition spokesman on industrial relations, when the Fraser Government had seven years in office and the opportunity to do something in that regard. It would take two hours to go through the finer details of the numerous occasions on which the Fraser Government deliberately created a situation of conflict in industrial relations rather than settle down to introduce legislation such as that which is before us today. It is odd to hear a statement such as that which was made at the beginning of the debate in the House today. The Bill seeks, firstly, to abolish the Industrial Relations Bureau and re- establish the Arbitration Inspectorate and, secondly, to introduce a number of provisions to facilitate amalgamations between registered employer and employee organisations. The legislation has been the subject of plenty of discussion both within the Australian Labor Party and the trade union movement. The previous Government had the opportunity to become involved in such discussions, but clearly took the line that there was no political gain in adjusting the industrial relations situation in Australia. The economy of the country would have been very much aided by a system of industrial relations based on community consultation and trust rather than the type of approach which the Fraser Government adopted. I have before me the statement of accord between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I propose to read from it in order to give the Parliament some idea of the sort of negotiations that took place prior to the election, and the sort of negotiations that eventually led to the people of Australia deciding that they had had enough of confrontation and looked forward to having a government that would adopt a more conciliatory approach to running this country. In the industrial relations section of the accord, under the heading 'Specific measures', the following statement is made: The Government will endeavour to create a better industrial relations climate by itself adopting and encouraging other employers to adopt a rational and less confrontationist approach to industrial relations. The Government will encourage the settlement of disputes between employers and unions by conciliation and without recourse to legislative or common law penal sanctions. The Government will establish, in consultation with the ACTU and employers, an Inquiry into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and Regulations to conduct a total review of federal industrial relations legislation to improve that legislation. Within the review, priority considerations should be given to reform the laws relating to the internal affairs of unions to ensure the continued effect of efficient and democratic operation of unions. The Government will support the establishment of rights of employees, through their unions, to be notified and consulted by employers about the proposed introduction of technological change. The Government will also support the establishment of fair redundancy protection for workers including a requirement on employers to consult with unions in redundancy situations. The restrictive laws inhibiting the amalgamation of unions should be reformed. The Industrial Relations Bureau should be abolished and an independent Arbitration Inspectorate re-established. The Government will, in co-operation with the unions representing its own employees, take steps to bring about a better industrial relations environment in the public sector. As a first step, an ALP Government will confer with the Union Movement on a program for action guided by ALP and ACTU policies on Australian Government employment matters. The Government will consult fully with employers and the trade union movement through the ACTU, before the introduction of new industrial legislation. It is with great pleasure that I have the opportunity of seeing the Government very early in its term of office introduce legislation to restrict the laws inhibiting the amalgamation of unions, abolish the Industrial Relations Bureau and set up an independent Arbitration Inspectorate. The Bill proposes to repeal Part VIA of the Act which establishes the IRB and the position of Director of the IRB. It is proposed through clauses 5, 6, 10, 11 , 25 and 27 to remove references to the IRB throughout the Act. The Bill will restore the pre-IRB position by doing away with the power of the IRB to take a wide range of actions in respect of the conduct and affairs of registered organisations. The Act did not previously make such provisions in respect of the Arbitration Inspectorate. There are, however, two areas in which the role of the IRB is to be continued by the Industrial Registrar. Firstly, the Registrar is to take the place of the IRB in being able to apply to the Federal Court under section 132B for a declaration as to the eligibility of a person convicted of a prescribed offence to seek or hold office in an organisation. The organisation or a member will continue to be able to apply. Secondly, the Registrar is to be responsible under Part VIIIAA of the Act for investigating deficiencies in the financial accounts of organisations. The Registrar will also now have sole responsibility under section 160 for investigating alleged irregularities in elections of officers under the Act. Previously this was shared with the IRB. The proposed Arbitration Inspectorate will resume its responsibility for safety inspections under section 54. This was transferred to the IRB when it was established. In the time that I have available to me, I would like to move to the section in respect of which the Government has moved its amendment, namely, that dealing with amalgamations, and speak about how the Bill will facilitate amalgamations. The Bill proposes, in accordance with National Labour Consultative Council recommendations, three basic changes to the Act to facilitate amalgamations. The first is to introduce new provisions to lower the voting requirements of the Act where an amalgamation would be in the public interest and in the industrial interest of the organisations concerned-that is, 'community of interest' amalgamations. Secondly, in proposed amalgamations of more than two organisations, where the overall amalgamation does not succeed, amalgamation of some of the organisations will be able to proceed if their members vote in favour without the amalgamation process having to be recommenced as at present. Thirdly, rolls of voters in amalgamation ballots will be considerably more up to date by comprising persons eligible under the rules of the organisations concerned to vote in an amalgamation ballot or, if the rules do not provide for such eligibility, those persons eligible to vote under the rules in rank and file ballots for elections to office. The amendments proposed in this section will apply to all amalgamations, whether under the existing provisions or the proposed 'community of interest' amalgamation provisions. One could ask why it is necessary to facilitate amalgamations. This is something that the previous Government would not face up to. It is widely recognised that there are too many unions in Australia. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures in December 1981 there were 324 trade unions in Australia at that time. Presently there are 150 federally registered trade unions. The problems associated with the large number of trade unions and the need for some nationalisation have been commented on in a number of inquiries initiated by the Commonwealth Government. Those inquiries have included the report of the Committee to Advise on Policies for Development of Manufacturing Industry in 1975, the report of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration in 1977 and the report of the Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia in 1980. Some of the problems that have been identified include demarcation disputes between unions with overlapping eligibility for membership rules; inefficient use of the finite resources available to trade unions from what are often small and fragmented memberhips; and problems in negotiations between employers and trade unions as to the terms and conditions of employment arising from the multiplicity of trade unions within not only an industry but also often a particular enterprise. I now refer to the sort of approach that the previous Government took in this regard. We remember not so long ago when a former Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Viner, who no longer holds his seat in this House, introduced legislation based on what the then Government called company-based unions. Rather than taking a common-sense approach and reducing the number of unions in this country, for some strange reason in the seven years we had to put up with it, the previous Government sought to increase the number of unions. I quote from an editorial which appeared in the Melbourne Age on Thursday 18 February 1982. The editorial, which was headed 'Viner shoots at wrong target', stated: The new legislation he has foreshadowed envisages company-based unions and industry-based unions springing up in Australia to compete with the traditional craft unions for the workers' allegiance. Workers in a factory would be free to choose whichever one they-or, at least, the majority of them-preferred, or even none at all. The problems of how such a radical departure could be introduced peacefully in Australia are brushed aside by Mr Viner as of no consequence. That is typical of the approach that the then Government took at that time. The editorial continued: The question of whether such a jumble of unions would work better than the craft-based system he answers with platitudes about freedom of choice. Simple idealism is a delightful thing in many people-but not in Ministers for Industrial Relations. It is indeed a change to see that the Liberal Party which is now in opposition seems to be taking a more conciliatory stance through its spokesman at the table , the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee). The honourable member was always known for his more conciliatory approach. However, he did not appear to have much say in the previous Government. I conclude my remarks by raising with the honourable member the apparent position of the Opposition at present. I refer to an article in the Australian Financial Review which was mentioned yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) during Question Time. Quoting that article he said: At a joint meeting of the Liberal and National parties in Canberra yesterday the issue-A centralised or decentralised approach to wage fixation- Another industrialised matter- was sent to an all-party committee after no senior front bencher could lay claim to there being an Opposition wages policy. The scene is now set for months of manoeuvring between the decentralists, led by Shadow Treasurer Mr Howard, and the centralists, headed by the Employment and Industrial Relations spokesman, Mr Ian Macphee. I look forward to the coming months to see whether the Opposition will learn a little bit. It may be able to develop a coherent policy. It had the opportunity to introduce such a policy when in government. I am happy to stand here today and support the government for its policy. I look forward to voting for the Bill if a vote is taken later today. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(4.25) —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) stated in his second reading speech on the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill that his Government's policy is to improve industrial relations. Presumably, the preference-no, let me say the deference- paid to Mr Dolan as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions at the recent National Economic Summit Conference was in pursuance of such a policy. The Australian people were assured that the ACTU was participating with the Government in achieving a new, never before experienced, consensus. From this consensus would flow wage restraint as well as an agreement upon a central wage fixing system. Well, recent events have put paid to that concept of consensus, a concept around which the Government has woven both its economic and industrial relations policies. I refer to comments made by Mr Dolan this morning on the Australian Broadcasting Commission program AM. A question was put to Mr Dolan after a discussion had taken place regarding the ACTU's 2.2 per cent wage increase claim . The transcript of that interview states: Q. If the Commission then knocks back such a claim, will you accept it? A. Well, they will put themselves out of business as far as I see it. There will be just no role for the Arbitration Commission because unions will seek to achieve that increase. A further question was asked of Mr Dolan as follows: Q. Is this the industrial free for all you are talking about? A. That is right. It is clear that this Government's industrial policy has broken down completely. It has no substance and, more importantly, it has no future. To use a colloquialism, Mr Dolan's public statements have thrown out the window the industrial policy which the Minister, in his second reading speech, said was directed towards achieving consensus and better industrial relations in the interests of all Australians. What threatening language and bully-boy tactics Mr Dolan employs! Yet he expects the Australian people to accept his stance. Does this Government expect us to accept that there is consensus in industrial relations? As of today, the Government does not have an industrial relations policy. Moreover, the central wage fixing authority, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, has been deemed irrelevant by the ACTU. Just what authority does the Commission have now that Mr Dolan has said that he will ignore the Commission if it does not grant the requested increase? He has displayed a cynical contempt for the Commission. He is not the only union official to display a cynical contempt for the rule of law. It has also been displayed by the recent actions of the Australian Workers Union during the shearers' strike. What action did the Government take to enforce the Commission's decision with regard to the use of wide combs? It took no action. As a result, the AWU made a mockery of the rule of law. In the meantime, a great number of people suffered. What action will the Government take in respect of this latest attack upon the authority of the Commission, and therefore upon the rule of the law? I very much suspect that no action will be taken, given this Government's record in office to date. The Government will take no action because its commitment in the field of industrial relations is not to the people of Australia but to a handful of anti-democratic extremist union officials. This Government's only concern is to pay off the extremists within the trade union leadership and those of the socialist left which is the dominant faction within the Australian Labor Party. As such, the Government's so -called policies serve only a narrow sectional interest within the trade union movement. I do not play the card game known as poker but I understand that an element of bluff is an important skill in it. I am most tempted to learn the rules of that game as I believe this Government is the most easily bluffed collection of gentlemen one could hope to encounter around a card table. I would particularly like to play the game of bluff with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. At the National Economic Summit Conference the Government was completely and utterly bluffed. It was bluffed into thinking that the ACTU would accept wage restraint. Moreover, it was bluffed into assuming that the ACTU would respect the authority of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The bluff is now at an end. The so-called consensus with the ACTU is also at an end. There is nothing remarkable about this or about the fact that the so-called consensus collapsed so quickly. What is remarkable is that the Government actually believed it could succeed. What naivety! What an amateurish approach! I want to know how the Government could possibly have expected an industrial policy arising out of a week of back slapping and self-serving statements at the Economic Summit to last. How could such a policy have possibly had any substance or relevance to the great majority of Australians? I also want to know when this Government will acknowledge that its duty is to all Australians and not just to narrow sectional interests. Finally, I want to know where the Government goes from here. What does it do now that the ACTU has made a complete fool of not only the Minister but also the Cabinet at large? Will it take steps to contain the extravagant wage claims of the ACTU or to protect the authority of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Alternatively, are we to see a return to the chaos presided over by the then Honourable Clyde Cameron when the term ' rule of law' became an irrelevancy and a term of mockery during the previous Labor Government when 4.3 million strike days every year were lost to the economy? The previous Government managed to lower that to approximately 2.5 million working days lost a year. Yet this Government-as with the previous Labor Government-pretends to have a special relationship with the unions. I again say that that special relationship is one-sided; it is a matter of bluff. This Government is repeating the same mistakes of the previous Labor Government in accepting at face value every statement put out by the extremist union officials . Notwithstanding the ineptitude of the Government to date, all is not lost, as the Bill before the House this afternoon contains, in essence, the policy of the previous Government. The previous Government gave the Industrial Relations Bureau three basic tasks. The first was that of day to day award inspection. The second was the provision of information to both individuals and organisations on their rights and obligations under industrial legislation. Its third duty was to secure the observance of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and Regulations. Whilst this Bill abolished the Bureau and replaces it with an Arbitration Inspectorate, I am pleased to note that the same basic tasks will be carried out . The Minister ought to state plainly and honestly that, by and large, this Government is adopting the previous Government's policy in this area of industrial relations. Instead, the Minister said in his second reading speech: The Fraser Government believed that industrial relations could be controlled by legislative prescriptions, without proper consideration of the reality of industrial relations in Australia. Such a statement has an extremely hollow and ridiculous ring to it, given the events of the past 36 hours. It has a hollow ring, first, because the ACTU has broken the so-called consensus; and secondly, because the new Arbitration Inspectorate will simply continue the work of the Industrial Relations Bureau. Likewise, the provisions of the Bill in respect of amalgamation of unions also reflect the previous Government's policy. The previous Government set up the National Labour Consultative Council in 1977 as a forum for consultation between the Government, employers and unions on industrial issues. The Council through its committee system assisted the previous Government in consulting with employer and union groups to produce tangible results for the benefit of each other and the community. The fact that this Bill introduces NLCC recommendations is further evidence of the previous Government's enlightened, yet responsible and representative policies. An important lesson for this Government to learn is that the previous Government, the coalition Government, did not represent narrow, sectional interests. It represented all Australians. It consulted representatives of all Australians not just union officials. It represented employer groups. It represented individuals , whether they be urban or rural based. In conclusion, I wish to support the call of the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) and the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) for greater protection for people from being coerced into unions. The honourable member for Balaclava stated that it was his intention when he was Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations-- Mr McVeigh —He was a good Minister too. Mr McGAURAN —The honourable member for Balaclava was an outstanding Minister. He continues to be outstanding in his position as shadow Minister on employment and industrial relations matters. When the honourable member for Balaclava was the Minister he planned to introduce legislation to protect the freedom of people and prevent their being coerced into unions. It is now incumbent upon the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and the present Government to ensure that the Arbitration Inspectorate operates vigorously to protect individuals from being coerced into unions. Self-employed people and sub -contractors, in particular, need protection from such coercion. If individuals choose not to join a union then that basic democratic right must be guaranteed. The Government must at all times direct the Arbitration Inspectorate towards this end. Mr McVeigh —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask you whether the fact that the Government has got only a quarter of the number of members of the Opposition in the House means that it is not interested in this important piece of legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —There is no point of order. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(4.38) — I am very pleased that the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) led for the Opposition in this debate. I think that has done a great deal to establish a consensus. I wish to reflect upon some of the remarks that have just been made by the honourable member for Gippsland ( Mr McGauran). With due respect to the honourable member for Gippsland, I point out that he has to understand that the main thrust of industrial relations in Australia today is to try to establish a wide consensus between the Government and the Opposition in the good conduct of industrial relations. I remind the honourable member for Gippsland that essentially the field of industrial relations, when it is well practised, is the business of getting good behaviour from employers and unions. That is the role of government. I say that with due respect because we must as a government-this applied to the honourable member for Balaclava when he was the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations-try to establish whenever we can good behaviour by employers and unions. Unfortunately, if we go around and treat the entire industrial relations environment as if it is peopled by thugs then those concerned indeed will behave that way. It would be wrong for me to pretend that every union is run by people who have high principles or that every employer has high principles. It is also realistic to recognise that the majority of employers are well intentioned. I think the honourable member for Gippsland should understand that the National Economic Summit Conference was designed to get good people together to say how we ought to arrange the affairs of Australia, in terms of both the economy and industrial relations. Again, I think it is important to recognise that in the kind of world in which we live there will be conflict from time to time. It would be naive to imagine otherwise. Just how we deal with that conflict is a crucial issue. I think the major point about this legislation-I suggest to the honourable member for Gippsland that this was an important point in the contribution of the honourable member for Balaclava-is that when conflicts arise we do not then proceed to beat the people around the head and say: 'You will behave the way I tell you or else'. I think that is the major point that marks off this move. I suggest to the previous Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) that we have now got a new game in industrial relations. We are not in the business of trying to promote conflict. There is enough conflict already. There are enough problems already in that area. The proper role of industrial relations is to try to achieve a better industrial climate. I point out to the honourable members opposite who are trying to interject that , by their interjections, they are indicating that some people create difficulties in the industrial environment. It is interesting to note that if we were to focus all our energies upon who created problems then all we would simply be doing is lowering the entire tone of industrial relations. It is wrong to say that the Government was naive in holding the National Economic Summit Conference because it follows that one would then have to say that the managements of Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd, CSR Ltd and Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd and so on are naive. I think we have the extraordinary situation in which the honourable member for Gippsland is somewhat out of step with the rest of the army. Honourable members may well want to draw that conclusion. I do not want to suggest that, but they might want to suggest that. I think an important point is that the Government wants to achieve a good industrial relations climate. That ought to be our serious intention. At the same time, we are not in the business of sweeping under the carpet things with which we do not agree. There is nothing wrong with that either. The crucial thing we have to do in this place because a lot of people pay attention to what we do, is to say to people: 'Yes, we recognise your role and we recognise that there will be conflict but our job is to reduce that conflict'. Unfortunately, the Industrial Relations Bureau was seen by both employers and unions as heightening conflict. That is the reality of the world and we cannot escape from that. The other point that has to be recognised is that it was desirable to set up the National Labour Consultative Council. It was brought in because that was the only way that the Australian Council of Trade Unions was willing to co-operate with the legislation to set up the Industrial Relations Bureau. It was a bargaining relationship. If one examines industrial relations one realises that it is a series of bargaining relationships. It is important to recognise in that context that when one side makes a claim with which one does not agree, one does not throw mud at it but says: 'Why is it that you have that view?'. We have to recognise the right of employers in the same way that we have to recognise the right of unions. I would like to dwell for a moment upon the fact that we do have conflict and we do have problems. One of the things I am very pleased to see in the context of this move by the Government and by the Minister is that we will now have an enlarged Arbitration Inspectorate which will be able to get on with the business of dealing with some of the problem areas in industrial relations. I am pleased to note that one of the areas to which attention will be given is industrial safety. We recognise-I think honourable members opposite may share this view- that when a greater number of injuries occur in the industrial arena than on the roads then we have got a very serious problem. It is not good enough for us to stand here and say: 'It is the fault of all those employers and all those unions'. We have the responsibility to redress that problem. We must say seriously and sincerely that we must try to do something about reducing the problems of industrial safety. If we examine the figures, for example, in terms of the time lost because of accidents we will realise that we have a very serious problem on our hands in Australia. I will not go into detail but I simply say that in a broad sense we have a very serious problem. I am pleased that this change will mean that the Inspectorate will be able to put more emphasis on industrial safety. I remind the honourable member for Gippsland that there is a particular problem with which we need to deal. The employers themselves are carrying very large workers compensation costs. Why is that? In Australia we pay too little attention to one area of conflict. I think it is necessary to recognise that where industrial safety problems are high then the conflict problems are high. We see that in factories right across Australia. We have a responsibility as a government, as do honourable members opposite as an Opposition, because it is our electors who get injured in factories. We should all do something about industrial safety. I hope that honourable members opposite support this legislation from the point of view that it will make some major changes in the area of industrial safety. That is very important. In summing up, I point out-I began by making this comment-that I am pleased that the honourable member for Balaclava led in this debate because he injected a bipartisan approach to this Bill. It is important that this legislation be brought through. The reason for it, very simply, is that it changes the tone of industrial relations. The tone we have had in recent years has been very much one of laying blame, of fault, of vindictiveness and of nastiness. It is wrong to imagine that all the ills of Australia are the result of the union movement; that is not the case. We have a collective responsibility in this place to resolve problems for the entire community. I suggest that this legislation goes a long way towards redressing that imbalance and towards saying to both parties: 'Yes, we do recognise your problems; yes, we are sincere and we will try to reduce conflict'. I am very pleased to see that the legislation has been brought on. I think it will do much to follow through on the prices and incomes accord in showing that we are sincere about working towards a better climate in industrial relations. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(4.46) —I, like the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) , give support to the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill in its broad concept, but there are some measures within the Bill what I will refer to later in my contribution to which I suggest improvements can be made. The Bill covers two quite distinct and separate aspects: Firstly, the elimination of the Industrial Relations Bureau and its replacement with the Industrial Inspectorate ; and secondly, the introduction of measures to facilitate the amalgamation of unions. I will touch on both of those aspects. The elimination of the Industrial Relations Bureau is, I think, supported by all those practitioners in the industrial relations field who believe that it was not an appropriate body, that it did not serve the purposes for which it was established and that it would best be replaced by the Arbitration Inspectorate. I believe the employers, the union movement and other practitioners in the industrial relations field would agree. However, I think that we in the House, the unions, the employers and practitioners in the industrial relations field must recognise that there must be and needs to be a body that can ensure that the provisions of industrial law and the provisions of awards are properly complied with by both employers and unions. It worries me greatly that we are proposing a mechanism through the Arbitration Inspectorate that on paper and in legislation gives all of the appearances of being a body that will ensure and enforce the provisions of industrial law; but it will enforce those provisions only if governments have the courage to ensure that the body, when it is set up, does exactly what the Parliament intends it to do. The Industrial Relations Bureau was a body with the same intent as the Arbitration Inspectorate. It did not work properly because there was not the conviction on the part of governments to make it work. We all agree that employers have a responsibility to ensure that they comply with the provisions of industrial awards and legislation and that if employers breach those provisions there needs to be a body to identify those breaches and to ensure that some sort of corrective action is taken. We all agree on that. But, equally , that same body must be charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the other side of industrial relations also complies with those provisions. I am talking particularly of the union movement. We cannot have a situation in which one side of industrial relations totally complies with the provisions of industrial awards, with a policing mechanism to ensure that it does, while the other side can flout the law in the way that it has in the past. The unfortunate situation is that since the O'Shea case in 1968 no government has had the courage to take action against a union for non-compliance with awards. The result of that is that we now have a union movement that is in effect a law unto itself. That situation in any ordered society cannot continue to exist. There are unions which are responsible and which maintain that their major roles are for the betterment of the working conditions of their members and that they play a responsible part in the Australian community; and true, they do. But equally we have to recognise that there are some unions, just as there are some employers, which do not play the game, which flout the law and which treat themselves as being above the law. That situation in any ordered society cannot continue to exist. If we are setting up an Arbitration Inspectorate that body must be charged with ensuring that unions comply with the law in the same way that employers are required to. I am sure that my colleagues on the other side of the House, while they are silent on this point, would have to agree that we cannot have industrial anarchy as we have had in the past. It is tearing this country to pieces. We must have unions which are prepared to accept and comply with the law. My colleague, the honourable member for Balaclava, has pointed out some of the actions that have been taken against individuals on particular occasions. He particularly cited the protection that needs to be given to self-employed people . I support him in the propositions that he made. There are a few illustrations we can cite of individuals, whether they be self-employed or employees, without doubt not only being discriminated against but also blackmailed. That cannot continue. For example, I cite the case of Mr Noel Latham in Broken Hill. When Mr Latham chose not to join a union-surely that is his democratic right, which is a decision according to his conscience-he was totally discriminated against by the whole union movement of Australia. The result is that Mr Latham has not worked since. He was so aggrieved that he was able to obtain a very substantial judgment in the courts, I think in the order of $110,000, for the damages that he had suffered. Despite the fact that he could prove damages before the courts, he still has not got a job because the unions discriminate against him. I notice that the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) is nodding his head in support. Civil liberties are out the door. We do not care about that one individual because he dares to stand up to the power of the unions! So what the honourable member for Melbourne would have is not government in this country by parliament or government by law-oh, no, we are going to have government by unions! The unions say: Join the union or we will break your leg'. We call this industrial democracy! I call it blackmail. I quote another case, that of Mr Laidely, an oil distributor. Honourable members may remember his case. Mr Hand —Another one. Mr BURR —Another one, says the honourable member for Melbourne. Mr Laidely dared to raise the question of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. What happened to Mr Laidely? He was totally discriminated against, not just by the Transport Workers Union but by the whole of the union movement. Eventually we did finally get a resolution on this matter, thanks to the efforts of the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street). In his role as Minister for Industrial Relations he was able to resolve that dispute. But no credit at all goes to the union movement for what it attempted to do to Mr Laidely. The point I am making is that within our industrial relations area we must have a mechanism that protects the individual. Anything else is a blatant and flagrant violation of the law as we know and understand it in Australia. We must protect the individual against monopolising, power hungry unions. I fully support the Minister in saying that we will have an Arbitration Inspectorate to ensure that unions comply with the law, and hope that it will do that. One of the things that concerns me in saying that is the statement made by the Minister in his second reading speech that: as previously the powers and duties of Inspectors will be as laid down by the Minister. I suggest to the Minister that if that is what is intended, it represents a grievious shortcoming of the legislation. What we are doing is setting up a body that is designed to ensure compliance with industrial law, but saying that the Minister will be the only person who will determine what powers and functions that body will have. That is a grievious shortcoming of the legislation. We have been told often of the accord that the Australian Labor Party has with the union movement. What is to ensure that the role and functions of that particular body, when it is established, will not be to ensure compliance by the union movement but merely to engage in some form of secondary blackmailing role against the employers, simply to back up what the unions are doing, to act against the employers without any form of compliance by the union movement taking place? I hope that the Minister does not have that in mind; knowing him as I do, I am sure that he does not. I think that it is just an oversight in the drafting of this legislation. However, I suggest that we in this Parliament need to ensure that the public at large has confidence that this body will play its role in ensuring compliance with industrial law. To ensure that, I suggest that the powers and functions of the Arbitration Inspectorate be laid down by regulation, not by direction from the Minister. If the powers and functions are laid down by regulation, it gives the Parliament the opportunity to peruse them and to voice any objection that it might see to them. At least in that way we as a parliament and the public at large would have the opportunity to identify and correct any shortfalls in the way in which the Arbitration Inspectorate will operate. Having said that and having made that suggestion, I give my support to that aspect of the legislation . The other aspect of the legislation involves the amalgamation of unions. I think that all of us, in this place and across Australia, would agree in general principle that there are too many unions in Australia. There are 300-odd unions some large and some small, which cause quite extensive disruption at various work place levels, particularly in demarcation disputes that the public neither understands nor supports. If this mechanism can help in some way to reduce the incidence of demarcation disputes, it has my full support. One of the objectives of this aspect of the legislation is to reduce demarcation disputes. If it can play a role in doing that, it should be supported by the Parliament and people of Australia. The problem of the large number of unions that we have goes well beyond this legislation. The problem is compounded by having unions which are registered at both Federal and State level and, in many cases, dividing themselves as between State and Federal bodies. Some unions spread their tentacles all over the place. They are not subject to any control and disputes can take place between State unions and Federal unions. We need not just a mechanism which will allow for the easier amalgamation of unions but also one that will reduce the methods of registration, as between the Commonwealth and the States, so as to achieve a more ordered, functional role for industrial relations. I shall not dwell too much on that point. The reduction of the number of unions has the support of the National Labour Consultative Council. In that regard, I believe that we as a parliament have a duty to enact legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the NLCC. The matter goes much further back than just the history of the NLCC. Back in 1975 the Committee to Advise on Policies for Manufacturing Industry, the Jackson Committee, recommended that there be more effective methods for the amalgamation of unions so as to reduce their number. That proposal was backed up by the Coombs Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, which looked into the Public Service and made the comment that there were too many Public Service unions and that some should be amalgamated. In calling for amalgamation, or enacting legislation for union amalgamations, we need to be careful to ensure that any proposed amalgamation will genuinely comply with the wishes of the majority of the members of the unions concerned. I do not believe that, under the provisions of the present Act, that is properly done. The Bill requires the vote of a minimum of 25 per cent of the membership of a union and a simple majority in favour. I put it to the Minister that, in effect, 12 1/2 per cent of the members of a union could agree to an amalgamation and the procedure would comply with the provisions of this legislation. I do not believe that a vote by 12 1/2 per cent of the membership gives a sufficient indication of what the total membership of a union wants. For this reason, I fully support the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Balaclava, which effectively would ensure that the support of 25 per cent, or one-quarter, of the membership of the union would be needed before an amalgamation would be considered approved: Twenty-five per cent of the membership is still a very small proportion, but at least it can give a clearer guide to the wishes of the total membership of the union than what is being proposed in this legislation. In a spirit of bipartisanship, I say that I hope the Minister will look very seriously at the proposition that we are putting. If he does so, in the same spirit of bipartisanship, I think that he would have to agree that the proposition put forward by the honourable member for Balaclava would produce a far more democratic process and give a much better indication of the wishes of the total membership of unions that might be proposing amalgamation. Having made those suggestions to the Minister, I say that the Bill, in its broad concept, has my support, but in regard to the role and function of the Arbitration Inspectorate I hope that the Minister will ensure that the Inspectorate has not only the necessary powers but also the necessary support of the Government, to ensure that all sides of industrial relations, both employers and unions, will comply with the industrial law. Without such compliance we will have anarchy. It will not just be restricted to industrial anarchy; it must spread to other sections and activities within the community. I urge the Minister to look seriously at my suggestions so that the powers and methods of operation of the Inspectorate will be determined by regulation rather than by ministerial decree. I believe that would ensure that it would have the support of the Parliament and of the public at large. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(5.4) —in reply-Firstly, I thank all honourable members for their contribution to this debate. I am very pleased that the Opposition has seen fit not to oppose the Bill. That is a wise decision, because we should remember that this is a piece of legislation which has the full agreement of all parties represented on the National Labour Consultative Council. The trade union movement is fully in support of it, but so, too, are the employers represented on that body. It is, therefore, quite clearly a piece of legislation which is very much in the interests of improved industrial relations in this country. That, I believe, is a very good reason for the Opposition not to seek to oppose or amend it in any way. Of course, the Opposition has proposed a second reading amendment, with which I will deal in a moment. Before coming to that amendment, I will make a few comments on some of the suggestions made in speeches by Opposition members. The shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), was concerned, for much of his speech, to discuss the situation regarding independent contractors and, as he sees it, the deficiencies of the principal Act in that regard. I will study his remarks. I believe that they were sincerely made and I will give them due consideration. I say to him also that this matter has already been the subject of representation to me, which I am sure is not a surprise to him. Therefore it was already in my mind as something to which I have to give consideration in the future. This matter will be the subject of further consideration at the NLCC and in due course I will doubtless be able to make some further comments about that NLCC consideration. I would say to him, however, as he would presumably already be well aware, that the Bill does not repeal or affect any provisions relating to independent contractors, so the position of independent contractors is not adversely affected by the legislation. His comments really pointed to the deficiencies of the Act as it stood and he said that more needs to be done. Of course, those deficiencies are not necessarily the fault of the present Government. We have been in office for only a couple of months. Those deficiencies were present under the previous Government and I accept his comments that he would have acted upon those alleged deficiencies had he remained in office long enough. If there are deficiencies, they are not of our making. The rights of individuals was the subject of comment by a few speakers on the other side. I draw their attention to the fact that the rights of individuals as presently contained in the Act are, of course, not in any way affected and also individuals can continue to seek assistance, with the abolition of the Industrial Relations Bureau, from either my Department or, more likely, from the office of the Industrial Registrar, to overcome their problems. I believe that we are not neglecting the interests of individuals in removing the IRB and moving to reinstate the Arbitration Inspectorate which existed before the introduction of the IRB. Mr Cadman —Will you pursue the matters at the IRB? Mr WILLIS —I will come to the honourable member's points now. Firstly, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) was concerned about the outstanding IRB proceedings before the court. Under the Bill the inspectors will be able to take over proceedings in regard to award matters, so there is clearly no problem there. I am informed by the Director of the Bureau that only two active prosecutions, other than award breaches, are current at present. The first of these is the matter mentioned, I think, by the honourable member for Mitchell; that is Linehan v. the Australian Public Service Association, which involved prosecution of the union for offences under section 188 of the Act for the imposition of penalties upon members for failing to join in industrial action. I understand that submissions by the parties in this matter have been completed and that the Federal Court of Australia has reserved its decision. The second prosecution is Linehan v. the Australian Railways Union which involves similar action against the ARU for imposition of a fine on a member. I have been advised that the union concerned has agreed to revoke the fine and the Bureau has instituted action to withdraw the prosecution. I believe that both of these matters, which are not award matters, will be resolved and there will be no problem in the way that was raised by the honourable member. In regard to the matter of union amalgamations, I will make just a few comments , particularly as this is the subject of the second reading amendment. The suggestion by the Opposition is that instead of having a requirement for at least a 25 per cent return of members eligible to vote with the majority of those in favour of the amalgamation, there be a minimum return of ballot papers of 25 per cent and a two-thirds majority vote in favour, or, alternatively, that 25 per cent of the total membership vote in favour, provided that those so voting constitute a majority of the votes cast. The first of those proposals was considered by the NLCC as far back as February 1980. The Council then unanimously rejected that proposal and recommended the proposal contained in the present Bill, that is, that there be a minimum return of 25 per cent and a majority vote in favour. The proposal, as reflected in this Bill, has been re-endorsed by the NLCC. It said that that was what it wanted in February 1980 and very recently it has re-endorsed that proposition. It is not something which has been poorly considered or ill considered. It has been in the minds of the top level members of the trade union movement and the employers of this country and on those two occasions they have endorsed the proposal in the Bill at present. I point out also that the NLCC recommendations were accepted by the previous Government and, indeed, they formed part of that Government's election policy commitment in 1980. Of course that commitment was not honoured. The then Minister, in May 1980, said that the NLCC proposals were to be further considered and they were ultimately dropped by the then Government in favour of the 1982 industry union proposals which were rejected in the Senate. As I said, the NLCC has, having gone through all that process, re-endorsed the original proposal which it endorsed in February 1980. We have every confidence that what we have now put before the Parliament has the confidence of both sides of industry. The measures should be accepted by the Opposition as being appropriate in regard to union amalgamations. Anything else that the Opposition proposes is not favoured by either the unions or the employers. It will clearly make union amalgamations more difficult to achieve and that, I believe, is a major mark against it. If we simply up the requirement we make it more difficult to get union amalgamations and, therefore, we have to ask whether amalgamations are desirable. It is the clear view of the union movement, the national employers and the Australian Government that it is very much in our interests to improve industrial relations in this country, to reduce the mammoth number of unions that we have. If we are to reduce them in any substantial way, we have to ease considerably the present quite prohibitive provisions in relation to union amalgamations. That is what this Bill is designed to do. I believe that it should have the full support of the Opposition. I am disappointed that the Opposition has seen fit to criticise the proposal and to suggest an alternative. I make one other point in regard to this matter. The shadow Minister mentioned that an argument for the proposal which he put forward in the second reading amendment was that it would give greater opportunity for involvement of members. Of course, it gives no greater opportunity for involvement of members at all. Every member who is eligible will get a ballot paper. He has the same opportunity to vote. The opportunity to participate is just the same, but by upping the requirement for the proportion of members who must vote in favour of amalgamation, we are simply making it more difficult to get union amalgamations because, as honourable members opposite have acknowledged in their speeches, it is very difficult to get anything like a large vote of members of a union for union amalgamation or for most other things. I believe that it is not a matter of giving union members greater opportunities to participate or to be involved. That opportunity is there. We are simply making it more likely that union amalgamations, which are in the interest of better industrial relations and therefore, I believe, in the national interest, can be proceeded with. We are very determined to stick to the proposal in the legislation and I hope that the Opposition will not pursue in the Senate the proposal which is contained in the second reading amendment. Another point I should like to make relates to some comments by the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) regarding the powers and duties of the Inspectorate which he was concerned were being left to be determined by me under the legislation. Mr Burr —Or any future Minister. Mr WILLIS —Or any future Minister. I accept that. I say to him firstly that we are putting back into the legislation pretty much what was there from the time the Inspectorate was introduced, I think in the early 1940s, until the IRB was introduced in 1976. Throughout that period those powers and duties have been determined by the Minister. But in addition to what applied in all that time, we will be publishing them in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. That was not a provision which applied before. So there will be clear public knowledge as to what those powers and duties are as determined by me. They will not be something hidden from public scrutiny as was the case in the past. With those comments I again commend honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I hope that the House will pass the second reading of this Bill unanimously. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Macphee's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 44 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Fry, K. L. Snow, J. H.Gayler, J. Staples, P. R.Gear, G. Steedman, A. P.Gorman, R. N. J. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Wells, D. McM.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J.Humphreys, B. C.(Teller) Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Anthony, J. D. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Macphee, I. M.Coleman, W. P. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E.Dobie, J. D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Robinson, IanFife, W. C. Rocher, A. C.Fisher, P. S. Ruddock, P. M.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Street, A. A.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand) —Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) (5.24)- by leave-I move: (1) Clause 7, page 3, lines 11 and 12, omit 'conferred or imposed by sub- section (4)', substitute 'in relation to the observance of this Act and the regulations and of awards'. (2) Clause 7, page 3, line 15, omit 'section', substitute 'Act'. (3) Clause 7, page 3, line 28, omit 'sub-paragraph (i) of'. (4) Clause 11, page 5, after paragraph 11 (c) insert the following paragraph: '(ca) by omitting from sub-section (3B) ''(3A)'' and substituting ''(3)'';'. (5) Clause 11, page 5, after paragraph 11 (f) insert the following paragraph: '(fa) by omitting from sub-section (6) ''(3A),'' and substituting ''(3)'';'. (6) Clause 11, page 5, after paragraph 11 (o) insert the following paragraph: '(oa) by omitting from sub-section (8) ''(3A),'' and substituting ''(3)'';'. (7) Page 13, Schedule, clause 27, after the item relating to sub-section 62 (1) insert- 'Sub-section 109 (2) Omit 'or the Bureau may, in the public interest,''.'. (8) Page 13, Schedule, clause 27, after the item relating to sub-section 141 ( 1H) insert- 'Sub-section 141 (6) Omit '', or, if the person instituting the proceedings is the Bureau, the person at whose request the Bureau is acting,''.'. (9) Page 13, Schedule, clause 27, after the item relating to sub-section 143 ( 3DC) insert- 'Sub-section 143 (3DD) Omit ''or a direction under sub-section (3DG)''.'. These amendments are quite technical amendments which rectify some deficiencies in the original Bill which I can explain in the following way: The first two amendments to clause 7 which I have moved have arisen following an examination of the wording of clause 7 in the Bill by Parliamentary Counsel. In this respect , on reflecting on the wording of the clause the conclusion has been reached that proposed sub-sections 4 and 5 tend to be circular. In other words, proposed sub-section 5, insofar as it refers to powers and duties conferred or imposed by proposed sub-section 4 refers to a sub-section which really does not confer or impose powers and duties but merely indicates how powers and duties are to be conferred. The amendments proposed to clause 7 will remedy this defect. The amendment proposed to new sub-section 125 (6) in clause 7 is simply a technical amendment designed to rectify a drafting error. The reference in paragraph (b) to sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) should have been to paragraph (a). The amendments moved to proposed new section 158AH in clause 11 are again technical drafting changes which are necessary as a consequence of the amendment proposed in sub-clause 11 (c) which deletes proposed new sub-section 158AH (30A). The amendments moved in relation to clause 27 are further technical drafting changes to the amendments consequential upon repeal of Part VIA contained in the Schedule to the Bill. I hope that that explanation is satisfactory to the Committee. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(5.27) —I wish to refer the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to amendments Nos (7) and (8) which relate to the Schedule at page 13 of the Bill. The Minister in his closing remarks to the second reading debate, gave me to understand that the rights of an individual as they applied in relation to the Industrial Relations Bureau are still there and available either through his Department or through the Registrar. I seek some clarification in that regard. Both the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) and I took up very strongly the way in which the Industrial Relations Bureau has been able to assist in certain instances individuals who were aggrieved and had no other recourse to rectify a difficulty, whether it be by interpretation of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, or whether it be because union rules were not in order. I would like some clarification in that regard to be assured that those same avenues are there, with the same support, and that the same capacity before a court or a commission is evident by dint of these amendments. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(5.28) — As I indicated in my second reading debate comments, the situation is that the rights of individuals as presently contained in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are unchanged. What has changed is that the Industrial Relations Bureau will not be there to take individual action in regard to those rights. Now we will have the Office of the Industrial Registrar and my Department available to assist individuals in pursuing their rights under the Act. Those rights remain exactly as they were. The avenues of assistance have changed. Instead of the Bureau we have the Office of the Industrial Registrar which has the capacity to assist individuals in exercising those rights. We will not have the autonomous action of the Bureau applying and taking up those rights without the individuals initiating the action. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(5.29) —The Registrar of the Court then has a capacity to take a case on behalf of an individual and appear before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? I thought not. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(5.30) —I understand that is not the case. There is a capacity for the Industrial Registrar to take action of his own accord in some respects but not in regard to the rights of individuals under the Act. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Willis)-by leave-read a third time. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(5.32) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill, and a further Bill I will introduce shortly, will give effect to this Government's election undertaking to recover personal tax avoided by former owners of companies that were the subject of bottom-of-the-harbour schemes. The Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) legislation was passed by the Parliament last year with the support of the Australian Labor Party in Opposition. Indeed, I remind honourable members that the legislation would not have passed without our support. Although we supported the legislation, we made it clear that, in Government, we would act swiftly to strengthen it in several identified areas and to remove a tax avoidance let-out included by the former Government. Out intention to do this was reaffirmed during the election campaign and the electorate has clearly given us a mandate to proceed with the implemetation of these reforms. I turn now to the details of the Bill. Measures to Recover Personal Tax By far the greater part of this Bill is related to amendments to give effect to our decision that the restitution expected of those persons who benefited from the sale of shares in companies that were stripped of pre-tax profits should not be limited to the tax that ought to have been paid by the companies concerned. Rather, they should also pay the tax that, as shareholders or other former owners, they escaped through receipt in a non-taxable capital form of accumulated after-tax profits that, if the companies had continued to operate as going concerns, would have been taxable as dividends in their hands. In our view the revenue is just as entitled to have these tax losses made good as it is to have the lost company tax made good. This Government, unlike the former Government, believes, and made it clear last year and during the election campaign, that it sees no distinction in principle between the two. This Bill will accordingly insert in the recoupment tax law rules to be applied to fix the liability of former owners of a stripped company for personal income tax on accumulated profits received by them as part of the price received for the sale of their shares. Broadly, these rules will require a former owner of a stripped company to pay income tax on the basis that the company had paid a dividend to the former owner at the time of sale of the shares. The amount of this imputed dividend will be the same proportion of the company's total after- tax accumulated profits as the proportion of the sale consideration received by that owner. The amount of after tax accumulated profits will be determined after allowance has been made for the unpaid ordinary company tax that is to be recouped under the existing legislation, as proposed to be amended. The Bill provides that a dividend will be deemed to have been paid in circumstances where the former owner is liable to make good unpaid company tax; that is, where there is a liability for vendors recoupment tax or there would have been such a liability if any payments of company tax made after 25 July 1982 were disregarded. That date is, of course, the date on which the former Government announced its intention to legislate to recover unpaid company tax escaped through bottom-of-the-harbour schemes. This qualification is necessary to ensure that the liability for escaped personal income tax will not be avoided simply by making a payment of the company tax in pursuance of the former Government's announcement or the legislation enacted last year. The requirement that there be or would be, but for payments of company tax, a liability for vendors recoupment tax means that, where the liability for vendors recoupment tax is or would be less than $100 and the Commissioner of Taxation exercises his power under the existing law not to pursue the liability, there will be no liability for the relatively small amounts of personal income tax that would otherwise be liable to be recouped. Where the former owner concerned is a natural person the imputed dividend is to be included in his or her assessable income. In the case of an entity not itself subject to income tax on the dividend by reason of its tax exempt status or, in certain cases, the inter-company dividend rebate, the imputed amount will of course be treated as tax-free income in the hands of that entity. Where a company, or a person as trustee of a trust, is allocated a dividend that is deemed to have been paid by a stripped company and the owners of that company, or the beneficiaries of that trust, are the same persons as the former owners of the stripped company at the date of its sale, the company or trustee will, in the first instance, be liable to pay dividend recoupment tax on the dividend at the maximum personal rate applicable to the year of income in which the sale of shares occurred. However, there is to be a right for former owners in this situation to elect to be taxed on amounts equal in total to the amount of the dividend deemed to have been received by the company or trust concerned. If this election is made and the Commissioner is satisfied that the allocation of the deemed dividend among former owners is reasonable and that personal tax, if any, payable by the former owners will be paid by them, the interposed company or trust will be freed from its liability for dividend recoupment tax. In a similar fashion a stripped company will, where a liability for personal tax or dividend recoupment tax exists, be freed from its liability for undistributed profits tax payable under Division 7, and the former owners will accordingly no longer be liable for vendors recoupment tax on an unpaid Division 7 liability. I mention that a liability for personal tax or dividend recoupment tax will exist even where the only unpaid company tax giving rise to a liability for vendors recoupment tax is a liability for undistributed profits tax under Division 7 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. As with the existing recoupment tax law, it will be possible under the provisions being inserted by this Bill to trace from the primary level to the next level and, as necessary, successively to further levels where a company or trust has ceased to exist, has different shareholders or beneficiaries as a result of shares or beneficial interests having been sold, or is unlikely to be able to meet a liability for dividend recoupment tax on the dividend which is deemed to have been paid to it. The automatic tracing process applicable in this case will continue until a dividend is deemed to have been paid to a natural person-or tax-free entity referred to earlier-or to a company or trust that still exists if, in the latter situations, the company or trust is one the ownership of which has not changed since the stripped company was sold and has the capacity to meet the dividend recoupment tax payable. Finally, in relation to these particular provisions of the Bill I mention that if either dividend recoupment tax payable or income tax attributable to a deemed dividend is not paid by the due date for payment, generally 30 days after issue of a notice of assessment, additional tax at the rate of 20 per cent per annum will become payable under the existing provisions of the recoupment tax or income tax law. This Government does not intend to provide special penalty-free arrangements for people to pay tax which should have been paid many years ago and which, even now, is to be paid in present-day dollars and not in dollars of the mid-1970s. We have not seen fit on this occasion to require payment in revalued terms. Post-sale avoidance schemes The recoupment tax legislation contains a let-out provision that operates where the stripped company was the subject of an unsuccessful post-sale scheme to avoid tax. Under this escape clause there is no liability to recoupment tax liability on the people who benefited by non-payment of the company tax. This provision was inserted by the former Government for reasons which are best known to it. In our view it defies logic and it is our announced policy to abolish it. This is to be done in the Bill. Pre-sale avoidance schemes Consistently with the removal of the post-sale avoidance scheme provision, this Bill will also ensure that, in ascertaining the potential tax liability of a company for the purposes of determining whether the recoupment tax legislation applies in relation to it, any pre-sale scheme which is ultimately established to be ineffective of its tax avoidance purpose is to be disregarded. Abolition of penalty-free instalment arrangements This Bill will, from a date to be proclaimed, abolish the much too generous provision of the recoupment tax law which enables former owners of a stripped company to pay the unpaid company tax by instalments over a period of 12 months and to do so without incurring any additional tax for late payment by way of penalty. This Government sees no reason to permit those who have, in the past, avoided their responsibilities to the community by failure to pay taxes legally payable by companies owned by them to have interest-free use of their unwarranted gains for a further 12 months. They have, in most cases, already benefited for several years and we are not prepared to allow this state of affairs to continue. However, many people will have organised their financial affairs in the expectation that this provision would be available to them. Accordingly, we have decided to make the repeal of the provision operate from a date to be proclaimed . I indicate now that this date will be within the next few months, after which the Commissioner of Taxation will no longer have authority to enter into instalment arrangements free of additional penalty tax. Where circumstances warrant it, the Commissioner will, of course, be able to accept payment of company tax by instalments, but only subject to additional tax at the rate of 20 per cent per annum accruing on the unpaid balance. Existing arrangements and those entered into before the repeal of the provision is proclaimed will be honoured according to their terms. There are several further amendments contained in the Bill designed to improve the administration of the legislation or to correct technical deficiencies. The Bill proposes changes to the cumbersome procedure that requires copies of notices of company assessments to be served on a wide range of former owners. This procedure is very time and resource consuming and is, in our view, quite unnecessary. This Bill provides that in future it will, where only former shareholders are involved, be sufficient if a copy of the company's notice of assessment is served on the principal vendor-shareholder. Otherwise service may be effected on any three representative former owners. This approach is considered to provide an appropriate balance between the requirements of practical administration and perceived fairness to former owners of companies. It is also proposed by this Bill to remove one of the pre-conditions to liability for recoupment tax-the requirement that the company was by a stripping scheme rendered unable to pay its tax-which was inserted by the previous Government, it seems for presentational purposes. The element that the requirement expresses is, in substance, present in all cases of pre-tax profit stripping to which the legislation applies and a specific reference to it is quite unnecessary. The stripping scheme test, and an associated provision requiring full disclosure by the Commissioner of known details of it, is being exploited by some taxpayers as a means of delaying issue of recoupment tax assessments. Because of their availability as a pure delaying tactic, the provisions are having and will, unless removed, continue to have an adverse effect on revenue. Finally, we propose in this Bill to re-insert in the recoupment tax legislation a provision removed by the previous Government which authorised the Commissioner of Taxation to report to this Parliament the names of persons who fail to meet their liability for vendors or promoters of recoupment tax. It is, in our view, appropriate that this Parliament, and through it the people of Australia, should know those who remain unrepentant of their attempt to escape their rightful share of the tax burden. The Commissioner is already required to provide in his annual report to Parliament details of breaches or evasions of the taxation laws and it is consistent with that duty that he be authorised, where he considers it appropriate, to report details of failure to pay recoupment tax. I note that the revenue implications of these amendments are significant. The measures contained in this Bill are estimated to yield $570m in total, and $350m in 1983-84. If the Government had required payment not only of tax owing but also of an additional amount for the period of delay in payment, the total revenue yield would have been $840m. As usual with amendments of the taxation laws, an explanatory memorandum giving details of the amendments contained in the Bill is being circulated to honourable members and I trust that it is therefore unnecessary for me to say anything further at this stage. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(5.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will formally impose a tax-to be called dividend recoupment tax-on the dividend amount determined in accordance with the rules being inserted in the recoupment tax legislation by the amending Bill I have just introduced. The underlying purpose of the amendments is to recover personal income tax escaped by individual former owners of stripped companies. That will be done in a direct manner wherever possible. However, in cases where former owners held their shares through interposed companies or trusts recovery may in certain circumstances be by way of imposing on one or more of the interposed companies or trusts a tax equivalent to the maximum personal rate of tax applying in the year of income in which the shares in the stripped company were sold. This Bill will impose that tax. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(5.49) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill to amend the income tax law will give legislative effect to a range of measures that had been announced by the former Government but which it had not been implemented by the time the recent election was announced. As mentioned in my statement of 30 March 1983, the new Government was confronted with several matters of unfinished taxation legislation, and had to move quickly to determine their future and assign a legislative priority to those that we as a Government decided should be put into place. These questions were addressed in my statement of 30 March and this Bill represents the extent to which it has been possible, in the relatively short period that has been available to us, to have the various measures ready for introduction. Deductions of tax at source from payments for work and services The major proposal which the Bill will implement is the introduction of a system of deductions of tax at source from payments for work and services. Associated with these measures are reporting arrangements for householders who undertake larger domestic building projects and some related amendments to the pay-as-you-earn provisions of the law. This package of amendments was announced by the former Treasurer in the 1982-83 Budget. As I indicated when I announced on 30 March 1983 the Government's decision to proceed with them, these measures will apply from 1 September 1983. The need for these amendments is clear. Although there is no simple means by which the menace of tax evasion by the non-reporting of income, whether received in cash or otherwise, can be eliminated, the Government is confident that these measures will help in a most significant way to deal with the problem. The measures involve no new taxes, but only a new system for the collection of tax which is properly payable. Very briefly, they involve the deduction of tax by a person making a payment for contracted work or services and a remittance of amounts deducted to the Commissioner of Taxation on a monthly basis. There will, of course, be an entitlement to a credit in annual assessments for tax deducted from payments. As I have announced previously, the initial operation of the system will, subject to two variations, be confined to payments, to be prescribed by regulation, that are made and received by persons and firms operating within the building and construction, architectural, consultant engineering, surveying and other technical building services, joinery and cabinet making, road transport, motor vehicle repair and cleaning industries. There are to be some variations of this basic intra-industry approach. These will be in respect of the limited categories of payments from sources outside the building and construction and road transport industries to persons and firms operating within the industries, of which I gave initial details in my statement of 2 May 1983. While the new system will have the scope I have mentioned, the Bill is cast in terms that permit its extension by regulation to payments in other industries as soon as it is practicable to do so. I stress that under no circumstances will householders be required to make any deduction of tax at source under the proposed measures. However, under associated provisions, a householder who undertakes a private or domestic building project, the cost of which exceeds $10,000, will be required to register with the Commissioner of Taxation and report to him payments made in relation to that project. I announced on 2 May 1983 the Government's decision that, except where an exemption or reduced rate certificate has been granted, all payments within the initial scope of the system will be subject to deduction at a single rate of 10 per cent of the gross payment. I also indicated then that, in setting this rate, the Government had to balance the competing considerations of possible cash flow implications for payees if it were too high, and the enforcement benefits of the system that would be lost if it were too low. There is also the fact that, because of the limited initial scope of the system, deduction of tax at this rate will, in many cases, be confined to only a part of a payee's total business receipts. It is therefore expected that the rate set will in most cases be less than the tax payable on assessment. But for those for whom it might be too high, the Bill makes provision for the Commissioner of Taxation, on the application of a payee, to approve a lesser rate where he is satisfied that that is justified in the particular circumstances. The new system is primarily one of deduction of tax at source. The measures will, however, permit the Commissioner to issue certificates of exemption which will allow a payee to obtain payment without deduction of tax. Understandably, these certificates will be available only in circumstances where the person concerned has been in business for a significant period and is able to demonstrate that, among other things, a satisfactory taxation record has, in all respects, clearly been maintained. To repeat what I have already explained, these measures are aimed at eliminating a significant form of tax evasion. Consistent with this objective they contain substantial penalities-court-imposed and statutory-for breaches of obligations under the system. The Bill will also make amendments to the PAYE provisions of the income tax law to correct technical deficiencies in that area and to clarify the boundary between the PAYE system and the new system of deduction of tax at source. These associated amendments will also ensure that the PAYE provisions do not apply to payments made by householders that are wholly or principally for the labour of a person who is not an employee of the householder within the ordinary meaning of that word. I come now to a range of industry incentives announced by the former Government that are to be given statutory effect by the Bill. Each of these changes was the subject of detailed announcements by the former Government and, with modifications outlined in my statement of 30 March 1983, the amendments contained in the Bill give effect to the former Government's announcements. In these circumstances, and as a detailed explanatory memorandum on the provisions of the Bill is shortly to be made available to honourable members, I propose to refer to each matter only in broad terms. Accelerated Depreciation The first of the changes is a new system of accelerated depreciation allowances for new and second hand plant that is acquired by a taxpayer under a contract entered into after 19 July 1982 or that a taxpayer commences to construct after that date. Under the new system, eligible plant will qualify for depreciation on a prime cost basis at a rate of 20 per cent except where, under existing law, eligible plant would attract a rate of more than 20 per cent. In those cases a 33 1/3 per cent rate will apply. The accelerated rates will not apply to motor vehicles, principally cars and station wagons, of a kind at present excluded from the 18 per cent depreciation loading, to structural improvements or, as announced in my 30 March statement, to works of art. As part of the package announced by the former Government, the special rate of depreciation applicable to certain primary production plant, including structural improvements for the storage of hay, grain or fodder, is to be increased from 20 per cent to 33 1/3 per cent. In my statement of 30 March I said that plant that was made the subject of sale and leaseback and similar arrangements would be excluded from the benefits of the new system in circumstances where the lessee/end-user would otherwise be depreciating the plant according to previously applicable rates of depreciation. The Bill gives effect to those exclusions. I also said then that the Government was considering the extent to which plant that comes under new ownership by virtue of mergers and reorganisations of business operations would qualify. It has not proved practicable to incorporate measures dealing with this matter in the Bill. I will, however, shortly be announcing details of the Government's proposals that will, as in the case of the sale and leaseback exclusion, have effect from the date of introduction of the concession. Depreciation of Non-Residential Buildings The proposal under this head is a system of income tax deductions for capital expenditure on the construction of new buildings used for the purpose of producing assessable income other than in providing residential accommodation, where the construction of the building commenced after 19 July 1982. Capital expenditure on building extensions or alterations will similarly qualify. The deduction will be available on the same general basis as the one now available for traveller accomodation buildings, so that fixed annual deductions of 2 1/2 per cent of the construction cost will be allowable over a 40-year period. As announced by the former Government, buildings used in connection with traveller accommodation will continue to qualify for deduction under the existing depreciation arrangements provided for them. Mining Capital Expenditure The Bill will amend the arrangements for deducting capital expenditure incurred after 19 July 1982 in developing a mining operation or oil field. Deductions are at present available on a dimishing balance basis calculated by reference to the lesser of 10 years or the estimated life of the mine or oil field. In broad terms, allowable capital expenditure incurred after 19 July 1982 will be allowable by reference to the same maximum life of 10 years, but calculated instead on a straight line basis. The general effect of the new arrangements will be that allowable capital expenditure incurred in a year of income will be deductible in 10 equal instalments in years of income beginning with the year in which the expenditure was incurred. The Bill also corrects some technical defects in earlier provisions. Investment in Australian Films The Bill will modify the scheme of tax incentives for investment in the production of qualifying Australian films so that the special 150 per cent deduction that, under the present law, is not available until after the relevant film has been completed and used to produce income, will be allowable in the year in which the eligible expenditure is made. Deduction on the new basis will be conditional on the investor becoming the first owner of an interest in the copyright in the completed film, and using that interest for the purpose of producing assessable income, within 2 years from the close of the financial year in which moneys are first expended or contributed towards the production of the film. In the event that these conditions are not satisfied, any previously allowed deductions will be withdrawn. A further requirement for deduction is that a production agreement securing funds necessary for the production of the film be entered into by the close of the financial year in which moneys are first expended, or contributed towards, the production of the film. In addition, moneys contributed towards an eligible production are required to be held in a non-interest bearing account opened in relation to the film in the Australian Film Industry Trust Fund. Arrangements for the establishment of that Fund, which is to be administered by the Department of Home Affairs and Environment, are currently being made. In these circumstances, the requirement that contributions be deposited in an account in the Fund opened in relation to the film will apply with respect to all contributions made on or after 1 July 1983. The unexpended portion of contributions made before that date will be required to be transferred to the account by 1 July 1983. Payments out of an account opened in the Trust Fund are to be made only for the purpose of expenditure in the production of the film to which the account relates, or by way of refund to contributors. A system of withholding tax is to apply in relation to amounts withdrawn from the account other than for the purpose of expenditure in the production of the film. Amounts withheld under these arrangements will be applied against tax due on the amended assessment disallowing the 150 per cent deduction claimed by the relevant investor in respect of the amount of his or her contribution not expended in the production of the film. Finally, eligibility for the new deduction arrangements is to be supported by a formal declaration that is required to be lodged by an appropriate person, generally the producer, within one month after the end of the financial year in which contributions towards the production of the film are first made. With the exception of the modifications outlined above, the existing requirements of the concessions will remain unaltered. The year of expenditure basis of deduction will apply to eligible expenditure incurred by an investor under a contract entered into on or after 13 January 1983. Collection of tax payable by non-residents The last of the changes that was foreshadowed by the previous Government is the introduction of special measures to facilitate the collection of tax payable by non-resident beneficiaries of trust estates. This change is connected with steps taken last year to make non-residents ineligible for the zero rate of tax in the personal tax scales. In order to improve Australia's capacity to collect tax payable by trust beneficiaries who do not reside in Australia, this Bill will operate so that the trustee of the relevant trust will be primarily responsible for payment of the tax on income of the trust to which a non-resident beneficiary is presently entitled. The non-resident beneficiary may also be assessed in respect of the trust income, with credit being allowed for the tax paid by the trustee. This change will apply to trust distributions that are made on or after today. Finally, the Bill also contains amendments to make it clear that interest paid by he Commissioner of Taxation under the proposed Taxation (Interest on Overpayments) Act 1983 will be taxable to the recipient in the income year in which it is paid and to make a technical change in the provisions which limit the cost for depreciation purposes of certain motor vehicles. This latter amendment is consequential on a change made in the basis of calculation of the motor vehicle purchase sub-group of the consumer price index, on which annual changes in the limit are based. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(6.4) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will amend the Income Tax (Rates) Act 1982 which declares the rates of tax for individuals and trustees, who generally pay tax at individual rates. The provisions of this Bill are consequential upon the amendments proposed by the Income Tax Assessment Bill 1983 to strengthen the collection provisions of the income tax law in relation to non-resident beneficiaries of trust estates. The rate of tax payable by a trustee taxed on behalf of a non-resident company beneficiary is to be the general company rate of 46 per cent and will be declared and imposed by the Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Act 1982, which will be amended by a Bill which I will introduce shortly. The present Bill will in these circumstances remove from the scope of the Income Tax (Rates) Act 1982 a trustee who is to be taxed on behalf of a non-resident company beneficiary. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(6.6) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will amend the Income Tax (Individuals) Act 1982 which formally imposes personal income tax payable for the 1982-83 financial year. The rates imposed by this Act are those declared in the Income Tax (Rates) Act 1982. As I explained in my second reading speech on the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1983, a trustee of a trust estate who will be liable to be assessed and to pay tax on behalf of a non-resident company beneficiary of a trust estate is to be taxed at the rate of tax applicable to companies generally and not at individual rates. As a consequence, this Bill will amend the Income Tax (Individuals) Act 1982 so that it does not impose tax on trustees to be taxed in respect of non- resident companies. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(6.8) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will amend the Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Act 1982 which declares and imposes the rates of tax payable for the 1982-83 financial year by companies, trustees of corporate unit trusts and trustees of superannuation funds. As I explained in my accompanying second reading speech on the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1983, the amendment proposed by this Bill will extend the operation of the Income Tax ( Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Act 1982 so that it also declares and imposes the rate of tax payable-that is 46 per cent-by a trustee of a trust estate who is to be taxed on behalf of a non-resident company beneficiary. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(6.9) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is complementary to the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1983 which I introduced earlier. Honourable members will recall that in introducing that Bill I outlined for the House features of the proposed system of deductions of tax at source from payments for work and services. The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that a debt payable to the Commissioner of Taxation in respect of such unremitted tax deductions will, in a bankruptcy or liquidation, have the same priority as do unremitted pay-as-you-earn tax deductions. A technical explanation of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum that is to be made available to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned. Debate resumed from 12 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —May I have your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, to suggest that the House has a general debate covering the Supply Bill (No. 1) 1983-84, the Supply Bill (No. 2) 1983-84 and the Supply ( Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1983-84 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) -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 HOWARD(Bennelong)(6.12) —These are the normal Supply Bills and the Opposition will be supporting them. They cover the granting of Supply from 1 July this year. It is therefore appropriate, because debate on these Supply Bills is taking place on the eve of the long awaited economic statement from the Government, that something should be said about the perspective and circumstances in which the economic statement of the Government will be brought down tomorrow night. Whatever may be contained in the economic statement we can be certain of at least one thing-that is that the decisions to be announced in that economic statement will have a very significant bearing upon the fiscal and budgetary policies of the Hawke Labor Government not only in 1983-84 but also in subsequent years. On the eve of the presentation of that economic statement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) it is important that the statement be put in context and be put in perspective, particularly so far as it relates to economic debate which is occurring in Australia at the present time, which has occurred in Australia over the past 18 months and will no doubt continue to occur in its wake. It is of foremost importance that the House recall the economic policy on which the Hawke Labor Government was elected. It is important to do that because if one goes back to first principles one realises that government is about implementing the election platforms of political parties. As we have been reminded so often by honourable members on both sides of the House, election platforms are not things to be totally repudiated and totally torn up. Mr Keogh —That didn't worry you when you were in. Mr HOWARD —I am glad that the honourable member for Bowman, who interjected, and the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), who is trying to interject, share my enthusiasm when I say that parties should stick to the platforms on which they are elected. It is important to remind ourselves that during the campaign before the last election the Labor Party called, above everthing else, for a complete change in economic policy. Surely no honourable member on the other side of the House dissents from the proposition that the Australian Labor Party campaigned before 5 March on one simple matter-that is that Australia needed a totally different economic policy. People like the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous) would be candid enough and honest enough to agree that the Australian Labor Party campaigned on that policy. He is honest enough and he is doctrinely pure enough to admit that the Labor Party campaigned before 5 March on the proposition that the monetary and fiscal policies of the former Government were far too contractionary. If one goes back to the statements that were made before that election, one goes back to the joint economic statement that was released, just after the election campaign commenced, by the now Treasurer and the now Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at the launching of the Australian Labor Party economic platform. I quote in part from that, which states: It is clear that the Treasurer-- That is referring to the then Treasurer- intends that the next Budget should continue the contractionary policies of the past. the deficit increase during 1982-83 was overwhelmingly the result of the depression causing increases in unemployment benefit payments and reducing taxation receipts. However, this deficit is still contractionary . . . That is, the amount of $4,000m was still contractionary in the minds of the then shadow Treasurer and the then Leader of the Opposition, for if there were full employment there would be a huge surplus. In making that statement, the then shadow Treasurer and the then Leader of the Opposition were very much echoing the sentiments and the beliefs of the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) who, as shadow Treasurer in the former Labor Opposition, on 14 December, criticised the economic policies of the former Government as: . . . containing extremely tight monetary policies which had caused a rapid increase in interest rates and a severely contractionary fiscal stance. It is of significance that that criticism and that categorisation of the former Government's economic policy made on 14 December by the Minister, as the then economic spokesman for the Opposition, was made on the very day that the former Government released an update of the economic forecasts and projected Budget deficit for 1982-83 which it had provided to the Premiers Conference convened to discuss the then Government's wage pause initiative. What, in effect, the then economic spokesman was saying was that a projected Budget deficit for this year of about $4,000m represented an extremely tight fiscal policy. I repeat those words 'severely contractionary fiscal stance'. So we had a situation that as we approached the last election we had not only the then economic spokesman for the Opposition, the now Treasurer, but also the then Leader of the Opposition and the now Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations saying that a fiscal policy which implied a deficit outcome this year of about $4,000m was severely contractionary. They are not my words, they were the words of the Government's then economic spokesman. He said that amount was severely contractionary. Dr Theophanous —We know about your $4,000m. That was before you announced- Mr HOWARD —I know the honourable member for Burke does not like this because it is utterly inconsistent with the line his leader is now taking, but he will hear this because it happens to represent one of the greatest policy and economic somersaults that any political party has engaged in in recent years. But of course there was nothing strange about those words from the then economic spokesman and the then Leader of the Opposition because the present Prime Minister said after the last Budget that as far as he was concerned a deficit of about the average of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries would be quite in order. He knew then, as he knows now, that that implied about 4 per cent to 5 per cent of gross domestic product, which would imply not an outcome this year on the basis of the former Government's Budget deficit of about $4,500m, as last advised to me, but an outcome indeed of $6, 500m. So what the now Prime Minister was advocating, as the Opposition spokesman , at the end of last year, was a deficit outcome this year of about $6,500m, and the Lord alone knows what that would have implied so far as 1983-84 is concerned . Yet he has the audacity to come into this Parliament, to go before the Australian people, to wring his hands and say: 'Shock, horror, isn't it dreadful ? We face a very severe and difficult budgetary situation'. Yet he alone ran around this countryside during the election campaign without a care in the world about the size of the Budget deficit. He ran around this countryside and said: ' Comrades, throw away your conservative calculators. Let us all gather around and throw away our conservative calculators. Let us forget about these wicked conservative Budget deficits because under a Hawke Labor Government all will be well'. The fact is that before 5 March the Prime Minister could not have cared less about the size of the Budget deficit. He know, that, and every person who sits behind him knows that, because he told us to throw away our calculators. Yet now he comes into this House and goes before the Australian people, wrings his hands and sheds crocodile tears about the size of the Budget deficit because he knows darned well that the policies he advocated in Opposition would have implied a starting point for next year's Budget exercise on his own calculations released on 18 March of several thousands of millions of dollars in excess of the figure that he deceitfully and misleadingly flings around concerning the former Government. The first thing we have to get into perspective and fixed in our minds is that tomorrow night's statement will be made against the background of a government that was elected by the Australian people on one simple economic proposition. It was, very simply, that we needed a change of economic policy and that the abandonment of the tight monetary and fiscal policies of the former Government was the real answer to all the economic problems of Australia. It was said that what was really needed was not less spending and more taxation, but more spending and less taxation. The then Leader of the Opposition went before the Australian people and said: 'We have to abandon all this contractionary economic policy, all this monetarism and all this tight budgetary discipline adopted by the Fraser Government. What we really have to do is spend more and tax less'. Throughout the whole of the election campaign, with reckless indifference to the effect of the promises made during that campaign on the size of the Budget deficit in 1983-84, or indeed any subsequent year, the then Labor Opposition campaigned on the basis of an expansionary economic policy, saying to the Australian people: 'What we want to do is adopt an expansionary economic policy. We want to throw out the contractionary budgetary deficit of $4,000m in 1982-83. It is too contractionary.' That is the result of the contractionary fiscal stance. We want to throw all of that out and come to the Australian people and offer a spending of some $4,000m to $5,000m more. When the then Government said to the Opposition during the election campaign that the Australian economy could not afford further tax cuts, what did the Prime Minister and his colleagues say? They said: 'There are the conservatives, once again dragging out their calculators and talking about Budget deficits and scaring the daylights out of us on the basis of some outmoded economic policy'. They poured scorn on the warnings that the Australian economy could not afford the economic program that was promised during the election campaign. We warned the then Labor Opposition that the Australian economy could not afford the thousands of millions of dollars of additional spending and the taxation cuts. We said that the taxation cuts that were given in the last Budget were as much as the Australian economy could afford during 1982-83. But what did the Labor Opposition do in the face of those warnings? It brushed them aside and said: 'Do not worry. The Australian economy can afford it. It needs a total change of economic policy. It needs an expansionary policy, more spending and less taxation. If you elect us, we will implement that sort of policy'. The most important thing that this Parliament and the Australian people must understand about the economic statement to be delivered by the Treasurer of the Hawke Labor Government tomorrow night is that it will be delivered by the Treasurer in a government that won office on the basis of promising an expansionary budgetary policy. It won office on the basis of promising to spend more and to tax less. The Opposition will not tire over the coming months of reminding the Australian people of that particular commitment that was made by the then Leader of the Opposition, by the Treasurer, by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and, in their name, on behalf of the members of the entire Government. So the Australian people will constantly be reminded that that was the policy that the present Prime Minister, during the election campaign and in the months before it, advocated-an increase in this year's deficit of about 50 per cent. He advocated that we should have a deficit in 1982-83, this year, of about 4 per cent to 5 per cent of gross domestic product. Imagine a deficit this year of $6, 500m! He knows as well as I do what that would imply for 1983-84. Yet his Treasurer had the hide to mislead the National Economic Summit Conference by saying: 'We did not know. We were not warned. We would not have promised it had we really known'. The truth is that the Government won power on the basis of promising a total reversal of economic policy. It won power on promising an expansionary economic approach. It was warned that the economy could not afford it. Now that it is in power it will seek, through tomorrow night's statement and many other statements , to excuse itself, to excuse the deceit and to excuse the misleading policy that its members presented to the Australian people during the election campaign . Beyond reminding the Parliament and the Australian people of the perspective against which the economic statement of tomorrow night has to be presented, I suggest to the Treasurer and the Government that the economic policy statement tomorrow night is not just an opportunity to announce a series of ad hoc revenue and expenditure decisions; it is also an opportunity for the Treasurer to provide to the Australian people, on behalf of the Government, a clear indication of where his party and his Government stand in a number of major economic areas. Firstly, I hope that the Treasurer, in tomorrow night's statement, will give a very clear indication of precisely where the Government stands in regard to its wages policy. I think it is common ground between both sides in this Parliament that the greatest domestic enemy of employment at present is the excessive wage rises of the last 18 months. That is not just propaganda of the Liberal Party or statements made by Ministers in the former Liberal Government. One has to go no further than to look at the economic statement by the Treasurer to the Summit Conference. That was a very good statement because for a short period, impressed by the need for objectivity, impressed by the desire to achieve consensus at the Summit, there were many sections of that speech by the Treasurer at the Summit that came very close to the reality of Australia's economic circumstances. On behalf of the Opposition, I say that one of the great benefits of the Summit was the extent to which the Treasurer, on behalf of the Government, was prepared to supply to the Summit, and through the Summit to the Australian people, some very valuable information and objective commentary on the state of the economy. As a consequence of that, economic debate in Australia has been greatly improved . I said that at the time, and I repeat it today. I believe that that was one of the beneficial outcomes of the National Economic Summit conference. I congratulate the Government on its initiative in calling that Conference. Having said that, we cannot avoid the consequences of the information that was made available by the Treasurer and his colleagues to the Summit, and he cannot avoid the consequences of what he says. He cannot avoid the fact that he told the Summit that the major reason for Australia's present economic dilemma was the international recession. What a remarkable discovery by the Treasurer of the Hawke Labor Government! At long last, after 2 1/2 years, Labor members have discovered the international recession, having for 2 1/2 years said: 'The international rcession does not really have anything to do with it'. My colleague from Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) is so embarrassed about that revelation that he cannot contain himself. The truth of the matter is that for 2 1/2 years, while we were in government, they ran around saying: 'The international recession has nothing to do with it'. But, having been elected to government, and before the jury of the trade union movement and the business community, faced with the need to be totally objective and totally honest, the Treasurer said: 'Really, the central economic problem at present is the international economic recession'. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8.30 p.m. Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker, before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was reminding the House of the sorts of economic policies on which the Australian Labor Party had campaigned in the recent election. I reminded it that the Labor Party was elected on the basis that the solution to all our economic problems was to adopt an expansionary Budget and fiscal policy, a relaxed monetary policy , and generally overturn the economic policies of the former Government; that that was one of the reference points against which the economic statement to be delivered to- morrow night by the Treasurer should be measured. All of us will look forward with very great interest to seeing how consistent will be that statement with the alleged offerings of the Australian Labor Party during the election campaign. In the course of my remarks, I heard a few interjections. In one of those interjections I thought I heard a reference to a figure of $9.6 billion. I am pleased that honourable members opposite have raised that figure because, in the remaining moments available to me, I should like to say something about it. I remind the House that as everyone knows, that was a starting point figure provided to me by the Government's advisers in terms of $9,000m, without any documentation and without any detail, several days before the election. The figure of $9.6 billion was provided to me on the evening before the elections and it was unveiled in all its glory, in much greater detail, to the new Government a day or two after the elections. I have said on many occasions, and I will say again tonight, that I do not accept that figure as being other than a speculative starting point for working towards the true size of next year's Budget deficit. I have repeatedly said that on every occasion in past years, when a figure has been presented at that time of the year, it has been demonstrated to be virtually irrelevant by the time the Budget is actually put together. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), was kind enough yesterday to remind the House that in successive years when we were in power, starting point figures of that kind were significantly altered, not just because of a decision in the expenditure and revenue area made by the former Government but more importantly, or just as importantly, because of changed economic parameters. I would like to say something about that tonight. I do not think many honourable members here tonight realise that that particular figure of $9.6 billion was calculated on an assumed rise in gross domestic product in 1983-84 of only 0.5 per cent. But over the last few days, and as recently as this morning, we have had both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer coming into this House and saying that recovery is on the way. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot on the one hand try to clobber the former Government and say: 'Look at this terrible figure', accepting that it is based on a growth forecast of 0.5 per cent and, in the next breath, come into this House and say, as does the Treasurer: 'Look, growth is on the way and by early 1984 the Australian economy will be growing strongly'. I hope that the Treasurer 's statement proves to be correct. If it is, to the extent that credit is due to the Treasurer, I will give credit to him. But he cannot, on the one hand, say that by early 1984 the Australian economy will be growing strongly and yet fall back on a GDP forecast in 1983 of only 0.5 per cent, which is fundamental to that projection of $9.6 billion. But even more precisely, everybody knows that the scenario, presented to the National Economic Summit Conference, which the Government embraces most warmly of all is scenario A. That is the one that has the fairly weak wages policy but it is, nonetheless, the scenario that the Government embraces and quite clearly is that on which the Government's economic statement tomorrow will be based. But interestingly enough, that scenario implies a growth in 1983-84 of no less than 2.7 per cent-in other words, about 2.2 per cent greater than the GDP forecast on which the $9.6 billion figure is based. If one looks at the sensitivity analysis presented to the Economic Summit, one finds that a 2 per cent rise in real GDP in 1983-84 would cut government outlays by about $260m and raise receipts by about $680m. In other words, we are looking at a difference, in that regard alone, of some $1,000m. Even if one accepts all of the revenue and expenditure forecasts that make up that figure, on the Government's professed growth forecasts alone, $9.6 billion is a phoney figure. In reality, using the Government's own more recently professed parameters, the figure would be closer to about $8,000m. That will not , of course, stop the Treasurer coming into this House tomorrow night and saying : 'We had this terrible task. We had to start with this terrible figure of $9.6 billion and look how terrific we are. We have got it back to $8,500m'. Do honourable members suppose that he will concede to the House that if we apply the Government's more recent forecasts-the growth boasts of both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer-that figure of $9.6 billion will be automatically reduced to somewhere between $8,000m and $8.500m? Also the figure is based upon an inflation forecast of only 6 per cent in 1983- 84. I hope that in 1983-84 inflation is only 6 per cent. I think all of us will be very pleased if in fact it is. But I think it would be a fairly brave person who would make a forecast now that inflation through 1983-84 will be only about 6 per cent. If one looks at the consumer price index for the March quarter and bears in mind some of the cost pressures that are still in the system as a result of the wages explosion of the last 18 months, it would be a fairly brave person who would be prepared to come into this House and assert that inflation during that period would be only about 6 per cent. Again, if one refers to the sensitivity analysis presented to the Economic Summit, one finds that a 2 per cent increase in the assumed consumer price index would chop the deficit by a further $500m or so, other things being equal, as a result of an increase in outlays of about $600m and an increase in receipts of about $1,120m. This shows once again that that figure of $9.6 billion was due in part to predictions about the success of the wages pause because, as the Treasurer said in his speech at the Summit, a successful lowering of inflation will, in the first instance, increase the size of the prospective deficit. These projections indicate very clearly how wildly speculative that particular figure was and remains. They indicate that it is not a reliable bench-mark against which to measure the cost cutting nerve of the Hawke Government. It is not a reliable bench-mark against which to measure the fiscal resolve of the Hawke Government. It is nothing but a highly speculative figure that has had no substantive basis other than it is a figure with which to attempt to clobber and to criticise the actions of the former Government. Out of their own mouths, both the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have, since the election, adopted growth forecasts and other forecasts about economic performance in the Australian economy which are quite inconsistent with the parameters upon which that figure has been based. We cannot on the one hand say that the true starting point is $9.6 billion, which assumes a GDP next financial year of one half of one per cent and, on the other hand embrace for 1983-84 an economic scenario which assumes a growth in GDP of 2.7 per cent. The two things simply do not sit together. The honourable member for Hunter knows that and the honourable member for Burke knows that. We cannot in the one breath say that we are working on the basis of a deficit figure that assumes a growth of half of one per cent in GDP but in another breath say that we will have the benefit of claiming that there will be growth in GDP of about 2.7 per cent. I think that comparison in growth forecasts illustrates more accurately than any other comparison just how phoney that figure is and how reliable was the advice I received in each of the five years in which I received forecasts about prospective starting points for deficits at this time of the year that it was very unwise to rely on those estimates as a guide to the ultimate outcome. Of course, it once again illustrates the essential phoniness and hypocrisy of the position assumed by the Government in the economic debate at the present time. These people were the apostles of unrestrained deficit financing in the election campaign. The Prime Minister who ran around the country telling us to throw our calculators away, and who wanted a Budget deficit this year 50 per cent greater than has now been forecast and 50 per cent greater than his own Minister for Finance dared to criticise this morning, has no credit at all when it comes to Budget deficits. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(8.42) —The House will no doubt be amused at the spirited attempts of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to try to convince the Australian people that he is a recent convert to the virtues of political integrity. As a defender of integrity he does not wear the mantle with any conviction at all. Following a period of seven years, marked by an unbroken sequence of broken promises, we can all be excused for becoming rather cynical. His tortuous attempts at justifying the use of shonky figures for the Budget deficit this year will always remain as a notorious example of the way that he and his previous Government attempted to deceive the Australian people. That is enough of that. I return to the debate on the Supply Bills. There is hardly likely to be any avalanche of dissension, I would imagine, apart from the poor attempt by the Deputy Leader Opposition, about the necessity to ensure the passage of these Bills. They are basically procedural Bills that are required to be passed to ensure the maintenance of activity within government departments. The Government requires to be able to proceed with the activity laid out under continuing commitments and, where it is necessary, to commence the process of change. But, in rising to speak to these Bills I congratulate the Government for the responsible manner in which it has set about the task of examining the financial status of government departments. I recognise that this task was made even more difficult by the extent and the turbidity of the economic morass that was inherited by the Government as a result of the years of ideological myopia and incompetence of its Fraserite predecessor. During those long dark days the economic emphasis was placed unsuccessfully upon the reduction of inflation. The unemployed whose ranks were burgeoning continuously were virtually ignored. I say 'virtually ignored' for, to its eternal shame, the Fraser Government contained and the Opposition still contains and tolerates individuals who treat unemployed Australians with opprobium. At no time during the course of the Fraser Government's divisive and contemptible reign did it demonstrate any real compassion for the hundreds of thousands of Australians eking out an existence in a state of poverty. It is therefore to the credit of the Government that, on assuming office, it acted swiftly to increase the unemployment benefit for unemployed adults to the rate of the single pension . This demonstrates the sincerity of the Government's intention to maintain its priority concern for the welfare of these unfortunate fellow Australians. It is to be hoped, of course, that some further relief will be given in the near future to the lot of those young unemployed people under the age of 18. Not only are we all aware of the Government's concern for those most seriously burdened by the impact of Australia's economic depression but we also witnessed in the wake of the election the Government's willingness to meet its obligations to those who lost so much in the disastrous bushfires in South Australia and Victoria. I give credit to the previous Government for agreeing to the requests of Victoria and South Australia. Both the Federal and State authorities must be complimented for the haste with which they acted to help those unfortunate people. Only governments are able to do this and, I guess, are also expected to do this. They have the resources in personnel, expertise, money, plant and influence to assist and so they should. Nevertheless, their willingness to act quickly is to their credit. It is remarkable that misery so dramatically evident as that caused by natural disasters stimulates immediate response from the public and government. The more insidious effects of economic depression and the inequitable distribution of the nation's resources leaves many thousands-indeed millions-of our fellow Australians in poverty. They look not for large scale measures to help them restore their lives to levels of affluence enjoyed by more fortunate Australians . Their lot is, at best, to receive basic benefits that ensure a life of relative poverty. Beyond that they depend upon the charity the community sees fit to dispense to them. It must be the experience of all honourable members, even those opposite, to have directed constituents to the offices of charitable organisations. A different standard is adopted by the community and governments to the problems of chronic poverty and the victims of economic disaster to that which is evident at times of major natural disasters such as bushfires, floods cyclones, et cetera. This was clearly evident during the term of office of the Fraser Government. It exemplified perfectly the response of a conservative mentality to the plight of the poor. At best, the response of the conservative side of politics to the plight of the unemployed can only be described as paternalistic. During the period of office of the Liberal-National Party coalition the number of Australians living in poverty increased to approximately 2 1/2 million. For ideological reasons it is impossible for the poor, the unemployed and the oppressed to be given justice when conservative politics dominate in government. At best they can only be given handouts. If being accorded justice is interpreted as being assured an equitable share in the distribution of the nation's goods and services, a right to an equal share in the power over the decision making process, to be given equal treatment under the law and the right to being treated with dignity then the poor in Australia miss out. We live in a society which enshrines the value of self-interest. As I indicated, this different standard is, generally speaking, observed only at times of dramatic and sudden crisis. At other times the prevailing social ethos-a conservative ethos-creates its victims and then blames them. The spoils of the conservative society go to the victors. They receive the plaudits as well as the benefits. At best the losers must be satisfied with the crumbs. This is the ideology of the present Opposition. As was so clearly demonstrated by the seven years of Fraserism it is an ideology of divisiveness and conflict. It is a sad commentary on such a system that its logic imposes limits upon the degree of consensus that is possible. I applaud the recent efforts of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to provide representatives of the major competing decision makers in our system with the opportunity to sit down together and listen to the points of view of others in a non-confrontionist situation. This was a unique occasion. The challenge, as I see it, is for all those concerned with the future of this nation to try to achieve the very best for all in this, a grossly imperfect system. I draw the attention of the House to the serious effects of the current economic depression upon regional and provincial centres in this country. I make specific reference to the state of manufacturing industry and the effects of the downturn in manufacturing industry in provincial centres. In my region of Ballarat the percentage of the work force employed in manufacturing industry fell from 27.9 per cent in 1971 to 20.3 per cent in 1981. I can only guess that today the percentage would be even lower. At the end of March 1981 the percentage of people in Ballarat registered for jobs with the Commonwealth Employment Service was 9.5 per cent. The figure released by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) at the National Economic Summit Conference was 15.05 per cent. In Maryborough, another centre in my electorate, the figure was 17.5 per cent. They are dramatic, horrendous figures in anyone's language. The need for protection for manufacturing industry in these centres and those similar to them around Australia should be patently obvious. But it is also to be hoped that the necessary incentives for these centres to develop alternative industries such as those of high technology and tourism will be fostered. It certainly was not the interest of the previous Government. I place great value on the quality of life and the significance to Australia of these great centres outside metropolitan areas. There is a will to ensure that the quality of life in these centres is maintained. I am particularly proud of the people in my electorate, as I am sure others are in similar electorates, who are willing to gather facts about our communities, their problems and their great strengths, and to co-operate in a drive to build a sound future for all those who live there. Hopefully a government motivated by more genuine concern for all Australians will give substantial recognition to the needs of these regional areas so that the attainment of a sound basis for a prosperous future might be achieved. These Bills before us tonight are necessary for the maintenance of Government activity. There is no great controversy in the House about their necessity and their immediate passage. I support the legislation. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(8.52) —The Opposition supports the Supply Bills but tonight I think I should draw attention to one or two of the facts of economic life in Australia that have arisen in the past few months. We have become used to seeing a government composed of Ministers who, frankly, are inept, who do not know what they are about and who demonstrate it every day. To add to that, I point to the election campaign in which it seemed that the general theme of the Australian Labor Party was to wander around the nation and promise anything at all. It promised tax cuts and tomorrow we are to get tax rises. We were promised jobs and we get more unemployment. We were promised assistance to the iron and steel industry and nothing has happened. There is a continuing saga of disinterest and appalling administration. I say that to set the general parameters of what has occurred. According to the newspapers, tomorrow we face a hard mini-Budget. During the election campaign all we heard about was expansionary budgets. We heard talk of Liberals being contractionists and nasty people who believe in management of the money supply and the like. We were urged by the now Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to throw away our pocket computers and spend it up with expansionary budgets. Inevitably that leads only to big deficits, and we have aheard a lot about the deficit. But what we have heard is nothing compared with the size of the deficit we will hear about in the Budget for 1983-84, not to mention the ones after that , if the Government is to accommodate anywhere near the number of programs that were put forward in the last election campaign speeches. It is because of that that I want to warn the House, and those who are interested in the debate, of the enormous difficulties that confront deficit financing in Australia. It is no good saying that $10 billion is neither here nor there-try $12 billion. Those are figures that we will hear not only this year but next year in the belief that such a deficit will work wonders and will be easily handled. There is no doubt that from the current base the size of the deficit projected by the Government will produce a one per cent or 2 per cent growth in the coming year. But that growth will be without a doubt to the benefit of big government. It will be to the benefit of the public sector - the sector supported by a socialist program. But it is in the private sector where the jobs will be found. Three-quarters of all employment is in the private sector. If the Government aims now to stimulate the public sector-- Dr Theophanous —The private sector is not doing very well at the moment. Mr MOORE —It might be all right in the honourable member's area but I do not think it would be. If the Government aims now to stimulate the public sector- Dr Theophanous —The private sector is not doing much good now, is it? Mr MOORE —It will do a darned sight worse if the Government listens to talk about massive deficits, high interest rates and stimulating the public sector at the cost of the private sector. If that happens we will hear nothing in the next 18 months about capital investment, job creation or the general development of the nation. Unless the private sector is healthy and encouraged with incentives, there is no way that investment will take place in this nation. Without incentives, without rewards, there is no way that capital will be invested. Without the investment of capital there will be no development in growth, in jobs or the nation as a whole. Because of that I warn the Government that reliance upon massive Government spending for the public sector will inevitably lead, in a period of 18 months, to a situation in which the Government will have to distort the economic system to add unnecessary rewards at that point to get the private sector going again. Of course, that in itself brings about some of the disliked aspects of reward and incentive that have been built into the system over the years. I hear that the Government is to cut out rural concessions, industry concessions, investment allowances and the like. This inevitably will lead to less interest in those areas, less development and fewer jobs. There is no doubt that it will add to the problem of unemployment. That brings me to the question of wages policy. What will the Government do? Today in Question Time we heard a great amount of conflict between what the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and, indeed, what the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) said. There seems to be conflict as to what catch-up means . There seems to be some conflict as to what real wages mean and what current cost wages mean. While that confusion continues we are unlikely to see the sort of atmosphere that is required for wage restraint and a cooling of costs to bring back industry in this nation to a competitive stance. Until we do that there is no way that industry can attempt to put its full strength to the wheel. Capital deserves its return. I turn from that to one other aspect which I think has been completely overlooked in the past two weeks-the question of the management of currency and the management of the exchange rates in this nation. Dr Theophanous —Oh! Mr MOORE —The honourable member probably has not heard of these things but they are vitally important to the development of the nation. Unless there is a sense of belief in the currency value and the exchange rates of this nation, we will not get the sort of capital investment or capital flow to this country that is required for its development. Indeed, anybody who looked at the balance of payments figures that came out only a matter of weeks ago would realise the enormous requirement to have a high level of foreign investment, particularly capital inflow, in the next 18 months if the Government is to achieve anywhere near the number of programs that it talks about and keep interest rates at reasonable levels. That brings me back to the question of what the Government said when it came to office. We will recall the Prime Minister's saying: 'We will not devaluate'. As a consequence of substantial capital movement, the Government inevitably did devalue. That was followed in the past few weeks by a very significant inflow of money back into Australia-so much so that the money markets in Australia today are flush. At least $2 billion to $3 billion is floating around the money markets, forcing down interest rates, which I heard one Minister claim this morning was totally a result of action by the Government. Probably he is not aware that yesterday and today there was a sizeable tightening in rates due to the fact that some of that money has already gone. The reason is that upward adjustment in currency and exchange rates has been too rapid. The likelihood of the mini-Budget, the outcomes of which are still uncertain, and the devaluation has caused people to take the profits that are inevitably there. Not only that but also the very high differential in interest rates between Australia and other parts of the world are rewarding and consequently people have taken advantage of the devaluation which the Government initiated to take the profits in those situations. That leads to a fairly brittle relationship in the money market. I understand that situation is compounded by the calling of tenders tomorrow of something like $1,400m in government securities. I have no doubt that, in a market which has been flush and in which the demand for capital is substantially reduced, because of the level of economic activity, this can be achieved. It has to be achieved because in the month of March the money supply went over 12 per cent. The Government does not have any regard these days for money supply problems, but that is neither here nor there. It is part of the easy growth factors which are combined with big deficits and an attempt by the Government to harvest the money at reasonable rates. The Government can be assured that the money system will not fall for that sort of play unless we have a creditable currency with a believable exchange rate tied in to a government policy which is consistent with and acting in a direction which encourages private investment, then we will not get the sort of money coming to the nation that we can spot up in government tenders. It will be there for the Government to take up in those huge deficits which it will be confronting not only this year but also in the following year. Because of that I urge that some consideration be given to the whole area of the management of exchange rates and the approach to foreign investment. As I said earlier, the balance of payments is the critical factor for Australia in the next two years. If that is not believed in terms of Australia's performance, then the very substantial balance of trade deficit that is likely to be the case, with doubtful commodity prices, the very severe drought and a very severe case of non-competitive industries in this nation, will substantially lead to the undermining of the exchange rate. Non-belief in that will lead to the major suppliers of capital to this nation not coming to the party. As a consequence of that there will be an inevitable rise in interest rates and the inevitable fall-off in business interest leading to a total lack of interest from the private sector in the longer term. I have addressed my remarks in contemporary terms. I have heard in the last two days and in Question Time today that the future looks bright. Predicting to 1984 is an extremely hazardous business. There is no doubt that the American economy is in a phase of uplift at the moment. Commodity prices are rising right across the board but there is no doubt also that the American Administration will do the best it can in 1984 to maintain business activity and try to restrain interest rates. While this is occurring the Government should look at the question of the enormous surplus capacity in the United States and in the European Economic Community. The Government should look at the ability of those companies and corporations in those areas to produce at a more competitive price level than we can compete against. This is the salient point to Australia. We must make our industries competitive in terms of costs. Undoubtedly the greatest component of cost in the Australian manufacturing sector is wages. This brings me to the question of how stable and how far one can believe in the current Government's ability to restrain wages and how far one can believe in any way in this alleged social contract between the Austraian Council of Trade Unions and the current Government. It is the competitiveness and the productivity that will carry the nation through 1984. Failure to meet the criteria will inevitably plunge the Australian foreign investment scene into the sort of crisis which we had in 1974. We can all remember that. The banks of this nation ran to the Reserve Bank of Australia for vast amounts of money to bale them out. Interest rates in those areas went to over 25 per cent-sometimes to 100 per cent-just to fund the short term difficulties resulting from the huge imbalance in the balance of payments. These times will return without a doubt unless the Government is prepared to pay some attention to currency and the reserve accounts. As I said before, the Oppostion will be supporting the Supply Bills. We look forward to the delivery of an economic statement tomorrow which we hope will be in the best interests of Australia and not in the best interests of the left wing ideologists of the socialist parties. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(9.7) —I had intended to say a few words about how the Government is planning its economic strategy and also something about the Supply Bills, but firstly I want to reply to some of the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). He tried to claim that the accusations made against him regarding the dishonest behaviour of failing to announce the true extent of the deficit were not correct . In a very convoluted way he tried to tell us that we were going back on our policies, that our policies were not expansionary but contractionary, and that the savings that we are predicting will bring down the deficit from $9.6 billion to $8.5 billion would have occurred anyway. That is a contradiction to start with. On the one hand he is saying, 'Why are you not sticking to your policies and being expansionary?' And on the other hand he is saying, 'If you intend to reduce the deficit that is not a responsible action on your part'. That happens to be something that occurred as a result of his policies. Let me illustrate the distinction between an expansionary Budget and a contractionary Budget because obviously the honourable member is not aware of that distinction. He seems to think that if one spends more money that automatically it is an expansionary Budget and that if one restricts money automatically that is a contractionary Budget. That is dogmatic, simple monetarism of the most simplistic kind. The fact is that a government can have a big deficit Budget and be contractionary and, conversely, a government can have a balanced Budget and be expansionary. It depends on how a government is prepared to balance its revenue income and expenditure. This is the point which seems to totally escape the logic of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He seems to think that we will fall for the most simplistic economic theories that he proposes and which he seems incapable of getting out of in terms of his economic framework. It is very possible to have a deficit Budget that is contractionary if the spending in that Budget is such that it does not create employment and that it does not give money to people who spend that money in stimulating the economy; in other words, the persons who save that money, those who are already well off. The former Government increased expenditure in a desperate attempt to win an election after saying, of course, that it would have a very small deficit Budget . It increased the Budget deficit and threw money around and then tried to tell us that this was a clearly and genuinely expansionary Budget. Most of that money was thrown about in programs which did not benefit the poor people and the low income earners and which, in a majority of cases, did not benefit the middle class. That money in fact benefited its own friends, the wealthy who did not need it. In that context we had a situation in which more money was being spent but there was insufficient expansion of the economy to the point where we had negative growth-after a $4,000m deficit. So what is the former Treasurer talking about? Can he not understand that a Budget can in fact have a deficit and be contractionary in this way? The former Treasurer tried to tell us that we are contradicting our policies because we are in fact going to stick within reasonable limits in relation to the Budget deficit. But as I have already mentioned, the converse also applies. An expansionary Budget deficit can be responsible. This can be achieved if we cut out the fat, expenditure that does not benefit people, create jobs or stimulate the economy. If we replace those expenditures with spending which will create jobs and stimulate the economy and consumption we will then have expansion without going overboard in terms of our deficit Budget. So much for the Opposition's claim that in fact we are not going to have an expansionary Budget. Our Budget and our mini-Budget will be expansionary in their impact because they will be sensible and responsible. It is not a matter of throwing about money desperately at the last moment when it looks like we will lose an election. That is not what is on here. We will be adopting a responsible program that is expansionary, will create jobs and at the same time is responsible in terms of the deficit. The honourable member for Bennelong did not mention another matter which is crucial to our program. The honourable member tried to attack our program by using his totally discredited economic concepts. The honourable member did not mention our prices and incomes policy. This policy is designed in such a way that responsible expansion will give real growth to the economy rather than fuelling inflation. This was not even mentioned by the former Treasurer in his dishonest attempt to save himself from embarrassment by trying to tell us that he was not responsible for that figure. Let me say something about his comments on that figure. The honourable member tried to tell us that in fact the estimate was based on a growth rate of half a per cent and that the revised estimate now puts the growth rate at 2.7 per cent. Therefore, according to him, there would be a saving and the figure would go down to $8.5 billion. But this does not exonerate him at all because the fact is that he gave the Australian people the figure of $6 billion. He knew at the time that the figure would be much more than that. The fact that the growth rate has changed and that the estimate can be changed does not exonerate the former Treasurer from the fact that he misled the Australian people and misled the Australian Labor Party when it was framing its policies in relation to the Budget deficit. This man came into this House and tried to justify what is unjustifiable; namely, that he misled the Parliament and the people in relation to these matters. He continues to attempt to justify his actions by trying to feed to us, as though we are all fools, simplistic economic theory based on monetarist concepts. Let me say also that we believe in an expansionary program which is going to create jobs. Employment is our concern. Did the former Treasurer mention his concern about employment? Was there any concern? Has there ever been any concern from him about employment? During the time he was the Treasurer did he express any concern about employment? He got up to make speeches and we kept saying time after time that the monetarist strategy was not working, that is was creating more and more unemployment. What was he saying to this House? He was saying: 'Oh , no, it is not our intention to create unemployment'. But what was he saying privately to his advisers? He was saying privately-this is part of the monetarist theory-that unemployment had to rise and rise so that inflation could be brought under control. As a consequence of these policies, inflation was not brought under control and unemployment went through the roof. Now this honourable gentleman has the gall to try to tell us what are the proper prescriptions for a responsible economic strategy. Look, we are going to have a huge task in turning around the unemployment situation. Nobody denies that. We are going to have a huge task because of what was done by the previous Government. But we are determined to do it and we are going to need assistance from all sectors of this society. What sort of response have we received from the Opposition? Members of the Opposition have tried completely to throw cold water on the achievements of the National Economic Summit Conference. In fact they have tried to divide the community after we made this enormous effort to bring it together and tried to achieve some kind of harmony and growth in the economy. These are the sorts of tactics to which they have resorted; they are the sorts of tactics in which they believe. I put it to the House that our strategy can work. It is a coherent and responsible strategy, notwithstanding the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. In fact, there is a respected school of economic thought which has considered these questions in a clear way. I refer to the Keynesian expansionist model which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not seem to understand and fails to comprehend in any way. The honourable member seems to have simply studied one school of economic thought and assumed that that is the totality of what exists in terms of a macro economic strategy. In conclusion, let me say that we will not allow the debate to be turned in the way in which the honourable gentleman has tried to turn it; that is, away from the real issues, away from the strategy that we are determined to pursue in order to create jobs and increase the standards of living of the Australian people. If these attempts persist it will be to his discredit because his policies and the policies of the previous Government, which we are determined to redress, have brought us to the chaotic situation that we are in. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(9.19) —If I may borrow the current million dollar phrase, the Summit continues. Yesterday the Executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions met and made a few decisions that will ensure that, if nothing else, the National Economic Summit Conference is buried. Yesterday the union movement threw wide open whatever results might have come from the Economic Summit. That action brought to an abrupt and total end any semblance of consensus that there might have been. The decisions that were made yesterday by the ACTU executive threatens even the prices and incomes accord itself. That is bad enough, but what the ACTU is now proposing is even worse. Yet we are being told in this million dollar campaign that the Summit continues. Government policy has advocated for this year a three to four per cent rise in incomes with no catch-up, and full indexation next year . We see now that the ACTU's policy is for full indexation from March of this year and that an immediate start be made on the 9.1 per cent catch-up. If that does not signal the end of the Summit, I do not know what does. The difference between the Government's policy and the ACTU's stance is more than enough to sink any fragile chance there may have been of economic recovery in this country . At this stage it is probably a good thing to consider the scenarios that were presented by the Government at the Economic Summit. Such a consideration is very illuminating. The Government would have us believe that there is some broad agreement for the adoption of scenario A. As I have pointed out on earlier occasions, that scenario still leaves us with an unemployment rate of 9.7 per cent at the end of 1985-86. All the unemployed have to look forward to in this country under this Government in the life of this Parliament is an unemployment rate of 9.7 per cent. I ask honourable members to consider scenario B. It has been described as the ACTU's ambit claim. I rather suspect that what the ACTU decided yesterday at its executive meeting goes beyond even the projections contained in scenario B. It provides for a 9.9 per cent wages movement in the 1982-83 financial year; 17.2 per cent in 1983-84; 15.6 per cent in 1984-85; and 16.6 per cent in 1985-86. What is the Government's own projection for the inflation rate under the sorts of policies which the ACTU would seek to follow? The Government projects inflation rates under those policies of 13 per cent in 1983-84; 13.8 per cent in 1984-85; and 13.4 per cent in 1985-86. The interesting thing that has emerged from the Summit is that the figures that the Government itself has made available to the Australian public and this Parliament-although I point out that they were not given to this Parliament-provide a basis that enables us to make the sorts of projections that might otherwise not have been possible. The Government and the ACTU have condemned themselves out of their own mouths- from their own figures. I refer to the figures that have been released by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), which we can only assume have some credibility. The Government's position is in stark contrast to that of the Opposition, as is appropriate. It has been made clear in this House by Opposition spokesman over the course of the last few weeks that we much prefer the projections of scenario C. It would have allowed for inflation to fall to 2 per cent in 1984-85, 3.7 per cent in 1985-86, and for wage increases of 6 per cent and 8.2 per cent respectively in those years. It also projected an unemployment figure of 8.7 per cent by 1985-86, which is a somewhat better projection than that which will apply under the ACTU's demands as outlined in scenario B. This Government came to power on the basis of offering a better deal. It came to power on the basis of consultation, as opposed to what it referred to as the confrontationist approach taken by the previous Government. It came to power on a platform of consensus. The Government tried that approach. It would be hard to find anything that has been so conspicuously unsuccessful and that has collapsed so quickly as has the consensus that this Government offered the Australian nation. Mrs Kelly —We have only had 10 weeks. Give us a bit of time. You had seven years . Mr LUSHER —It has collapsed already. The point I make is that despite the consensus-as the Government called it at the Summit-that was achieved, despite the agreement and the communique, within a month of the Summit the ACTU has walked away from it and totally rejected the communique. Where does the Government go from here? I repeat that million dollar phrase, the Summit continues. It continues, I suggest, into oblivion. This morning we had the ignominious picture of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) trying hard to hold it all together. The reality is that he has no more control of, or influence over, the trade union movement than did the previous Government . In fact, if what emerged yesterday is any indication, he might have even less influence or control. Despite the different approach that he has been touting around the country over the last so many months, he has failed dismally. Out there in the real world-in the world of the Daily Mirror that the work force of this country reads-the dogs are barking that there will be a $30 wage rise this year. Where is the adherence to the Summit communique? Where is the consensus? I ask honourable members: Is the Summit continuing? It has been made fairly clear to all those who are prepared to see that there is a very deliberate and positive nexus between wage rises and economic growth. It was put more than clearly by many at the Economic Summit. Yet it has been thrown onto the rocks of oblivion by the ACTU. That will obviously have to be accepted by the Government. I want to draw attention to the economic survey of Australia by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which was released in January. It highlighted the part that unrealistic wage rises have played in contributing to Australia's present economic recession. The survey pointed out that in the period between the last war and the early 1970s, there were no significant changes in real wages relative to productivity. However, in 1974-75 there was a marked increase in real unit labour costs and a drop in the share of profits to gross domestic product from over 16 per cent in 1973 to a little more than 12 per cent 12 months later. In the words of the former Leader of the Opposition, the present Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden), ' blind Freddy' knows what happened to the economy over that period as a result of those sorts of effects. What does the ACTU's decision, signalling the collapse of the Summit, mean for economic management in this country? What I have already said to the House indicates what effect it will have on wages, the consumer price index and unemployment. I would like for a moment to consider what might happen to interest rates because interest rates are a fairly fundamental indicator in our economy. They affect not only business profitability and the capacity of business to create employment and to provide jobs but also the housing sector and a range of other areas. It is clear that experience in recent years has shown over and over again that inflationary growth of money leads to higher interest rates. That lesson has been learnt yet again in the past 18 months in the United States. Beginning in January 1982 there was a very sharp slow-down in money-growth that lasted until July. During that time interest rates in the United States fell very sharply. A similar thing happened in this country. There is no doubt that rapid money growth leads to higher interest rates. A loose monetary policy, with its inflationary implications, leads to higher interest rates whereas a tight monetary policy brings about lower interest rates. One of the things that concerns me is that not only is this going on in the United States but it is also going on around the world. A monetary explosion is taking place, which will provide an inflationary economic boost to activity this year and probably next year. I do not believe it is soundly based; it is based on an improper and unjustified injection of funds into world economies. We face a situation where the world's major economies will be expanding simultaneously just as over the last couple of years they have all been contracting simultaneously. Let us look at some of the money supply figures and, in the light of experience , try to understand what they might mean for the world economy and for us here in Australia. In the United States in the year ended March 1983 there was a 10.9 per cent growth in the money supply whereas in the 12-month period ended June 1982 it was only 5.3 per cent. In France in the year ended November 1982 it was 12 per cent as against 14 per cent in the year to June. It has been reduced in France as a result of the turnaround in the policies of the socialist Mitterrand Government. It realised, as this Government will be forced to realise, that wild and uncontrolled expansion of the economy, government sourced, is not the answer . In West Germany the growth in the money supply in the year ended February 1982 was 10 per cent whereas it was 4 per cent in the year to June 1982. In Italy it was 15.1 per cent as against 11 per cent; in Canada 11 per cent as against 2.5 per cent; and, even in Switzerland, it was 11 per cent as against 4.8 per cent. In Britain where, I suspect, a little pump priming might have been going on prior to the coming election, in the year to February 1983 growth in the money supply ran out to 11 per cent as compared with 6.5 per cent in the earlier period. This Government would lead Australia down the same track of loose, irresponsible monetary policy. How will interest rates be contained in such circumstances? How will inflation be controlled under a policy of that type? I point out to the House-I think it is a pretty fundamental statement-that as a result of action taken by the Australian Council of Trade Unions over the last couple of days and as a result of the collapse of just about everything in this Government's control since the Summit, it is clear beyond any shadow of a doubt that by the time we get to the next election whenever that might be held-I say that deliberately-things economically in this country will be bad. The previous Government will be blamed whether the next election is held two or three years down the track. Honourable members opposite will walk around blaming the previous Government. We need to be clear about a few things. What is happening in this economy is occurring under the direction of this Government. The 'accommodating' money supply policy that is being put in place now and which will lead to an expansion in inflation and an increase in interest rates in this country is the policy of the Hawke Government. It is the Keating Treasury line. It is not the line of the previous Government or the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) who is the previous Treasurer; it is the deliberate policy of this Government. If this country is in economic chaos two or three years down the track it will be as a result of the policies being put in place by this Government now-the sorts of policies that we will probably hear tomorrow night in the Government's economic statement. Who is in control of the economy now? Is it the Government? Mrs Kelly —We are. Mr LUSHER —I thank the honourable member for Canberra for her interjection. As a result of deliberative action by the Australian Council of Trade Unions yesterday concerning the wage push-wage explosion obviously will follow-it is clear that whoever is in control it is not the Government. But the Government is responsible. The Government has not delivered to the Australian people in line with the commitments and the promises that it made prior to 5 March. The Government will not be able to turn around and blame the Opposition for the economic chaos that will exist in 1985, 1986 or whenever it chooses to go to the polls. I notice that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) is making a brief return to the Opposition benches. I hope he will return here after the next election. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member will address his remarks through the Chair. Mr LUSHER —We are in the process of finding out what are the Government's priorities. Tomorrow night will probably show us in clearer terms what are the Government's priorities. It is those priorities that will determine the shape of this economy two or three years down the track. It is on those priorities and policies that this Government will have to stand up and be counted when it faces the people next time around. There is no continuation of policies. There is a clear-cut break in policy decision making and in priorities in this country. I concluded simply by saying that what this Government is putting into place and the way in which it is allowing itself to be pushed around by the trade union movement is no recipe for the recovery in this economy. It is no recipe for growth. It is, in fact, a recipe for disaster for which this Government and this Government alone, will stand accountable to the people the next time we go to the polls. Mr FREE(Macquarie)(9.39) —After that offering from the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) I want to inject a positive note into this debate and to talk about hope rather than about the failures of the previous Government. In passing , I want to say what a depressing and miserable offering it was from the honourable member for Hume. He attacked the achievements of the National Economic Summit Conference and the policies of the new Government. For heaven's sake, this Government has been in office for only 10 weeks yet the honourable member for Hume talked down the economy and talked down every positive measure that the new Government is adopting in its efforts to bring national recovery to this country. It is no wonder that an Opposition so decimated in its ranks and so bereft of talent should promote such a person as the honourable member for Hume to its front benches. I enter the debate this evening particularly to commend the new Government's determination to arrest the frightening growth in unemployment which has been particularly evident among young people. This new Government's commitment to provide jobs for young people, to youth training and community works programs deserves the full support of every Australian. As these new programs are being planned the Government will naturally be looking at experiences elsewhere in this field. In this regard I bring to the attention of the House the successful record of the California Conservation Corps in the United States of America, or the CCC, which was created in July 1976 for a trial period of five years. It was modelled on Roosevelt's Civilian Construction Corps of the 1930s, with one major exception in that it involves women as well as men. In 1980 its life was extended until 1985. It could well serve as a model for Australia. In 1981 the Corps employed an average of 1,758 people aged between 18 years and 23 years in natural resource conservation and emergency service work. New members attend three weeks of intensive training at a central academy and then go on to work at one of 24 centres throughout the state. Twenty-two of these are residential. A typical day for the Corps starts at 6 a.m., with members arriving at project sites by 8 a.m. They usually work a 40-hour week, although these hours are extended during flood and fire emergencies. Members are also required to take part in planned evening activities which include career development courses and literacy classes. The CCC undertakes projects that benefit the community and provide skills training for members. Typical projects under the program include developing parks, clearing trails and streams, restoring historic sites, protecting and improving wildlife habitats, constructing access areas for the disabled, fabricating and installing solar energy panels on State facilities and conducting energy conservation audits which result in the reduction of energy use at state facilities. Sponsors of projects, usually government agencies, provide technical supervision and materials for the projects while the CCC provides the labour. The term of service for members of the Corps is one year, although they are free to leave at any time. Members earn minimum wage rates and they pay $US35 a week for their keep. In 1981 the Corps carried out 3.2 million hours of public service conservation work in the state of California. Its activities in 1981 included the Medfly operations in which over 1,000 members assisted in combating outbreaks of Mediterranean fruit fly in the citrus orchards in that state. The activities also included fire fighting, in which CCC crews, under expert supervision, fought over 100 forest and grass fires. They also dealt with an oil spill clean- up and contributed 5,000 hours to contain the pollution of a number of waterways . Members of the Corps also participated in reafforestation work, planting in that year 3 million trees, mostly of commercial species, and growing seedlings in their own nurseries. In addition the Corps cleared streams, opened up spawning areas for fish, restored rearing ponds and renovated fish hatcheries. They also planted natural vegetation on stream banks to prevent soil erosion. Over 400,000 hours were devoted to the conservation and development of parks and recreational areas across the state. During 1981, the International Year of Disabled Persons, the CCC was involved in projects providing access to parks for persons with disabilities. Another activity in 1981 involved over 100,000 hours work on path and trail construction in national parks. Several environmental camping grounds, which afford campers a wilderness experience with little impact on the surrounding environment, were established by the Corps. In addition the Corps undertook a variety of soil and water conservation projects. It also runs an energy conservation program, providing specialised on-the-job training for its members. Through the program it designs, fabricates and installs solar water-heating systems. The Corps also carries out energy audits on state buildings to assess energy loss, and suggests remedial measures in those buildings. In the same year over half a million hours were devoted to construction and restoration work at historic sites and various local communities. A variety of search and rescue missions were also performed in co-operation with state and local authorities. As I mentioned earlier, in 1981 the participants averaged 1, 758. Of that number 31 per cent were women. Of the total, 149-almost 8 per cent- were disabled persons. Because 39 per cent of the enrolment in the scheme had not completed high school the Corps placed particular emphasis on evening activities to improve literacy, with considerable success. In addition, it has developed its own career program, emphasising career information and vocational guidance, a system to advise members of jobs as they become available and a system which provides liaison between Corps members and potential employers. Again the career program has met with considerable success. The California Conservation Corps clearly does not suit all young people and not all of its programs would suit Australian conditions. It is, however, a system which has operated successfully in California since 1976. The scheme has been extended by the Government of that state until 1985 because of that success . It has certainly done a great deal for the communities in that state. Most importantly, it has given many young people a start-people who otherwise would not have had a start. I commend the scheme as an example and as a possible model for the community works programs which I trust will be announced tomorrow evening. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 12 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 Dawkins) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 12 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 Dawkins) read a third time. Debate resumed from 11 May, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Deputy Leader of the Opposition)(9.50) —The Opposition supports this Bill which has a twofold purpose: Firstly, to remedy certain technical deficiencies in the original Act which has been identified by the Attorney-General's Department; and secondly, to take the opportunity, whilst that is being done, to include within the taxation base for the purposes of determining tax sharing and health grant entitlements, certain revenue measures which have added to the taxation collections of the Commonwealth which have been adopted by the Commonwealth since the original legislation was brought into being. It is my understanding that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has estimated that about $600m of income tax collections in 1981-82 might not be included under the existing definition, and in those circumstances, if there is any real risk of that occurring, there is a clear need for that possible deficiency to be put right. In speaking very briefly to this measure-because its being a non-contentious one, it is obviously in the interests of the business of the House that it be passed through the House speedily-I take the opportunity of saying that although it is a revenue sharing measure, it touches upon the new health arrangements that were brought into operation by the former Government in 1981. Those arrangements have been the subject of some considerable political debate and difference of opinion not only in this House but also around Australia. I take the opportunity of saying that the Liberal Party and the National Party for their part, believe very strongly that the changes that were made have brought to health administration around Australia a situation in which those who should be discharging responsibilities at a State level and discharging greater responsibilities in the health area, are in fact doing so. I believe that the policy that was brought in, and is given effect to by the principal Act now under discussion, has meant that State health administrations all around Australia have had to look to their real responsibilities. They have had to face the necessity for sensible rationalisation of health services, and this represents one of the more practical implementations of the policy of federalism , which is very much supported by the Opposition parties. As regards the new Government and the attitude of the Australian Labor Party, this is one of those areas in which no doubt there will be very significant differences of view and differences in debate if it becomes the intention and the practice of the new Labor Administration to try to dismantle those arrangements which were brought in. I think that they are more efficient arrangements than the ones that they replaced. I do not believe that all wisdom in health administration can ever reside in Canberra. I do not believe that we should have a situation in which the differing health needs of different parts of Australia should be divorced from the decision making processes scattered around the country. I believe that the Government of New South Wales is far better able to decide the health priorities of New South Wales, provided that it , in turn, does that in an appropriately decentralised fashion. Perhaps in saying that-as this is a Bill about revenue sharing and, therefore, about federalism-I should say that sometimes when we talk about decentralisation of government, we simply talk about transferring power from the central government to the State governments and we forget a very obvious fact of political life in Australia, whoever is in power at a State level, that some of the most centralist governments in Australia are State governments. One can find numerous examples all around Australia of where State governments, of both political persuasions, have failed over the years to decentralise administration and to decentralise services within their own States. I think that we should talk more about decentralisation of power so far as the whole of Australia is concerned, and not talk, in a rather naked term, of State rights versus federal rights. It is more the positive objective of achieving a greater decentralisation of power. People who have followed the education systems of the more populous States of Australia and those who have followed the health services of all of the States of Australia will know better than I just how centralised is the administration of many of those services in the different States of Australia. So, the Fraser Government, in giving effect to its policy of devolving power and decision making responsibility to a much greater extent in the health care area, was giving effect to this belief that there should be, as far as practicable, the maximum amount of decentralisation of power, not only as between the national government and State governments but also within individual State areas. As I said, this is a necessary machinery measure. In the interests of proper despatch of the business of the House, there is no point in my saying anything further about it. The Opposition will support the measure and will co- operate in providing a very speedy passage for it. 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 Dr Blewett) read a third time. Debate resumed from 11 May, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(9.58) —There are three elements in this Bill. The first one about which I shall speak is the change in the authority to revoke domiciliary nursing care benefit to allow non-medical delegates of the Director- General of the Department of Health to act on non-medical matters. That is quite a sensible provision. A lot of cases of revocation of domiciliary nursing care benefit rely on non-medical issues and currently a medical practitioner is required to sign those instruments, and it is perfectly sensible that non- medical people should be allowed to sign them in cases in which the medical involvement is not necessary. It will still be necessary in the case of medical matters for a medical practitioner to sign them, and the Opposition supports this change. The second area of change in the Bill is in the arrangements for the payments of nursing home benefits. With nursing home benefits-we are talking about the private nursing homes-we are talking about a system of price control that has gone on since 1973 and which is most unsatisfactory. I do not claim any particular merit on the part of either party in this. I think that the proposals were originally developed during the period of the McMahon Government; they were implemented originally by the Whitlam Government; they were continued during the period of the Fraser Government; and during my period as Minister for Health, I made it absolutely clear that the Government felt that they were most unsatisfactory and that something ought to be done about them. The provisions in this Bill merely mean that there is a proper legal basis to be provided for the administration of this unsatisfactory policy following court cases that have thrown the legal support for the existing methods of the administration of the policy into doubt. If we are looking at the provisions as an interim measure which will make this very bad system work until it is fixed up, the Opposition supports them. We note that the principles to be applied by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in the application of this policy are to be gazetted and will be subjected to disallowance by Parliament. Given the anti- private enterprise bias of this Government, we will be watching very closely to see what principles are gazetted and to see that they are reasonable, because obviously the nature of the principles to be used will be the critical factor in the application of these amendments or the amended Bill. I give notice to the Government that I will be watching that area very closely to ensure that it follows the principles that have generally been followed in the past, that the general intention as stated by the Minister in this Bill is followed and that the principles are not used as some means of putting a squeeze on the private nursing home proprietors. We also note the Minister's stated intention in the second reading speech to replace the deficit financing system of nursing homes-that is, for the voluntary nursing homes generally run by charitable organisations, and the nursing home benefits which are provided to the private for profit nursing homes-with program grants paid to the nursing homes. In other words, in the place of a deficit financing system for voluntary bodies, in the place of benefits provided on a patient basis to the private for profit nursing homes, we are told that in the future we will have a program grant system in which there will be a program grant paid to the nursing homes. Again, given the anti-private enterprise views of the Government, and its natural suspicion of private nursing homes-and also, incidentally, of private hospitals-we will be examining very closely the nature of this proposal when it is defined. But for the moment we are looking at something which is an interim measure to patch up a thoroughly bad system in the interim before something, we hope better, comes along. So the Opposition supports these proposals. In the third area covered by the Bill we come to an area of some difficulty. We are talking here about the pharmaceutical benefits declaration and changes in the pharmaceutical benefits declaration. The origin of the pharmaceutical benefits declaration was a concession to health care card holders and pensioners without pensioner health benefit cards. Shortly after I became Minister for Health, after discussions with the pharmaceutical profession, in particular with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, the Government introduced in the Budget of last year a $2 medicine scheme for people with health care cards and pensioners without PHB cards, which enabled them to get medicines at $2 instead of the standard $4 for general patients. A distinction had to be made between those persons entitled to free medicines on PHB cards and those persons entitled to the $2 concession. The first thing that we thought might occur was that the doctors might make this distinction for us because, after all, they put the numbers on the old PHB prescriptions and that was the obvious thing to do. But the trouble was that the doctors could not be required to do this. Indeed, doctors could not be required constitutionally to do anything. They could write football pool numbers on the prescription forms if they wished to and there was no redress on the part of the Government if they did. Also, there was another principle which was important- beneficiaries of a public benefit provided by the taxpayer ought to be asked to demonstrate their entitlement. In other words, if a person is to get a concession from the taxpayer of $4 or $2 each time that person fronted up for medicine at a concessional rate, that person ought to demonstrate his entitlement in the same way as that person would have to show his pension card if he wanted to get on a bus at a concession or free rate or get into a picture show more cheaply, or whatever. We introduced, therefore, this pharmaceutical benefits declaration. Thereafter ensued one of the most unhappy periods I had as Minister for Health. The administrative arrangements introduced for this procedure, although now a matter of history, are a matter of very painful history to me and the pharmaceutical profession. Mr Wells —You are not over that painful period yet. Mr CARLTON —No. It is a matter of considerable pain to me because the administrative arrangements made were appallingly clumsy. They were very bad and they caused great pain to pharmacists and obviously they caused me very great distress, and I acknowledge that. Of course the pharmacists, supported by the Opposition, made known their displeasure. I agreed with the pharmacists that the administrative arrangements were clumsily and unnecessarily complex. I agreed with that view from the first moment that I saw the form that was provided for them. I designed an interim form which is simpler than the first form and indicated that I would simplify it further. In my letter to the Pharmacy Guild of Australia before the election I summarised my commitment as follows: The Government-- That is, the Fraser Government- believes that anyone claiming a concession at the expense of the taxpayer should demonstrate their entitlement to that benefit in a manner that can be tested at law. It agrees that the mechanics of the patient declaration introduced on 1 January 1983 were unsatisfactory and has introduced a simplified interim declaration form that is currently being distributed. That was during the period of the election campaign and before. The letter continues: The Department of Health, under the Minister's close supervision, is examining options for reducing the pharmacist's workload. These include alternative systems submitted by the Guild, and the possible introduction of a plastic card 'Bankcard' type system (the most desired alternative) for implementation as soon as possible. The ultimate system will still require the beneficiary to substantiate the claim, something that did not occur under the previous system, but there is no reason why this cannot be accomplished in a simple manner. In addition the Government will review all other paperwork in the pharmacy to try to reduce and/or simplify it. Any changes would be discussed in advance with the profession. I went on to say: The Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal would of course be free to consider claims from pharmacists for additional remuneration based on additional work, in accordance with the existing terms of reference of the Tribunal. That was my commitment to the Pharmacy Guild of Australia before the election. What did the then Opposition, the Australian Labor Party, say? I quote from the policy speech of the now Prime Minister (Mr Hawke): One piece of wholly unnecessary red tape which we shall abolish immediately on coming to government is the pharmaceutical declaration form which has been imposed by the Fraser Government on pharmacists, pensioners and the poor. That is from the Hawke policy speech. Mr Goodluck —What did he do about it? Mr CARLTON —We will see. The present Minister for Health, then the shadow Minister, wrote a letter to the Pharmacy Guild stating: The pharmaceutical benefits declaration is an unnecessary bureaucratic imposition which will be scrapped by a Labor government. Any required details for identifications purposes will be completed by doctors when they fill out the prescription form. They are two clear-cut commitments-the first one from the now Prime Minister, the second one from the now Minister for Health. What has actually happened? In the first paragraph of the Mininster's second reading speech he claims to have met this firm and unequivocal election commitment. He said: 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. This is precisely what the Government has done; it has abolished the old declaration but replaced it with a new declaration. I quote again from the Minister's second reading speech: The new prescription form, will simplify-- Not abolish- the present complex declaration form in four ways. First, all the required information will be provided on one side of the form. That is precisely what I said I would do. He continued: There will be no requirements on the reverse side of the form. That is also what I said I would do. The Minister continued: 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. That is what I said was necessary and is what I said I would do. The Minister continued: Third, a single signature will indicate both receipt of the prescription and claim to free or concessional entitlement. That is what I said I would do assuming I could get legal support for that from a higher level than I had previously received from the Department of the Attorney-General advisers. The Minister went on: Fourth, doctors and, if need be, pharmacists, will be encouraged to assist beneficiaries in completing the form. Note that they will not be required to, in the terms of the Minister's commitment to the Pharmacy Guild, but they will be encouraged to. Here I am talking about the doctors. Of course, in the Minister's commitment to the Pharmacy Guild, the pharmacists were not mentioned. There was no need for them to be encouraged to do anything because the declaration would be abolished. The Minister continued with the critical statement: However, I would make it clear that responsibility for the accuracy of an entitlement claim rests, as it rightly should, with the beneficiary. This is a clear breach of an election undertaking. It is one, of course, that is impressed indelibly upon me because one of the main thrusts that this Minister made against me as the then Minister for Health during the election campaign was that I was doing things which he would stop when in Government. He got his Prime Minister to make a commitment in the policy speech of the Labor Party which said that this would be totally abolished. Not only has he failed to abolish it because we still have a declaration-simplified admittedly but along the lines that I was going to do it anyway-we certainly have a breach of the undertaking that doctors would do it, which was his clear undertaking to the pharmacists. To underline that I seek leave to table a photocopy of the current declaration comparing it with the new declaration. Leave granted. Mr CARLTON —There is also some doubt about the legal standing of the use of one signature for both the entitlement and the receipt. If one wants to put them on one side of the prescription form, and the beneficiary is made to sign once to indicate that he is entitled to, and has also received, the benefit a difficulty arises. That was pointed out to me by the Attorney-General's Department and was the basis of its objection to having a single signature. The Department said that two separate Acts were involved. The first was in claiming an entitlement and was done after providing the entitlement number and stating that one was the beneficiary or one's agent. The second, quite separate, act was that of receiving the medicine and stating that it had been received. If the beneficiary happened to be in the chemist shop at the time the medicine was passed over and signed saying that he had received it, at the same time indicating that he was entitled to the benefit, the single signature would fulfil both purposes. But I was advised that to have a form which catered only for that situation was a difficulty because there would be many situations where the person indicating the entitlement would not be present at the time of the receipt of the medicine. That presents a very difficult case. But, in response to representations from the Pharmacy Guild, I said that I would go to senior counsel to get an opinion as to whether it was possible to have a single signature on one side of the form in order to simplify it and that I would press that to the ultimate against the original advice. I would certainly have wanted to have done that in order to simplify the task for the pharmacist. The present Minister has accepted the single signature. I question whether senior counsel's advice was obtained as to its being legally satisfactory in supporting the claim for a concessional benefit. It is quite clear, on the evidence tabled, that the Minister has not met the election commitment that he made to the Pharmacy Guild, a commitment on which he fought a great deal of his election campaign. Members of his party in all marginal seats supported actions by pharmacists to make things uncomfortable for the then Government. That election commitment has not been met. All honourable members in this House who defeated Liberal members-that was part of the process of their defeat-bear a responsibility. Mr Wells —It certainly was. Mr CARLTON —The honourable member for Petrie, who was opposed in the election by somebody who was a professional pharmacist, has very good reason to remember that. May it be imprinted on his brain also that one of the reasons that he managed to get into this House was on a false commitment that has been dishonoured by this Minister and this Government. It is one of the-- Mr Hand —You ought to talk about telling a lie. You never stop. What are you talking about. Mr CARLTON —You know nothing about me. Mr Hand —I am talking to him over there. I am not talking to you. Mr CARLTON —I note that. So honourable members will understand why I feel very strongly about this. I am very surprised indeed that the present Minister is party to this act of deception, because it is not only a breach of a commitment but also a wrapping up of the breach in a way which suggests that it is not a breach. In fact, the very words of the second reading speech are misleading. The Minister said: This Bill will, among other things, honour an important election commitment . . . the Government is taking one of the first opportunities in the new Parliament to honour its election pledge. All I say is that if this is honour in the lexicon of this Government then honour to it is dishonour. We will be very careful about the small print in anything that it does in the future. It is profoundly disappointing. I would have expected more from this Minister than that. I move as an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill- That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: whilst not opposing the Bill, the House notes the failure of the Government to fulfill the Prime Minister's policy speech commitment to abolish the Pharmaceutical Benefits Declaration. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Is the amendment seconded? Dr Harry Edwards —I second the amendment. Mrs CHILD(Henty)(10.18) —Along with all pharmacists in Australia I welcome the announcement by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) that the complex patient declaration for pharmaceutical benefits is to be abolished. I congratulate the Minister on the speed with which he has moved to redeem the promise that the Australian Labor Party gave before the last election. The amendment made by the National Health Amendment Bill honours a commitment made to pensioners, the unemployed and pharmacists. It will become effective during the sitting-the earliest possible time for this to happen. When the previous Minister for Health introduced the new declaration form he explained the introduction by saying that it was necessary to make sure no fraud was perpetrated in the pharmaceutical scheme. He said this despite the fact that there was no evidence of any substantial fraud by either the patients or pharmacists associated with the scheme. The previous Minister's action was a knee-jerk reaction because he had been left to carry the can for the total neglect by previous health Ministers with regard to medical benefits fraud. That is another story. The pharmaceutical scheme, as the previous Minister well knows, is completely separate and functions in a way different from the medical benefits scheme. The introduction of the more complex patient declaration aroused understandable anger among professional and welfare agencies and pharmacists and their staffs. The declaration was complicated to complete and upset many elderly and migrant patients who had trouble reading it and even more trouble completing it. It carried a warning of a $1,000 fine for false information, which further frightened those unsure of the details required. Responsibility for explaining the declaration fell on the pharmacists or their staff and it was a pretty time consuming practice for them. In my electorate-and I am sure in many electorates throughout Australia-I received many complaints from bewildered patients and angry pharmacists. The pharmacists said that they took a lot of extra time helping patients and so did their staff. They did not mind the time so much, although they believed the form was unnecessary; they wanted to help their clients but what they did mind was soothing nervous people and losing counter sales as they were taking up so much of their time on what should have been a routine affair. I visited many of the pharmacists in my electorate and I put out a petition requesting the then Government, in the interests of the frail, elderly and less articulate groups, to withdraw the declaration. I was amazed at the speed with which literally hundreds of signatures were collected. Most pharmacists requested multiple copies of the petition, which were then presented to the Parliament. The Pharmacy Guild of Australia wanted the form abolished and was very determined about it. The declaration on the back of the prescription form was impractical, intimidating and confusing. Now that the Minister has abolished that form, the only entitlement information required will be on the front of the new prescription form to allow the pharmacists to determine whether the patient should pay the $2 charge as a health care card or pharmaceutical benefits concession card holder or receive the medication free as a pensioner health benefits card holder. Prior to the Liberal Government's bureaucratic imposition of the declaration on 1 January 1983, all entitlement information was filled in by the doctor. This Government hopes that all doctors will resume this role and in so doing help to allay the anxiety that the declaration engendered. Where they do not do so the pharmacist will be able to complete it. Many doctors and pharmacists have assured the Minister that they are willing to help in this way and the Government believes that the full support of pharmacists and doctors will be critical to the success of the new scheme. The introduction of the declaration on 1 January was both time consuming and wasteful. I am told that fairly early on, before the new prescription forms were available, every pharmacist had to be issued with a new stamp. That must have cost quite an amount of money. I do not know whether the story is true but it goes that the stamp was so big that it did not fit any of the available stamp pads, so stamp pads had to be made also. This is a promise that was made by the Australian Labor Party in opposition. It is redeemed by Labor at the earliest possible moment in government. That is a far cry from the record of the previous Government whose seven years in office was scattered with broken promises. I congratulate the Minister on the speed with which he has moved to redeem this promise. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(10.23) —It is moving to hear the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) emerge from his time as Minister for Health to tell us of the pain he experienced during that period. To see him emerging from his finest hour professing such pain is indeed a moving experience. He has at least some compensation in knowing that he spread it around the rest of Australia, among pharmacists, pensioners and other beneficiaries. One of the greatest administrative blunders of the previous Government was the introduction, late in the life of that Government, of a pensioner and concessional beneficary declaration which had to be signed by those people when obtaining pharmaceuticals. It was such a complex form that merely to fill it in required almost the powers of endurance of someone who did not need pharmaceutials in the first place. Moreover, the form promised draconian penalties for those who filled it out falsely. This raised considerable fear in the minds of many elderly people. For example, I am aware of numerous cases of elderly ladies in my electorate, who have never done anything illegal in their lives, fearing that they would be comitting a criminal act if they happened to fill the form in wrongly. One of my elderly constituents whom I happened to visit while she was crocheting a doily, told me in all seriousness that she feared she would go to gaol because she thought she had filled in the form incorrectly. Such incidents demonstrate what a travesty was this system that we are now to abolish. Quite apart from that, it was an insult to the honest citizens whose integrity was impugned by these forms. Of course, in practice many people were unable or unwilling to fill in the forms themselves. Their family pharmacist had to do it for them. Prior to the election, I was approached by many of my local pharmacists and one of their chief concerns was the patient declaration. Many hours of their working lives were consumed by this fruitless piece of red tape. One pharmacist in particular, who had a large dispensing practice, told me that nearly one quarter of his time was spent helping his clients with their forms and allaying their fears about them. The abolition of the penioner and concessional beneficiary declaration will be the removal of a insult and an inconvenience. I recommend the measure to honourable members. The honourable member for Mackellar, in his apology for what he did, set out to explain to us the problem which he thought he faced in drawing up an appropriate form. He told us that a distinction had to be drawn between those people who were entitled to a concessional prescription and those who were not. He felt that either the doctors could make the distinction between those who were so entitled or the beneficiaries could be made to demonstrate their entitlement themselves. He said that he did not think that doctors would be suitable people to do this by virtue of the fact that there was not legal compulsion. He even suggested that the doctors could write the numbers of football doubles on prescription forms and there would be no legal redress. This whole attitude, this whole dilemma which he set himself, indicates the siege mentality which he had. He never thought of the possibility of co- operation. All he thought of was compulsion. He was concerned to try to force these people to behave in a certain way when, with equal ease, he could have asked for co-operation. He was not dealing with a renegade element. He was dealing with responsible members of the Australian community. Having set himself this unreal dilemma, he then went on to explain its necessity. He said the necessity was to prevent pensioners from defrauding the Australian revenue. The possibility of the pensioners that I know in my electorate setting out to do such a thing would occur only to someone who had a siege mentality. It would occur only to an organisation as heartless as the previous Fraser Government. The honourable member then set out to-- Mr Carlton —Why have you kept the declaration in the new arrangements? Mr WELLS —I am coming to that. The honourable member for Mackellar will be satisfied in due course. His next idea to provide a means of enforcing this provision was to tell the pharmacists, whose time was wasted dealing with this matter, that they would be able to claim remuneration for the extra work involved. In his second infamous letter to the pharmacists, which has become known in the annals of medical history as the 'Carltonian rescript' he said that pharmacists could claim against the Remuneration Tribunal for the extra work involved. The honourable member for Mackellar and the Government with which he worked had no better way of using the skills of professionals in Australia than turning pharmacists into clerks. It would have been much better to proceed on a basis of trust and confidence, as the new Bill does. There is a very great difference- this is the answer to the question just raised by the honourable member for Mackellar-between writing on the bottom of a form that there is a penalty of $1, 000 or six months in gaol-- Mr Carlton —Which I took off the earlier form, and I agreed it was stupid. Mr WELLS —It was on the first form and the second form stated that severe penalties or something like that would follow. What will be written on the bottom of this form will be that the beneficiary will be responsible for the accuracy of the form, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to write on a form and not something which frightens old aged pensioners. Mr Carlton —I took the frightening thing off. Mr WELLS —The honourable member may have taken the frightening thing off but he allowed it to go on in the first place and he put another silly thing on. He has to admit that the second thing that he put on was silly also. There is a world of difference between saying that and writing on the bottom of a form that a beneficiary is responsible for its accuracy. There is also a world of difference between a form of such complexity that an aged person is troubled by it and sees it as a difficult task and a form of the simplicity of that which has been drawn up by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and which was tabled just recently. The new form and the new procedure alleviate the objections which pharmacists and pensioners raised with me. It is a new system, it is a healthier system and I commend it to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Goodluck) adjourned. Aboriginal Welfare-Bankstown Airport-Australian Dried Fruit Industry-Rozelle Community Youth Support Scheme-Tasmania-Bovine Tuberculosis and Brucellosis-Wine and Brandy Industry Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(10.30) —I venture to say that among all the challenging problems confronting this nation today one that must rate highly is the question of affording the Aboriginal people of Australia common justice. Therefore it is terribly essential that there be a clear understanding of the nature of the problem within our society based on the facts of the matter. Whilst a referendum of yesteryear gained the unquestionable support of the Australian community for Federal Government intervention in this matter, it is equally true to say that today some Australians are concerned at what they believe to be rather excessive expenditure for that purpose from the revenue. To facilitate the discharge of the Federal Parliament's responsibility to the Aboriginal people it is essential that the public be confident about the propriety of the measures that are introduced. Therefore, I think it is rather regrettable that a number of people- perhaps many people-who are well motivated unfortunately display an irresponsibility, perhaps a cavalier attitude, to the preciseness of the expositioin they put before this Parliament. I am concerned about a recent situation in which criticism was directed against the Queensland Government. I hasten to say that a situation could well exist where criticism could be properly directed towards that Government's activities in this field, but that is quite aside from what I want to say now. In recent times a report was promoted-it was given wide publicity by the media-which totally misrepresented the state of the situation in Queensland. I think it is unfortunate that it should be so because people naturally notice headlines and form opinions. As a consequence the problems confronting the Government are compounded because of attitudes that become deeply entrenched. The matter that concerns me particularly relates to a conclusion about Lockhart River Mission. A figure as to the fatality rate there was given. The fatality rate was 300 times that which prevails in Queensland as a whole. The astonishing thing about that conclusion is that it was based on five deaths among the Aboriginal community over a period of five years. Those deaths were as follows: One at the age of 58 years as a result of chronic obstructive airway disease; one at 82 years as a result of pneumonia; one at 77 years as a result of cardiac failure and pneumonia; one at 65 years due to respiratory arrest; and, to give the conclusion some respectability, there was an instance of the death of a one- day old child due to streptococcal pneumonia. Any reasonable person will recognise that that, inescapably, is a misleading proposition. I think I can most effectively put my point if I quote directly from a statement relating to an article entitled 'Mortality Rates in 14 Qld Aboriginal Communities' which appeared in the Medical Journal of Australia on 16 April 1983 . The article was titled as emanating from the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine in the University of Queensland. The acting head of that Department, Professor F. D. Schofield, commented as follows: 'It has now become evident that in deriving the figures in the article and in drawing conclusions, the authors' mathematics and their epidemiological understanding were both at fault. It is unfortunate that none of the authors has had epidemiological or medical training or experience and that no staff member of the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine who possesses these attributes was asked to comment on the article until after its publication. Two of the authors of the paper are not members of the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, despite the name of the Department appearing on the front page of the article. One of the authors, a Statistician in the Department, gave general advice on standardization, but took no part in handling the data or in drawing conclusions from them, and did not sign the article. In the paper, the crude death rate for 'infections' in Queensland in 1978 was wrongly calculated and was too small by a factor of ten. Thus the figure for ' relative risk' is grossly erroneous-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(10.35) —This evening I wish to speak briefly on the present activities and proposed activities at Bankstown Airport consequential upon the need to lighten the air traffic load at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport as a result of the Government's decision to construct a new international airport for Sydney. I do so because I am very concerned with the safety and wellbeing of the 6,000 people who live within a short distance of the Bankstown Airport. The Bankstown Airport provisional master plan, which was prepared by the Commonwealth Department of Aviation in late 1982, proposes a substantial expansion of facilities and aircraft movements at Bankstown Airport. It is proposed that the airport be extensively upgraded to cater not only for more air traffic-an increase of up to 60 per cent-but also for larger and heavier aircraft. Whilst the decision of the present Government to construct a new international airport away from the Sydney metropolitan area is to be applauded, the reorganisation of air traffic which will be necessary at Kingsford-Smith Airport in the period prior to the provision of the new international airport will mean that more and more air traffic will need to be diverted to other airports such as Bankstown. Bankstown Airport is currently the main facility for light aircraft maintenance, flying training, charter operations, private flying and helicopter operations in New South Wales. The airport caters for 60 per cent of all general aviation movements in the Sydney region. The airport has experienced considerable growth in air traffic in recent years. For instance, in 1970 aircraft movements totalled 217,000. This figure grew to 308,000 in 1976 and 336 ,000 in 1981. I would point out that most of these movements were associated with flying training. The former Minister for Aviation, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife), stated in a Press release in October 1982 that Bankstown Airport was unsuitable for commuter services because many passengers change aircraft at Kingsford-Smith to travel elsewhere. Apart from this statement there would appear to have been little consideration given to the long term future of Bankstown Airport. This is not good enough for the residents in my electorate and those in the neighbouring electorate of Blaxland who are enduring the social and physical disturbance of having an airport near their homes. The dangers to those residents from aircraft mishaps and accidents, I believe, is very great indeed, even greater than at Kingsford-Smith Airport, because of the lack of professional flying experience of many of the operators and learners taking off and landing at Bankstown Airport. As a matter of urgency I therefore call on the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) to reject the proposals contained in the Department's provisional master plan for Bankstown Airport which provide for an increase in traffic movements and instead investigate the possibility of transferring non-essential traffic, such as flying training activities, to other airports at Schofields and Pitt Town, with a preference being shown for Schofields because of the facilities and traffic capacity at that airport. On a longer term basis I would like to see Bankstown Airport phased out completely as the new international airport for Sydney comes on stream. This would increase the capacity of Kingsford-Smith Airport for general aviation traffic. Because of the increasing residential activity in the vicinity of Bankstown Airport I believe action is necessary now to relieve the airport of any increase in traffic movements. Mr FISHER(Mallee)(10.39) —Prior to the March election the Australian dried fruit industry was engaged in negotiations with the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Department of Primary Industry in efforts to obtain Reserve Bank finance for the unsold stocks of sultanas from the 1982 season. These arrangements were being undertaken as a means of alleviating the serious cash flow difficulties of growers caused by low returns and this unsold stock. Such an arrangement was undoubtedly a complex issue both financially and legally. Despite the good intentions of the Department of Primary Industry, the then Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon), and the endeavours of delegates of the Australian Dried Fruits Association and members of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation, including representations from myself, the necessary legal documentation had not been satisfactorily completed before 5 March 1983. It is now 2 1/2 months since the election and I call on the Federal Government through the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to meet a commitment made to the industry during the election campaign that the Australian Labor Party would honour this request and guarantee this loan application to the Reserve Bank of Australia. A recent Countrywide program on the Australia Broadcasting Commission left the impression that this year there would be a vintage season for the dried fruit industry and that whilst other rural regions of Australia were beset with the difficulties of drought the Sunraysia, Robinvale, Mid Murray and other Australian regions producing dried fruit, would be flush with the incomes from a large crop. This was certainly not the case. It was a season of average to good production but two factors created enormous problems for producers. The first was consistent unseasonal rainfall which affected the quality of the crop and harvesting difficulties associated with these climatic conditions. The second was the overhang of unsold fruit from the previous season in Australia resulting from a world surplus of stocks which created extreme problems. This second factor particularly has resulted from the entry of Greece into the European Economic Community, followed by the implementation of a system of production aids in August 1981. This regime consists of a subsidy for storage, compensation for losses and subsidised sales. Existing low prices on world markets and for imports into the EEC meant that most of the 1981 Greek crop was placed in storage and much of it subsequently used for distillation. More importantly, however, this has depressed prices for dried fruit and increased competition on Third World markets. I appreciate the fact that the Minister for Primary Industry has come into the House. I know that he understands these factors which impact so heavily on the Australian industry. I also know that he appreciates the importance of this industry to the viability and stability of communities in the Murray Valley region. I know he recognises the seriousness of the social and economic problems of individual growers. I acknowledge that in the past weeks there has been a slight firming of prices and Australia with its high quality fruit has obtained additional export sales. World supply and demand are now in better balance only because production in the United States of America, Iran and Afghanistan have fallen below earlier estimates. However, prices received by the growers are still inadequate and totally unsatisfactory in terms of production costs. I therefore ask the Minister for Primary Industry urgently to obtain approval for this application for Reserve Bank finance and to take the necessary steps to ensure that growers' obtain cash requirements and are assisted in this vital area. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(10.43) —I would like to take up the case of the Rise and Shine Rozelle Community Youth Support Scheme in my electorate. This centre is highly regarded in our local community and I believe that the value of the work it does with unemployed young people cannot be overestimated. If we are to avoid the high social costs associated with the unemployed which have arisen as a result of the policies of the previous Government-a huge increase in the number of unemployed took place under the previous Government-then programs like the Community Youth Support Scheme will require additional assistance. The overall CYSS Budget was kept at the same level for 16 months prior to March 1982 and then was given a 9.2 per cent increase to June 1982. The CYSS 1982-83 budget saw only a 6.9 per cent rise in funds to projects, taking into account the increase of 19 new projects. This means that in 1980-81 to 1982-83 in real terms projects received less than they were funded for in the previous year. The Rise and Shine CYSS is on a grant level of $74,000 this year which is a 9 per cent increase over the previous grant. Before we even consider the financial pressures of the general inflationary increase and a wage bill increase of $3, 500 for the two full time and one half time project officers plus $6,500 for holiday relief staff, it is necessary to consider that over the past year there has been an increase of 40 per cent in the number of young people participating in Rise and Shine activities. This has obviously led to a forced increase in spending. Despite careful budgeting by this group it estimates that by November this year it will have overrun its current grant of $74,000 by between $12,500 and $13,000 which would necessitate closure some time in September. The members of the group have already cut tutorials to 15 hours a week and cut publicity and materials expenditure by half. Staff have also agreed not to take back pay entitlements until money is received. The management committee is looking at a range of options for raising money, such as reapproaching businesses, service clubs and the community in general, and by sales of handicrafts and regular benefit concerts. However, any money raised privately by Rise and Shine should be available to provide extra benefits and services to the participants and not be earmarked to pay for the basic day-to-day expenses of the scheme. This is the responsibility of government. It is obvious that the desperate situation of Rise and Shine has come about, not because of profligate spending or mismanagement but because of the total inadequacy of the grant of $74,000 for running this scheme at any acceptable level. The present necessity for scrimping and saving to ensure that they are able to meet their running costs has denied them the flexibility that the CYSS guidelines, introduced in March 1982, intended. I would ask the Government to look carefully at the financial plight of the Rise and Shine CYSS in particular, and CYSS schemes in general, with a view to alleviating this plight. I would like to stress once again that it is vital that we should help these unemployed young people who are already either alienated from the mainstream of Australian life or are in danger of becoming so if they feel that their needs have been ignored. What better way of assisting them than by assisting the Community Youth Support Scheme projects which have already proved their value in this area. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.47) —I do not want to resurrect the problems of Tasmania again in relation to the dam. However, I intend to do so. I do not want to drop a bucket tonight on the Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania because he is quite a decent fellow. He was respected but he is beginning to lose a little bit of face because he is starting to try to walk on both sides. He is trying to support the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Incidentally, the five Tasmanian members of this place have been unable to have an audience with the Prime Minister to give him their side of the story in relation to Tasmania. I think that an article which appeared in today's Hobart Mercury indicates the point I want to make. The article is headed: 'ALP members given cold treatment'. Then, on the other hand, there are facts about the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) and what he said about Tasmania in his very smart way, if I may say so. It is not like the Minister to be smart. There is everything about the Minister, about the 16 industries and all the other things that he is going to do for Tasmania. The article carries two photographs, one of which shows a slogan with the words 'Dam Bob Hawke' and another a slogan with the words 'Bob Brown, stay out of our town you and your wilderness clowns'. All we want in Tasmania is to be left alone. I mentioned Ken Wriedt, the Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania. I will not drop a bucket over him. I will not say anything about him that I would not say to his face, even though he is six inches taller than I am. But that is not a display of fortitude on my part. Ken Wriedt stood against my esteemed friend, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), and lost. He lost because I think the people of Tasmania thought that when it gets a bit rough he does not have the tenacity to go in. He did not stand against me, even though he lives in the electorate of Franklin. If he had, the result would have been a foregone conclusion, but never mind, I put that aside. The people of Tasmania are starting to ask questions about Ken Wriedt. I feel very sorry because he is losing all the esteem in which he was held. He is a very good type of fellow. He is a good family man and so on. But we come to the critical point in that people are starting to ask questions about him. They are starting to say that he plays on two sides of the fence. However, he can play only on one side. He was a member of the Tasmanian Parliament which said that we should construct the dam in Tasmania, that we should look to hydro as our future power, and that we should have a works program in which men are employed. He was part of the Parliament that decided that. Yet, all of a sudden he feels it is necessary to side with Bob Hawke who has the albatross around his neck. He is like Dorian Gray. That is starting to show every day. He has the scar of the dam and he will have other scars before he is finished. This indicates what the people of Queenstown-the noddy doddies as the Minister called them, the ordinary working people that he is supposed to support-think of him. He can offer them all the other things that he suggested but what will he do to them in the meantime? Where will they get their livelihood? How will they support their families? The Minister talks about the poor; these people are the poor at the moment because they do not know what they will do in the future. Mr Wriedt had better be very careful because the people of Tasmania are funny people. I beat honourable members opposite to the draw that time; they have called them that before. We are funny. We remember. The people of Tasmania stick with those who stick with them, but if people start to side against them, those people are gone. I am afraid that Ken Wriedt is gone. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(10.51) —The Australian cattle herd is now numbered at about 23 million. Bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis have been the scourge of the Australian cattle industry since the last century. Efforts to control tuberculosis were introduced in the 19th century, but it was not until early this century that specific investigations into brucellosis were commenced in Australia. Early control and eradication efforts for these two diseases were based on the need to protect human health. Tuberculosis eradication programs commenced in the late 1950s. Official testing was concentrated in dairying areas . The program was extended to beef areas as eradication of the disease in dairying areas progressed. Schemes for the control of brucellosis were introduced in most States in the 1930s. In 1966 the Australian Agricultural Council made a recommendation to the then Federal Government that it adopt a national campaign to eradicate brucellosis and tuberculosis. The program was considered urgent and necessary because of the migration of cattle between the States and the very real prospects of overseas importers rejecting Australian beef and dairy products if evidence of brucellosis or tuberculosis was detected in these products. The Federal Government formally introduced a brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign in 1970-a program to eradicate both diseases by 1992. Under the Labor Government in 1973 the eradication campaign was expanded. Since that time, the campaign has been supported by successive governments and two Industries Assistance Commission inquiries. The brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign is funded jointly by the Federal Government and cattle producers. Producers pay a $4 a head levy on cattle sold for slaughter and meet the on-farm costs of testing. Since 1970 over $280m has been spent by the cattle industry and $120m has been spent by government in the eradication campaign. The effect of the campaign to date is that the diseases have been reduced to extremely low levels. The industry is committed to total eradication of the diseases. However, major problems exist across northern Australia, particularly in the Gulf and Peninsula, because of the rugged terrain, hundreds of thousands of feral cattle and buffalo, and the high cost to individual properties participating in the campaign. Our great trading partners-the United States, Canada and New Zealand-have introduced similar eradication campaigns. It should be noted that the total cost of the eradication campaign in these countries is met by their respective governments. The United States and Canadian beef markets accounted for 59.6 per cent of Australian beef exports in 1982-worth some $620m. Brucellosis and tuberculosis can be communicated in meat exports. Clearly, the United States and Canada will not jeopardise the effectiveness of their eradication programs by continuing to import beef from countries where both these diseases exist. Therefore, it is essential that Australia complete its eradication campaign successfully. The Hawke Government is committed to the successful completion of the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign. This Government is aware of the special problems and high costs involved in completing the final stages of the eradication campaign in northern Australia. The Government is determined that Australia's export market to the United States and Canada will not be jeopardised by the presence of these diseases. The Australian Agricultural Council has endorsed a proposal seeking additional Federal assistance to ensure that the eradication campaign is not delayed. The Hawke Government is currently examining ways in which compensation and other additional funds can be found to support future eradication campaign operations. Furthermore, all recommendations made by the Australian Agricultural Council will be considered in the context of the 1983-84 Budget. The cattle industry appreciates the disastrous economic situation inherited by the Hawke Government. The industry is aware that the Hawke Government, an authentic Australian Government, has been charged with the responsibility of salvaging the cattle industry and protecting it. For the first time in seven years the Australian cattle industry has a national government which is aware of the severe difficulties facing the industry. Cattlemen know that the Hawke Government will never abandon their industry. This Government is committed to the growth of the cattle industry and to the welfare of its producers. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.56) —I rise during this adjournment debate because of two superficially reasonable statements that have come from the Government in the past two weeks. The first of them came only yesterday from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) when he addressed the National Farmers Federation. He said that the rural community, like all other parts of the Australian community, must accept its share of fiscal restraint. That is not unreasonable. But the second statement was made during the election campaign when the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) gave an assurance in an election promise that no tax on the wine industry would be levied during the term of this Government. In an effort to get some reassurance about that promise, I wrote to the Minister for Primary Industry on 2 May. I respect the fact that the Minister for Primary Industry has been overseas, but I have yet to have that promise underscored by him. As a result of his hesitation on that point, rumour is currently running in my electorate that tomorrow night's economic statement could well contain an impost on wine and brandy. I want to make two points. The first concerns the mistaken presumption we have that an impost on wine and brandy would be a tax on a rich man's beverage. The fact is that these industries are price elastic and work done by Tolakis, Reithmuller and Watts in a report to the Australian Agricultural Economics Society in New Zealand in 1981 indicated that an increase in shelf price of 15 per cent in either of these commodities would result in a fall in sales of 20 per cent. Such a fall would mean that an additional 80,000 tonnes of grapes would be left hanging in the South Australian grape growing areas. Mr Braithwaite —It would be the same with brandy. Mr ANDREW —Precisely. This impost would not, in fact, be borne by the people who buy the beverage but by the growers who could no longer sell that volume of product. This impost will be borne by the growers who have already borne the reality of drought, fire and flood, particularly in the Barossa Valley. That is simply not reasonable. These growers, after all, are committed to a long term industry. They plant vines that will not be bearing for seven years, and lay down spirits that will take eight or 10 years to reach maturation. Any impost in these areas must be exercised both gradually and reasonably. The second myth that I want to lay to rest is that the industry is not already taxed. In 1979-80 Federal and State taxes levied against the wine industry totalled $22.24m. The tax on brandy totalled $53.1m. The total impost on these two industries was $75m. In 1981-82 this had risen to $89m. If the Government wishes to talk about tax equity and if people wish to talk about the beer industry we might consider that if an excise of so many dollars per litre of alcohol were applied equally to the beer industry as that which applies to the whisky industry we would generate $730m in revenue. If a sales tax were applied to the wine industry we would generate only $20m in revenue. In the last address I gave in this House, I was reported in the Press as having located some point in my electorate for a particular Government action 200 miles north-west of Adelaide. In fact, that would be in the middle of Spencer Gulf. The 90 degree error that was reported by the Press and was not a part of my speech pales into insignificance beside the 180-degree error that this Government will make if it does an about-face on the wine and brandy industries. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948, and for related purposes. Mr Keating to present a Bill for an Act to establish an Economic Planning Advisory Council. Mr Willis to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the creation of additional employment throughout Australia. The following paper was presented: Mr Carlton-Pharmaceutical benefits declarations-Copy of existing and proposed forms. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 36 Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) What projects have been awarded to Australian contractors as a result of the activities of the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation for each of the years since it was established. (2) What is the value of each project. (3) What are the names of the contractors for each project. (4) What losses have been incurred by the Corporation in each of the years it has operated. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1978-79 (1), (2) and (3) Nil (4) $63,577 1979-80 (1) Nanshan Livestock Development Project-China (2) $A767,000 (3) Agricultural Consultants Incorporated Ltd (4) $195,398 1980-81 (1), (2) and (3) Nil (4) $A200,971 1981-82 (1) Provision of Bonding Facility for Housing Development Project in Singapore (2) $A220 million (3) White Industries (1) Provision of Medical Service for the Ministry of Health Qatar (stage 1 and 2) (2) $A1.84 million (3) McLachlan Group (1) Provision of technical experts to upgrade the Meteorology and Environmental Protection Administration of Saudi Arabia (2) $A11 million (3) Meldrum Burrows (1) Agricultural Development Project-Qatar (2) $A40 million (3) Huon Hassall and Associates (4) Losses for the year $227,801 1982-83 No projects to date. Mr Beazley —On 11 May 1983 (Hansard, page 415) Mr Spender asked me, in my capacity as Minister for Aviation, the following question without notice: 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? In my reply I indicated that I would provide further information. That information is as follows: At the peak of activity in 1981 before the current downturn in airline activity and, before the recent introduction of revised traffic management procedures, it was estimated that delays to the Airlines and commuters at Sydney was costing them in the order of $7 million annually in direct operating costs. The Airlines have estimated that they suffered a further $5 million loss based on direct operating costs due to disruption of their networks. These are the latest figures available. For the given reasons the amounts would currently be lower in real terms. Mr John Brown —On 4 May 1983 (Hansard, page 161) the honourable member for Grayndler asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the following question without notice: My question is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services and Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I draw his attention to a report of the Auditor-General and an article which appeared in today's Australian to the effect that the Australian Industry Development Corportion, which was established to provide funds to encourage greater Australian ownership of innovative companies, had spent $360 000 to purchase a Sydney apartment to be used by its executives and directors for business talks, official entertainment and living accommodation. I ask the Minister: Where is the apartment located? What is the annual upkeep cost of the apartment? By whom have the premises been used? Were any previous Ministers of the Crown ensconced in this apartment? Was this disgraceful purchase made at the expense of providing assistance to Australian industries as provided by the AIDC's charter? What steps will the Minister take to ensure that outrageous purchases such as this are taken into account by the Government before future purchases are made? The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department of Industry and Commerce advises me as follows: 1. The location of the apartment is York Street, Sydney. 2. Rent has been paid (by the Chief Executive) as follows: 1982- $ February 50 March 100 April 25 June 100 July 75 August 75 September 75 November 99 December 66 1983- January 66 February 33 March 132 April 66 3. I am informed by the Department of Industry and Commerce that no one, other than the Chief Executive (on occasions accompanied by his wife) has stayed at the apartment. 4. The Department informs me also that cash outlays relating to upkeep of the apartment have been as follows: $ $ Body Corporate fee- administration fund (covers the running of the building including cleaning common areas, lifts, electricity/gas/air-conditioning of common areas, gardens and rubbish, management and audit fees, security, window cleaning, etc.) 2,656 sinking fund (to cover future costs) 166 special levy 83 2,905 Rates- general 329 sewage and water 217 546 Gas and electricity 179 Insurance 271 Total 3,901