Thursday, 19 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 we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purposes for our Nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann,Mr Anthony,Mr Braithwaite,Mr Cadman,Mr Connolly,Mr Hollis,Mr Newman and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable, The Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens 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 Lionel Bowen. 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 rehabiliatation 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 Hollis. 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 R.A.A.F Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitions 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We, the undersigned students and staff of Bentley and Tuart Colleges, wish to bring to the attention of Parliament certain inequities in the Student Allowances Schemes which are at present forcing many students to abandon their T .A.E. studies as they do not have access to sufficient funds to enable them to live whilst studying full time. We respectfully point out that it is possible for a student to receive unemployment benefits and study for T.A.E. over a 2 year period. This situation necessitates a far greater government pay out than a one year allowance for 18 year olds to complete a full T.A.E. We draw your attention to the regulations and their implications. TEAS/ASEAS: REGULATIONS 1. Students attempting 'matriculation, tertiary orientation or other secondary level courses' (TEAS information, p.6) are not eligible to apply for Tertiary Education Assistance (TEAS) 2. Students who, having completed Year 10, enrol in diploma, certificate, advanced certificate, secretarial and certain pre-trade, post-trade courses are eligible for TEAS. 3. Students undertaking such studies (e.g. those enrolled in adult TEA courses at Bentley and Tuart Colleges) may apply for Adult Secondary Assistance (ASEAS). 4. TEAS is available to any student enrolled in an approved TAFE or other tertiary course. There is no age limit. 5. ASEAS, however, is available only to students who are 19 years of age or over at 1 January of the year of application. 6. When a complete breakdown in family relationships occurs and students are self-supporting, they must prove they have access to $1800 for the year of study in order to be eligible for Secondary Allowances Scheme-which is $871 at most and, as a living allowance, inadequate. Implications of the above for students enrolled at the adult colleges, but under the age of 19 years. 1. Any student enrolling at the Colleges for a full-time course (i.e. 4 or more subjects) cannot receive unemployment benefit. 2. Student under the age of 19 cannot receive ASEAS although they might have been eligible for TEAS if they had enrolled in TAFE for non-matriculation subjects. 3. Many students enrolling at the Colleges left school at the end of Year 10. Of these, most have been employed or available for employment for 2 years. Were they 19, they would be able to get full ASEAS at the independent rate. 4. The decision to return to full-time TAE study thus seriously disadvantages a large group of students who are considered to be adult by every other criterion, and yet cannot claim an independent living allowance from the government. 5. The Secondary Allowances Scheme (SAS) is available to the parents of students under 19; however, this, at best, is only worth $871.00 p.a. and pre- supposes that the student is financially dependent on his parents. As this is means tested (cuts out when parental income exceeds $14,678 for one eligible child) many parents cannot apply. 6. It is the contention of this statement that this is an inequitable-and in many cases impossible-situation for many students. It is a matter of record that some parents refuse to support their children once they have left school, or are unable to do so. Some students are known to have left the College because no financial assistance was available to them. We respectfully request urgent consideration of the anomalies occurring in student allowance regulations so that presently disadvantaged students desiring to better their employment opportunities through TAE study have access to a living allowance whilst doing so. Many students are being forced to give up study and take unemployment benefits as they can neither afford to continue studying, nor find employment. Your petitioners therefore pray that urgent consideration be given to removing these anomalies and hardships. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ronald Edwards. 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 assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: (1) That the Macedonian language be used by Government Departments in multi- lingual publications. (2) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language as a Higher School Certificate (H.S.C.) subject in Secondary schools. (3) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language in tertiary institutions and that a course be introduced at Monash University in the Department of Slavic Languages. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly request that Parliament take immediate action to implement the above measures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the railway crossing situated approximately 5 kilometers 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania respectfully urge that the enabling legislation to protect the Franklin River in Southwest Tasmania be passed at the earliest opportunity. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. 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 respecfully showeth: Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol; alcohol advertisments 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 Kerin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the petition of certain citizens of the Northern Territory of Australia shows: 1. That the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of South Australia entered into an agreement on 7th December 1907, requiring the Commonwealth of Australia to construct the Transcontinental (North-South) Railway from Darwin to South Australia; 2. That the Transcontinental (North-South) Railway has not yet been constructed ; 3. That the construction of the Transcontinental (North-South) Railway is the linchpin for the further development of the Northern Territory of Australia; 4. That the Transcontinental (North-South) Railway will provide employment through construction work, steel production and manufacturing and it will assist in ensuring the defence and security of Northern Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Commonwealth of Australia commence and complete construction of the Transcontinental (North-South) Railway at an early date. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Reeves. 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, respectfully show: 1. That the management of General Motors-Holdens have failed over a period of more than two (2) years to give any assurances that the Woodville Plant would continue in operation. 2. That a recent statement attributed to the GMH Managing Director, quote: 'The overall objective of our South Australian rationalisation plan has been to eliminate all productive activities on the Woodville site', end of quote. This statement has not been refuted. 3. That the elimination of the Woodville Plant will cause enormous social dislocation, hardship and misery to the citizens of Woodville and South Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament of Australia will condemn this callous disregard for the citizens of Woodville and South Australia, and do all in its power to force General Motors-Holdens to retain its operations at the Woodville Plant. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. Petitions received. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) welcomes the decision of the Government to receive more refugees from what the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has called 'totalitarian regimes in Central America'; (2) notes the decision of the social democratic government of Costa Rica to support the elected government of El Salvador in its struggle against totalitarian guerrillas, and (3) calls on the Government to join the United States Government in providing economic assistance to El Salvador in its attempt to build a democratic society in Central America. Mr BEDDALL(Fadden) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) supports the action taken by the Treasurer in excluding the Korean ICC Construction Company from participating in the construction of the Jackson-to- Moonie oil pipeline, and (2) calls on the Treasurer to use the federal powers at his disposal to ensure that the Queensland Government of Premier Bjelke-Petersen does not continue selling Australia's natural resources to overseas interests. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) rejects the charge made by Telecom Australia unions against the domestic satellite program, and (2) calls on the Government to ensure that the program is completed to launch stage in 1985. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the serious unemployment situation facing the young people of Australia with attendant social distress, and (2) calls on- (a) the Government to give high priority to the development of job creation schemes as a means of dealing with unemployment, and (b) States and local authorities to co-operate in the process of job creation. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with admiration the courage and endurance of 3 year old Queenslander Clayton Frieberg during his 48 hour ordeal in outback Queensland; (2) pays tribute to the 250 Queenslanders whose search for Clayton was successful, and (3) conveys to the boy's parents the best wishes of the House. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the- (a) high cost of fuel in Northern Australia as compared to capital city prices, and (b) promises of the Labor Party before the election to reduce the price of fuel by 3 cents per litre and not to devalue the Australian currency, and (2) calls on the Government to- (a) pass on to Australian consumers, the intended reduction in the OPEC price from US$34 to US$29 per barrel; (b) honour its election promise, and (c) equalise fuel prices throughout Australia. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House commends the Government for the establishment of a royal commission to inquire into the use of chemical agents in Vietnam and their effects on the health of Vietnam veterans. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House views with extreme concern the lack of co-operation by the Queensland Government in negotiating to ratify the United Nations convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. Mr Wells proceeding to give a notice of motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's motion is out of order. I suggest that he reword it. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The serious implications for the Treasurer's economic strategy posed by the evident collapse of the Government's wages accord. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Deputy Leader of the Opposition)(10.8) —There can be no more important matter for the national Parliament to debate today than the total ruins and disarray of the Government's wages policy. There is no issue which is more relevant to the success of the stated economic strategy of the Hawke Government than the successful implementation and maintenance of a wages policy. There is no area in which the failure of this Government to give an adequate lead in economic policy is more evident and has been more demonstrable. I quote and rely on no better authority than the speech delivered in this chamber by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to the National Economic Summit Conference on 11 April. If one goes through this document carefully, one finds reference after reference to the central importance of wage restraint in terms of controlling the growth of unemployment, reducing the level of inflation and speeding up the volume and rate of economic growth. In that speech the Treasurer said, among other things: Our principal strategy is based on expansionary fiscal policy, with our prices and incomes accord as a major anti-inflation instrument, supported by firm monetary policy. He then went on to say: . . . it is clear-- I ask the House to ponder these words carefully-- that at one level the prices and incomes accord is firmly in place. He said: An explicit agreement has been reached with the trade union movement . . . On 11 April, the Treasurer in the Hawke Government said that an explicit agreement had been reached with the trade union movement on the question of prices and incomes and that an implicit agreement had been reached with the Australian electorate. I put aside for one moment the references in the Treasurer's speech to the expansionary fiscal policy. We will no doubt hear a lot about that tonight and we will be able to judge the performance against the rhetoric when we hear the speech of the Treasurer tonight. I also put aside for a moment-not because it is unimportant-the Treasurer's reference to a firm monetary policy, when it is already apparent that the Government is desperately trying to buy short term and unsustainable reductions in interest rates by running too loose a monetary policy. I leave those two things aside for a moment and concentrate on the central issue of this matter of public importance, and that is: Where does the Government's much vaunted, much celebrated, much talked about prices and incomes accord stand today, 19 May 1983, a bare 2 1/2 months after the election on 5 March? I take the House back to the election campaign and I once again quote the Treasurer, in a Nationwide interview, in which he said: They say they cannot get on with the unions. They say the unions are bad boys, they are this and they're that. I just make this point Mr Howard, if you cannot get on with the unions and you cannot get income agreements you cannot legitimately parade yourself as a party with an economic policy which is believable . . . I ask the House: What income agreements does the Labor Government today have with the trade union movement? What agreement does it have with the trade union movement today which enables it to come into this House and say, in the words of the Treasurer, on 10 February of this year that we have an economic policy which is believable. He went on to say: The prices incomes agreement policy is a co-operative policy whereby the Government sits down with the people making income claims and looks at it in the totality of the economy. How can the Government, how can the Treasurer, how can the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) say that they are sitting down with the people who make the income claims when in reality the President of the body that makes the most income claims says : 'Mr Hawke did not talk to me about 3 per cent or 4 per cent. I don't know anything about 3 per cent or 4 per cent. He has not sat down and talked to me about 3 per cent or 4 per cent'. What a total gap, what an utter void between the rhetoric, the commitment, and the actual reality under this particular Government. It was the overwhelming view of the National Economic Summit Conference, not only of the people from all sections of the Australian community who participated in it but also the economic evidence presented to the Summit by the Treasurer on behalf of the Government that the major domestic cause of unemployment in Australia at the present time had been the excessive rate of increase in wages. Although there is disagreement between political parties as to the causes of that excessive rate of increase in wages, there is certainly no disagreement that that is the major domestic cause of unemployment and the level of unemployment that we have at the present time. That was the view that was adopted by speaker after speaker. All of the economic scenarios presented to the Summit by the Treasurer had a number of common threads. One of those common threads undeniably was that the greater the wage restraint, the better the inflation outcome, the better the employment outcome and the greater the economic growth. That cannot be denied on any objective analysis and reading of that material. The Labor Party's constant theme since its election and before its election has been to say to us: 'Leave it to this special relationship that we have with the trade union movement. Leave it to us. We will get them all around the table and we will get these problems sorted out'. I say again: What sort of special relationship has the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions with the Labor Prime Minister when he said as recently as a couple of days ago that the Prime Minister had never spoken to him about a 3 per cent or 4 per cent increase in wages? Quite clearly, the ACTU and the Labor Government will argue different cases to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. What evidence does that constitute of accord, agreement, understanding and consensus with the trade union community in Australia? Indeed, there are so many quotations from the President of the ACTU one hardly knows where to begin. But, perhaps I can begin with Mr Dolan's quote of yesterday. He said: Ah well, I don't think we had any consensus with employers and (um you know) the Summit communique did not indicate a consensus with employers on the amount of wage movement or when that wage movement would take place. I repeat that- . . . did not indicate a consensus with employers on the amount of wage movement or when that wage movement would take place. The President of the ACTU said that on 18 May. Where does that leave the much vaunted accord, understanding and consensus with the trade union movement? Where does that leave the special relationship between the Labor Party and the trade union movement? On 21 April he said: The whole accord breaks down if the Commission goes back to some discounting systems or some 80 per cent arrangement . . . Then that busts the accord. That of course, demonstrates very clearly that the trade union movement has never, does not and never will accept, under its present leadership, the great economic reality of 1983 that if we try to maintain real wages we will produce higher levels of unemployment. It is the unwillingness of the Labor Government and the trade union movement to face that reality which is the most daunting aspect of their economic policy at present. Not only has the Government settled for a second-best wages policy-a wages policy that will condemn us to higher levels of unemployment than we need otherwise have-with its adoption of scenario A; even that second-best wages policy is quite unacceptable to the ACTU. It is quite impossible to reconcile a 3 per cent to 4 per cent wage adjustment in respect of calendar year 1983, which is the stated position of the Government, with the claim of the ACTU for the March quarter consumer price index rise of 2. 2 per cent and full wage indexation for the remainder of 1983. Not all of the contortions and twisting and turning and the attempts at rationalisation by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and the Prime Minister can reconcile the irreconcilable. Those two positions simply cannot be reconciled. No amount of posturing from the other side can persuade the Australian community otherwise. Not content with adopting an unrealistic attitude and not content with confronting the Government's own second-best wages policy, the President of the ACTU has resorted to intimidating the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. When he was asked a question the other day about some of his comments, he said: 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 consensus. He was then asked the question: Is this the industrial free-for-all you were talking about? He answered: That's right. Later, when questioned about his reference to a free-for-all, Mr Dolan admitted using the expression but, he said, not in an adversary sense. How on earth can one have an industrial free-for-all without there being adversaries? Perhaps one can in the same way one can have a consensus without ever having reached an agreement! The disarray and confusion about the Government's wages policy is widely recognised throughout the Australian community. Look at the newspaper headlines of yesterday, 18 May. The Australian has 'ACTU warns: Pay up or it's free-for-all'; the Age, 'Unions defy PM on pay rises'; the Melbourne Herald, ' Warning on ACTU pay push'; Sydney Morning Herald, 'Free-for-all pay warning'; the Australian Financial Review, 'ACTU pay ultimatum'; the Daily Telegraph, ' ACTU demand for pay boost'; the Daily Mirror, 'ACTU claim stuns Hawke'. This is the utopia of industrial peace promised by the Australian Labor Party a bare two and a half months ago! This is the consensus. This is the bringing together of Australia for which the Prime Minister was elected on 5 March. This is the special relationship which the Australian Council of Trade Unions has with the Australian Labor Party. This is the fraud that has been practised on the Australian people. The disarray is not only widespread but also very deep. That is understood and accepted by the Australian community. Yet against this background the Government has the sheer indecency to spend $1m of taxpayers' money to advertise the consensus that was allegedly reached at the Summit on 11 April. It has the sheer effrontery to talk about galvanising the support of 15 million Australians to move mountains, yet it cannot even get its house in order. The Government cannot even bring to fruition its much vaunted alleged special relationship with the Australian trade union movement. Today, on the morning of the making of the first major economic statement to this Parliament by the Treasurer of the Hawke Government, we really have the worst of both worlds. On the one hand the Government has squibbed it and, by embracing scenario A, has adopted a wages policy which without question will condemn us inevitably to higher levels of unemployment. That assertion is based not on Liberal Party propaganda but upon the Treasurer's own evidence-- Mr Wells —I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw the attention of the House to Standing Order No. 82 in relation to the notice given by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for General Business Thursday No. 1. Mr SPEAKER —There is no point of order. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr HOWARD —The Government has opted for a wages policy which will condemn us to higher levels of unemployment in 1983, 1984 and 1985. This is a second-best wages policy-a wages policy that not only is clearly rejected by a wide cross- section of the Australian community but also on the Government's own evidence, as presented to the National Economic Summit Conference, will condemn us to high levels of unemployment. Even worse, this second-best wages policy, this unacceptable wages policy, this high unemployment wages policy, is under attack and subject to confrontation by the ACTU. So on the morning of the making of this economic statement we have the worst of both worlds. We have a weak, irresolute second-best wages policy being pursued by the Government and even that second-best solution confronted and condemned by the very body with which the Government claims above everything else to have a special relationship. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I will not give the Treasurer the call until the House comes to order. I call the Treasurer. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(10.23) —We have to say one thing for the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard): He has more hide than a team of elephants to have the temerity to come into this House with a matter of public importance, on the day on which the Government is to announce major economic initiatives, and talk about the implications of anyone else's economic policies. Here is the former Treasurer, who surveys every week the ruins of his work, the ruins of those five years of unsurpassed failure as Treasurer of this nation- indeed, a record of failure unsurpassed by any post-war Treasurer. He talks about the increase in unemployment in prospect as a result of the Government's wages policy. The first point I make is that the former Government never had a wages policy and no greater deterioration in unemployment could have occurred than occurred when 270,000 persons were relegated to the employment scrapheap by the honourable member for Bennelong and his cohorts, who sit beside him with smug faces but now sit in Opposition where they belong. Let us look at the former Government's record in respect of unemployment over the years. In 1975 it promised to turn on the lights and restore economic health to the Australian nation. Unemployment doubled from roughly 5 per cent to 10 per cent over the period. Let us consider inflation, the principal evil, the reduction of which the former Government was committed to-indeed it was the central focus of its economic policy. The reason for its very existence was to drag inflation down. The consumer price index for the year ended in the March quarter was 11.5 per cent. In 1975 it was 12.3 per cent. That is the sum total of the former Treasurer's work, not to mention, of course, his contribution to interest rates. Interest rates are the highest in Australia's post-war history-I think the highest in Australia's history full stop. More damning is the former Government's record in respect of economic growth. The former Government was supposed to be the government of economic managers, the people in the pinstripe suits who understood how the business community worked, whose mere presence in office would transform the commercial landscape of Australia which would take us all into the land of milk and honey. What was the end result? It was a miserable 1.6 per cent growth of gross domestic product per person for the seven years, which was half the average of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. That is the sum total of the former Treasurer's work. He should not come in here to lecture us about how to run an economy or about wages policies. He handed us a poison chalice and it is this Government's job to get over the difficulties which it has inherited. The former Treasurer talked about his right to criticise us and talk about the implications of our economic policy. Tonight I intend to bring down a statement dealing in part with the fiscal inheritance which he left us. The former Government left $9 .6 billion of fiscal irresponsibility about which it was so silent in the election campaign. Let me quote what the Department of the Treasury told us on our first day of office about the former Government's work. The Department said: The magnitude of the fiscal imbalance is unprecedented in Australia during peace time as is the level of Government spending. The Budget balance is projected to deteriorate from near zero to more than 6 per cent of GDP in a two year period. The speed and magnitude of that deterioration is almost without precedent among the major OECD countries in the post-war period. That is the former Government's legacy. It is not a piece of Australian Labor Party propaganda. That is the careful, measured assessment by the Department of state principally involved in economic policy, the one in which the former Government placed its trust. That is the Department's condemnation of the former Government's work. I cannot for the life of me understand how the Liberal Party can propose as its economic spokesman a person with a record of failure unsurpassed in this country. Because we are all supposed to be able to take a joke I suppose that we will be continually subjected to the rantings of the honourable member for Bennelong in respect of the economy which he proved he could not manage. I reject absolutely any credentials he has to assess economic trends or to criticise this Government. If the former Government talks about credibility in quoting my remarks in the election campaign I remind honourable members of the cruel hoax which the honourable member for Bennelong played upon the Australian community in the vital last couple of weeks of the election campaign. The former member for Wannon, the former Prime Minister, took part in a critical debate about the size of the Labor Party's program and the fact that it was central to the course of the election campaign. He tried to influence the decision of the Australian public about who should next govern Australia. The former Prime Minister was badmouthing the Labor Party about a $10 billion deficit about which the former Treasurer knew from when the election campaign started. On 19 January he was told that the deficit in prospect for 1983-84 would be roughly double that in prospect for 1982-83. He knew that the likely deficit would be in the order of $ 9 billion. He was told that on 19 January. On Monday, 28 February, less than one week before the crucial election day, he was told by the Department of the Treasury that it was likely to be in the order of $9 billion. So for one week the Australian public would have had the opportunity of being apprised of the truth of the state of the finances of the Commonwealth of Australia under the honourable member's Government. Yet, the honourable member, in a conspiracy with the former Prime Minister, sat on that vital piece of information which was critical to the election campaign. To lie to the Australian public by having the former Prime Minister say that he thought someone had spoken about $6 billion when it was quite obvious-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think the Treasurer has been meticulous in the language he has used. I think he used the word 'lie' in the sense-- Mr KEATING —Well, to mislead us, shall I say, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The Treasurer withdraws the word 'lie'? Mr KEATING —I withdraw. To mislead the public. There was talk about the fact that the figure would be $6 billion when the former Treasurer and the former Prime Minister knew it was to be $9.6 billion or very close to $10 billion, which they were accusing the Labor Party of proposing. On that basis, Mr Speaker, I do not want to hear any mealymouthed talk from the honourable member for Bennelong about my credibility on the public record in respect of economic policy. I will leave it to the Parliament and the public to judge his actions themselves. The honourable member came in here today and talked about economic policy and wages policy. This former Treasurer presided over the biggest wages blowout since the early 1970s. Indeed, a lot of the problems in the economy today stem from the fact that in 1980 the former Government talked the economy up for the purposes of its own miserable political skins. It talked about a resources boom involving projects of $30 billion and $ 40 billion and virtually invited the union movement to come and take a piece of it. That is the absolute truth of the position. Right through 1980 the then Opposition talked in measured terms about the need for a balance between the sectors in Australia. It pointed out that we should not simply put reliance upon the mineral industry. However, the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) in particular had a xenophobia about letting everyone develop mines when they felt like it. We can now see the result of that. We have so much over- capacity that prices will be depressed for years. That is the sum total of his lunacy. All we ever heard throughout that period was a promise about projects involving $30 billion or $40 billion. What was the end result? The end result was that the unions were virtually invited to come and take a share. We then had this naivety about wages policy. This country has operated under a centralised wage fixation system for nearly all of its Federal history. That system involves hundreds of interlocking awards and relativities. Honourable members opposite thought that all of a sudden that practice could be pushed to one side; that we could have a decentralised system where only the strong prevail. The strong certainly prevailed. They prevailed all right. They hopped into the big juicy areas and grabbed wage increases which trickled right through the economy. If there is to be any blame apportioned in respect of wages policy and inflation, the blame is on the other side of the Parliament, not this side. The former Government destroyed wage indexation. It destroyed the only system of wage fixation which held wages at or below the inflation rate. It went for a decentralised system of wage fixation which destroyed the previous arrangement and which took no account of the practice of 70 years of wage fixation. This action resulted in a surge in wages and a surge in inflation and ultimately, with the world economy, the collapse of the Australian economy. So I say to the Opposition: Do not come back and lecture us about wages policy. We reject absolutely the honourable member's views about where wages policy should go. I am not going to take the opportunity presented by the matter of public importance raised by the honourable member to talk in the broad about economic policy because the honourable member is simply trying to jump the gun on tonight 's statement. I will leave that until then. But I say this in respect of our incomes policy: I repeat, as I repeated yesterday and as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) have repeated, that there are three elements to our approach to incomes policy. The first is a return to centralised wage fixation, which was the subject of agreement at the National Economic Summit Conference. The second is small increases for wages in the current year. The third is an acceptance of the Summit principle that any increases outside of national wage cases must be strictly confined. They are the three principal elements of our incomes policy. I repeat what the Prime Minister and my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations said yesterday. The Government remains committed to no more than a 3 per cent to 4 per cent wage increase this year. We said that yesterday and I repeat it today. Nothing the Opposition says will deflect us from this course. I also indicated yesterday that as far as the catch-up is concerned, there can be no increase in real wages until there is a clear capacity of the economy to afford it. I mentioned it yesterday and I will mention it again today for the benefit of honourable members who do not seem to understand. Scenario A proposes a movement in the catch-up beyond 1985. I make it quite clear and it should be understood that the catch-up is on the back- burner. This Government believes that there can be no future in respect of progress in the Australian economy without restraint on all sides. We have not demurred to that. We have not changed from the principal policy expressions made by the Government at the National Economic Summit Conference. Neither will we demur to that when we go to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I make it clear that as far as we are concerned, we will not be lectured on wages policy. The Opposition had no policies in Government and has none in Opposition. The honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) is adhering to his view of a centralised system of wage fixation and the honourable member for Bennelong is adhering to his view about decentralised wages. All we do not have now is the former member for Stirling talking about his enterprise unions- one union for every company around the country. In being rid of him we are at least rid of that piece of industrial relations nonsense. The final point I make is that there is not a shred of credibility in the matter of public importance proposed by the honourable member for Bennelong. I suppose he figured that if he could make a nuisance of himself today and annoy me this morning when I have more important things to do, then he would take the opportunity of interrupting my day. I do not mind being interrupted by this tomfoolery, particularly when it has no basis in fact, policy, record of performance, incomes policy, or any consistency of policy on the part of the Opposition. The Opposition never had a wages policy and it never proposed to have one. It never will have a wages policy or any relationship with the Australian trade union movement. The Opposition deserves to be where it is and where it will remain for a long time-in Opposition. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The discussion is concluded. Debate resumed from 18 May, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Carlton had moved by way of amendment: 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 GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.39) —The Opposition does not want to get a name as a knocking Opposition. When something constructive occurs, we as an Opposition will support it. In relation to the National Health Amendment Bill 1983, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) said: . . . will . . . 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. Last night the former Minister for Health, the honourable member for Mackellar ( Mr Carlton), spoke in this debate. He is a friend of mine and a man who I believe constructively set about the difficult task of restructuring the health policy of the previous Government. He ran into a little flak sometimes because of occurrences beyond his control. Just before the election he came into a fair bit of flak from the pharmacists of Australia. He said in a constructive way that he would overcome the problem. He was working towards that end but unfortunately history, as we know, did not give him the opportunity to do just that. The previous Minister was sensitive to and aware of the problems that the elderly faced in filling out this particular form. I think it should be noted by all members that as people get older it becomes difficult for them to do anything that is just a little bit different. Tonight, when they hear about certain things in the mini-Budget, they will probably get even more confused. The former Minister for Health tried desperately to amend that declaration to make it far simpler to fill in for the elderly in an effort to stop all the confusion and to stop all the worries of the elderly. Unfortunately, time ran out. The new Minister for Health said that he would abolish the declaration. He sent a letter to all the pharmacists of Australia in which he said: The pharmaceutical benefits declaration is an unnecessary bureaucratic imposition which will be scrapped by a Labor governemt. Any required details for identification purposes will be completed by doctors when they fill out the prescription form. I should like to point out to the House what has actually happened. In the first paragraph of the second reading speech of the Minister for Health he claims to have met this firm and unequivocal election commitment. He stated: 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. We agree with that. The previous Minister for Health said that if the Liberal Government had been returned to office he would have changed that declaration. He said that he would have abolished it. He, like many other members on this side of the House, was appalled that our elderly citizens were experiencing so much difficulty in completing that declaration, that it caused so much confusion . But solving the problem took time. Of course, politics came into it. The pharmacists of Australia waged a fairly concerted campaign against the previous Government. We talked to them and said that given a little time we would change the declaration form, but things do not happen overnight. The current Minister for Health said that he would abolish that declaration but he has not abolished it. That is precisely what the Government has not done. It has abolished the old declaration but replaced it with a new declaration. In his second reading speech the Minister for Health stated: The new prescription form will simplify the present complex declaration form in four ways. First, all the required information will be provided on one side of the form. There will be no requirements on the reverse side of the form. Second, the information for beneficiaries status will be simplified, making it easier for beneficiaries and pharmacists, yet still meeting the necessary demands for effective departmental monitoring. We all agree with that- Third, a single signature will indicate both receipt of the prescription and claim to free or concessional entitlement. Fourth, doctors and, if need be, pharmacists will be encouraged to assist beneficiaries in completing the form. However, I would make it clear that responsibility for the accuracy of an entitlement claim rests, as it rightly should, with the beneficiary. Clearly, the election undertaking has not been honoured. The form, in effect will still create complications for the elderly. The Government was going to abolish the form but it has not done so. That is the reason the Opposition is asking the Minister for Health: 'Can't you abolish it?'. We are not accusing the Government of breaking promises because we do not want to argue about the elderly people of Australia. I hope that the Minister has heard my words and the words of the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Mackellar, who said that the Government is in breach of a particular commitment that it made. We are running into a lot of difficulty with elederly people having to go into nursing homes. It is becoming very complicated for them. One could talk at length on this subject. We support what the Government is doing because it will simplify nursing home funding. It will assist the elderly of Australia. In that regard the Government is moving in the right direction. Again we are proving that as an Opposition we will be constructive at all times, especially when it concerns the elderly of Australia. If the Government-- Mr Groom —We need to do far more for the elderly. Mr GOODLUCK —We need to do far more for the elderly, as the honourable member for Braddon has said. I hope that tonight the Government will not introduce a means test for the over-70 pension. That will be a retrograde step. Some Government supporters are going white in the face because, if the rumour is true , that is what the Government is going to do. It would be a travesty of justice. We must support the elderly of the country at every opportunity. As one gets older, and over 70 years of age, everything worries one. Elderly people who have put aside a little money with which to keep their homes maintained at a particular level need that extra money and should not be penalised. Unfortunately, the Government seems to have a rule that if one is down and out then one needs all the assistance in the world. I agree with that to a degree but that does not mean that a person who has worked hard all his or her life, and has put aside a little with which to maintain his or her standard of living, should not also be given support. I hope that the Government hears my words quite clearly and does not tonight introduce a means test for pensioners over the age of 70. If it does we will launch a concerted attack on it day after day to make it feel that it should be ashamed to put the elderly in such a situation . We support the Bill but also support the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Mackellar. We believe the Government has breached a commitment that it gave the elderly people of Australia, as well as pharmacists, whom I would mention particularly. Unfortunately, to a degree they have been conned by this Government. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(10.47) —It is rather interesting to follow the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and hear him start off by saying that he does not wish to knock the Government, then spend 15 minutes doing just that. It is clear to everyone that the Government is fulfilling an electoral promise by introducing these amendments. To hear the rather carping speech yesterday of the previous Minister for Health, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), makes one wonder why he did not do these things some months ago when he was the Minister. As he very well knows, the reason is that he was terrified of fraud taking place. When he became Minister he inherited an inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee which showed that doctors, as was clear from the medifraud case, had been ripping off to the tune of $1,000m the system that his Government had implemented. The honourable member for Mackellar panicked because he thought that there was a $20m fraud annually in the pharmacy area. As happened following a number of the decisions of the previous Liberal Government, panic caused everyone else a whole lot of trouble. The previous Minister for Health brought out a form which one needed a legal degree to find one's way around. It cost chemists a lot of money to implement and it cost people not used to filling out forms a great deal of inconvenience. What did the previous Minister for Health do about that? He did a lot of breast beating and made a lot of speeches but never withdrew the form. Mr Carlton —I simplified the form. Mr LEO McLEAY —Simplified it! My goodness, if the form the honourable member brought out was simplified, I would be terrified to see the original form that he was going to inflict on chemists. The Government is now providing a simple form of recognition so that when persons receive medicine from a chemist they have only to sign their name at the bottom of the form, in the same way as anyone who receives a benefit under the national health service does, a procedure which has been in effect for many years. People have to sign to get drugs. That has been done for years and years. The change proposed in the National Health Amendment Bill will go a long way to help pensioners, migrants and many others in this country receive their benefit from the Government with a great deal less inconvenience than they suffered when the previous Government was in office. The Government's action will also remove from them the feeling that there is something rather shaky in having to sign all this documentation. It will also make the chemists much happier, because they will not have the massive problem that they have had in the past with deciphering the forms-which the previous Government never even got printed but sent out with a rubber stamp; it was typical of the type of bureacracy that it wanted to develop-which made it very difficult for everyone. I commend the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) for introducing this legislation, which will implement one of the Government's election policies. The next issue to which I address myself is the amendment regarding nursing home fees. As the Minister quite rightly pointed out in his second reading speech, the area of nursing home fees and accommodation is an area that for far too long the previous Government just let run along and did nothing about. It has always seemed to me scandalous that in this financial year the Commonwealth Government's expenditure on institutional accommodation for the aged will pass $ 1,000m and the Commonwealth's contribution under the guidelines set out by the previous Government for domiciliary benefits for those pensioners and frail aged people who wish to stay in their own homes will account for only about $150m. This shows that the previous Government had absolutely no approaches in the past to planning for care of the aged, and that they were at the mercy of nursing home proprietors who allowed this form of government expenditure to escalate through the roof. I am pleased to say that the present Government has a very compassionate approach to the care of the aged. It will allow old people some dignity in their retiring years. It will allow old people, for the first time in Australia's history, to have a choice about what to do when they reach the stage when they are frail and old. Until now, under the provisions of the Liberal Government, the only choice was to go into a nursing home. The present Government will be implementing in the next two years proposals which will allow people to receive nursing assistance in their own homes and a whole range of benefits and services , which will allow aged people to stay in their own homes rather than seek institutional care. I have not found very many people who want to go into nursing homes if they have a choice. It is like suggesting that people want to go into hospital when they can be treated at home by their own doctors. We shall be taking steps to see that that choice is brought back into the Australian system and to see that the frail aged can be cared for by their families and that the families will not be used as free assistance as they were under the previous Government's policies . I used to find it rather disconcerting to listen to the previous Minister for Social Security, Senator Chaney, and the previous Minister for Health, saying ' We must rely upon the family more'. All that does, if the Government wants the family to provide all these services for free, is to place intolerable burdens on many families and, in many instances, contribute to family breakups. The previous Government wanted to try to shift the thrust of government expenditure off the Government and on to struggling families. That was a reprehensible thing for any government to do. I am assured by the present Ministers that the Labor Government will be giving assistance to families to care for their relations, and not just saying 'You have just got to do this out of family love or Christian charity', or out of goodness knows what. We shall be providing assistance for people to make those choices and to help them care for their relations in their own homes. We will not say, in the cavalier fashion of the previous Government, 'You had just better do it because it is your responsibility'. A central issue in the present Government's approach to aged care will be, for the first time, looking at a genuine assessment system. In our election policy speech we said that we would fund a number of assessment teams throughout Australia to ensure that people are given guidance, for the first time, about the facilities available to them, and that they are given medical assessments, so that people are not placed in institutions when there is no specific need for that. Honourable members will recall that the Auditor-General some years ago, when he undertook an inquiry into the nursing home function of the Department of Health, suggested that 25 per cent of the people who are in nursing homes did not need that level of medical care. The family and the aging project conducted at the Australian National University, which was funded by the Commonwealth Government, had suggested recently that in the order of 19 per cent of the frail and aged in institutions do not need that level of care. In the past they have had to have that level of care because there has been no other option. We will be bringing in other options. We will have assessment teams to help people through the labyrinth of services which were provided in the past by the previous Government and which will be built upon by us. There has been a feeling abroad among a number of people that the Commonwealth will be implementing these new assessment teams on everyone without their consideration. I should like to put that idea to rest here today. The Labor Government will not be implementing 50 new assessment teams around Australia, teams which will just fall off the shelf and come in and tell people what to do. The Minister for Health has made it quite clear, in the Labor Party's policy speech, during the election campaign and since, that we will be funding assessment teams through State governments- they are the people who have the constitutional responsibility for this matter- and that we will be building upon the many embryonic assessment teams which exist in the States at present. There will be a building up of the services that are there now and the members of those services will be able to play their role in ensuring that people, when they become old and frail and have to look for assistance, will be shown what the choices are and be assisted in those choices. In conclusion, I should like to address myself to the domiciliary nursing care benefit which is also mentioned in this legislation. I have only one worry about the present domiciliary nursing care benefit and I hope the Minister will take it on board when considering future amendments to the National Health Act. It has always seemed to me rather an inequity that when people receiving the domiciliary nursing benefit go into a nursing home or a hospital for a day or two for some health reason their benefit is stopped. That usually saves the Commonwealth Government about $6 to $12. The administrative cost of stopping and starting that benefit must be $50 or $60. This, once again, is a system which was put in place by the previous Liberal Government which was so keen on having bureaucracies regulate everything. It was a Government which said it was for free enterprise but it brought in more regulation in this country than we have seen since Federation. It has always seemed to me that that provision should be amended so that if a person goes into a hospital or a nursing home for a period of less than a week the benefit continues. Even if these people may not have been entitled to the benefit for those one or two days, the cost of stopping and starting the benefit far outweighs the saving to the Commonwealth by stopping it. I think it would also be of great assistance to many aged people and their relations if they did not have to go to the effort and trouble of this form filling to stop and start the benefit, worrying that they may somehow be defrauding the Government. The tax dodgers had no compunction about taking thousands of millions of dollars out of the economy, the previous government implemented a whole range of bureaucratic procedures to stop pensioners and other people receiving a dollar or two that it felt they should not get. I must say, Mr Deputy Speaker-and I am sure you are well aware of this in your electorate which is somewhat the same as mine-that those old people worry terribly that they may be getting a dollar they are not entitled to. They have a conscience about these things and we should be doing something to ensure that they do not have to worry about it. The domiciliary nursing care should be paid in weekly lumps. If a person has to be in hospital for a day or two, that person should still get the benefit. I hope the Minister will take that on board. I compliment the Minister on the amendments that he has brought into the Act. I know that they will be welcomed by the pharmacists and I know that they will be welcomed by the aged people to whom they will be of most assistance. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(11.0) —I rise with the express purpose of commending the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) for his constructive actions in meeting a commitment made before the election. In doing so, I feel it is necessary to correct some of the things that have been said by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) which were quite untrue and which distorted the whole position of the Government . For instance, the honourable member for Franklin said that the honourable member for Mackellar, as Minister for Health, tried desperately to amend the form. I would not have brought this up if the Opposition had not gone full pelt into an unnecessary and unjustified attack on what we are doing in rectifying this form. Anyone can make a mistake. I believe that the former Minister for Health, the honourable member for Mackellar, made an honest mistake. He thought that, when he began his term as the new Minister, he would flex the ministerial muscles and show that he would crack down on all those pensioners who were abusing the system. But he decided this, despite the fact that when the matter was brought up in this House, there was no evidence on record that such abuse had been occurring. The honourable member for Franklin said that he tried desperately to amend the form. How desperate can one get? It must have been soon after the middle of last year that the then Minister decided that he would bring in a form which was so complex that it was to prove, in time, to add many hours of work to pharmacists and to put the ill and the aged-people in a state of trauma-into an even greater state of trauma. The existing pharmaceutical prescription form had all the information that was necessary on one side of the form. I make it clear that the new form that was brought in entailed turning the prescription form over and filling in, as has been mentioned by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), a very complex form on the back. It involved the ticking and crossing of a number of little boxes. Then there was a duplication of the need to sign so that a pensioner who had already signed on one side of the form in the presence of customers in the shop-these people had already gone through the humiliation of going through the social security system and having to declare every last little cent that they earn-had, in front of those other customers, to turn the form over and, with the pharmacist, fill in an additional unnecessary form and sign it. At the bottom of that form it is stated that any error could result in six months imprisonment or a penalty of $1,000. That is what this Government is on about and that is what it is rectifying. Mr MacKellar —I took it off. Mrs DARLING —Yes, but that is precisely what I wish to mention in questioning the credibility of the Opposition. It was October that the Bill justifiying this prescription form was introduced into this House. From October onwards then Opposition members, one after another, put their cases forward and asked for a change. I point out that the form was printed before the Bill even came before Parliament so keen was the then Minister to introduce it and to crack down on these pensioners. When the form was provided a huge rubber stamp was ordered and sent out to all pharmacists. The Pharmacy Guild of Australia notified the then Minister that he should not proceed. The pharmacists, Queensland pharmaceutical association, consumer groups and organisations, and the Australian Pensioners League all put forward the view-this was in October and November-that it should be withdrawn. After that advice was received the former Minister pushed ahead with it. When, eventually he decided that it was to be introduced this year and that there would be a change, he still insisted on having the pensioner duplicate the whole process of signing on one side. I understand that then another rubber stamp was ordered and was to be distributed. Meanwhile, people were lining up in pharmacies across Australia, which caused hours of extra work and great distress. The whole point is that it was unnecessary distress. Considering the previous Government's long history when no basic change was made, I find it unbelievable that the Opposition and the honourable member for Mackellar can now say that in the time slot leading up to a possible election, and then in a campaign for a definite election, he was saying that he would do something about it at some stage. That was not trying desperately. It is certainly questionable whether anything ever would have been done. In fact, the honourable member's distortion of this Government's action is typical of the twisted outlook of the Opposition when commenting on Government performance. That is worth noting when we consider the Opposition's credibility. It can nowhere be seen more clearly than when the Opposition comments on the management of the mess in which it left this nation. Opposition members say that we use the deficit as an excuse for inaction. What twisted logic. If they had not left us with this enormous debt, but had left us with some flow of money, there would be no need for an excuse. The depleted state of the Treasury coffers is a reason, not an excuse. We on the Government benches would rather have the money that we and all Australians were led to believe was here. The relief and pleasure of a government which believes in Australia, is concerned about its welfare and which was so enthusiastic to implement immediately policies to help Australians, would far outweigh any negative pleasure-in fact no pleasure at all-at being able to say that the deficit was the cause for our not being able to act fully at this stage. The question to be asked is: What did the Opposition intend to do if it had regained office? Mr Carlton —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think the honourable member has had enough licence and is straying totally away from the substance of the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —It has been a wide-ranging debate in respect of the principal issue involved. There is no point of order. Mrs DARLING —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to point out that I am answering the claims and the attacks made on the Government during this very debate by the very honourable member who has just complained. Again this shows the extent of the cynicism of some honourable members on the Opposition benches. I was saying that the question to be asked is: What did the Opposition intend to do if it regained office, given the fact that it made promises which it knew it could not afford to keep and that it had set in train actions as from the August 1983 Budget that it also knew it could not carry out? It based all of the predictions of that Budget on shonky figures. It was a deceitful Budget and the then Government obviously had to go to the polls as soon as possible which is no doubt why the then Prime Minister was so anxious to go to the polls in November. The Opposition in government deceitfully did this. It is my contention that the Opposition, if it had regained government, of need would have had to cut its policies, and the existing policies-the ones that it had set in train-to the further detriment of the Australian people. Without the Australian Labor Party's policies for unemployment we would have been in an irretrievable position. The honourable member for Mackellar dares to criticise-- Mr Carlton —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. What possible relevance could these matters have to the National Health Amendment Bill? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member for Mackellar that this is a Bill for an Act to amend the National Health Act 1953 and for related purposes. Such being the case, the honourable member has a right to cover the ground that she has encompassed so far in her speech. Mrs DARLING —I feel that I have now made the point that I wished to make. It is really to register my concern at the lack of credibility of the Opposition. I felt it should be brought to the attention of the public which has to listen to this drivel. The fact is that this Government is again moving to honour an election promise. In doing so, it is relieving the anxiety and trauma of the aged and the infirm in Australia. I am proud to be part of a government which has taken that action. We have reversed what was a bad decision. The shame of the situation, as it was, was the suffering caused those least able to bear it. It is because of the relief of this suffering, which will ensue from the Federal Government's humane and eminently sensible action in withdrawing this insult to the human intelligence, that I take the greatest pleasure in supporting the Government in the fulfilment of its promise to so legislate. I am delighted also to support the words of the honourable member for Grayndler -that justice is now being given to people in their later years who have enough to concern them without being tied up in bureaucratic tape at the stage at which they are deciding which nursing home they will enter. The form on the back of the prescription, which is to be abolished, doubled the work unnecessarily. It added to the chemist's work load. I am glad to see the end of that form. I take pleasure in commending the Minister for Health for his excellent work in his portfolio and on behalf of the aged and the infirm of Australia. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(11.12) —First I wish to thank supporters of the Government-the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells), the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child) and the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay)-for the comments they have made in this debate. I am afraid that I cannot say the same for the two contributions that were made by the Opposition. It is rare, in my experience , to encounter an amendment which is at once so cynical and contemptible. I do not know what has happened to the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) since he fell into Opposition, but quite clearly it has affected the way in which he behaves in this House. I have heard him speak now on three occasions in Opposition. On the first occasion he came in here and said that he spoke for the unemployed, after having been a member of a government which had seen the greatest unemployment in this country since the Great Depression. His second performance was to weep crocodile tears for an exaggerated 5,000 persons who would supposedly be unemployed under the medicare scheme, when he had never wept at all in the seven years that he was a member of the party in government. Thirdly, last night he posed as an authority on the rectitude, the rightness, of political promises. I would be perfectly happy to have the promise which we made during the election campaign regarding the pharmaceutical declaration form, and the action we have taken within eight weeks of government, compared with the great health promises of the previous Government. I remind honourable members of the promise of the former Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to the electorate in November 1975 when he said: 'We will maintain Medibank'. I ask honourable members: How was that promise honoured in the health field? Let me turn to another Minister for Health in the previous Government. During the election campaign of 1980 the then Minister for Health (Mr Mackellar) said: There was absolutely no truth in the statement that the Government was planning to restrict patients' free access to public hospitals by reimposing a means test for hospital care. Six months later that access was restricted and that means test was imposed. I am perfectly prepared to be judged on the promise which we made and the actions we have taken on pharmaceutical benefits in comparison with those classic performances by the Opposition when it was in government. Both in spirit and in fact we have honoured the pledges made at the time of the election. What the honourable member for MacKellar-buttressed by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck)-tried to do was to make a pedantic argument about a particular point to suggest that in fact we have not honoured that promise. I will deal with the pedantic point second because quite clearly it can be dealt with, although it is a level of argument which I do not think is relevant to the concerns of the electorate. When we made that promise to the electorate, what did the electorate expect? I think that people expected that the form would be greatly simplified. I do not believe that anyone in the electorate thought that there would not have to be some kind of pharmaceutical prescription form. I believe that they thought it would be very much simplified. They thought that the whole notion of having a reverse side declaration quite separate from the prescription on the front could be removed. They were concerned about the fact that they were forced to fill it in themselves. They know that we were going to get doctors and chemists to help them fill it in. These are the kinds of expectations that people had in relation to the promise we made. All of these expectations have been honoured in this measure. The form has been made far simpler. It is now printed on a single side. Doctors and pharmacists will be encouraged to help provide information requested on the form. We have reduced the necessity for two signatures. All that is now required is one signature which is needed anyhow to receive the prescription. The former Minister is trying to make a case around that one single signature. I think he would certainly agree that we have to have a number on the pharmaceutical benefits declaration form. I do not believe that anyone thought that a number would not be required. We have to have an indication somewhere on the form that the beneficiary is paying $2 or nothing. Those basic requirements clearly have to be shown on the form. We would all agree with that. The former Minister has tried to build his whole argument on the one fact that the signature still involves some commitment to the accuracy of the facts. To take up the honourable members pedantic point, if he looks at the Bill he will see that the declaration is to be repealed by proposed new section 84AA. The requirement of the patient to fill in and sign a declaration in that strong and legally binding way is abolished. Last night the honourable member correctly said that he was a bit worried about the legal status of that process. We do not have to worry about the legal status because the declaration basis has been removed. The signature for a prescription is also a certification that the information is accurate. I admit and confess that that is at a far lower level than a declaration and it has in many ways less legal significance. Mr Carlton —It has some legal significance. Dr BLEWETT —It has some legal significance but less significance than a declaration. We accept that weaker statement, in that weaker certification, because we believe that it is a quite sufficient deterrent against the problems of fraud that might be in this area. Therefore, I think I have dealt with the pedantic point that was raised. The legal declaration has been abolished. We have replaced it with a certification. This is a weaker system but in our view it is quite sufficient to prevent problems of fraud. Finally, having gone through this issue, let me repeat the point I made at the beginning of my speech. Compared with the promises the previous Government made in the field of health and the way it honoured them, I am completely confident-- Mrs Darling —Dishonoured them. Dr BLEWETT —That is right. In the judgment of the electorate I have no doubt that we will be seen to have fully honoured our promises immediately in relation to this matter. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Carlton's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, 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.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Morrison, W. L.Duffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Everingham, D. N. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Reeves, J. E.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. 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. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. Killen, Sir JamesAnthony, J. D. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Newman, K. E.Cowan, D. B. O'Keefe, F. L.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.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.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett) read a third time. Debate resumed from 11 May, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House has a general debate covering the Customs Amendment Bill 1983, the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1983 and the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill 1983 as they are related measures. Separate questions, will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Is it the wish of the House to proceed along those lines? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(11.28) —The Opposition supports the Customs Amendment Bill 1983, the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1983 and the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill 1983 which are before the House at the moment. Indeed, I particularly welcome the changes that are brought about in these Bills because I, in no small way, recommended them. On 30 April 1981 I signed the application to the Industries Assistance Commission for investigation into the by-law system in Australia. I took this action because I felt that the whole by-law process raised more doubts than answers. Because of that, I felt that the name itself seemed to be misleading. It is a difficult area. When by- laws are granted the question that is always raised is: 'Why do they do this or why was that done?'. Sharp, personal interest is taken in the entry of certain goods from time to time. It seemed to me that a more appropriate name could be found for by-laws. A by-law suggests that something strange is going on around the law. Therefore, the name 'commercial tariff concessions' seems to be a much more appropriate and understandable title. I can understand the enormous difficulty that the Department had in administering the by-law system. I consistently used to marvel at the patience of Mr Luckman, who had the responsibility for adjudicating in these areas. Although the ministerial determinations are issued in the Minister's name, he was the one who had to carry the problems. I very much welcome the initiative of the Government in bringing forward these amendments to the by-law system. The introduction of the main commercial tariff concessions, and the way in which they will now be judged-not on the suitably equivalent criteria but more on a market-based test as to whether they are items which do conform with Industries Assistance Commission policy guidelines-has extensive support from all sectors of the business community. I am sure that because of these decisions the guidelines will be embraced by the industry which is so heavily involved. It is worth mentioning at this stage that the cost of administering the by-law was some $2m per annum, with a staff of 67. This was a very substantial part of the Customs office. I am sure that those officers who are now charged with the responsibility of implementing the guidelines will welcome the new market-based test. I think they will find it far easier to implement the criterion, which has now been put into law, on which the assessment will be made rather than to rely on judgment, which was the original case. All determinations will be put out in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. I recommend the proposed publication to all of those involved in this field. Along with the main Bill are two amendments. One deals with import quota, which I think is also desirable. It came about, as I remember it, particularly during a shipping strike in 1981. The quota for a particular year, because of the shipping strike, was actually landed in Australia after the date of quota. The amendments now before the House will allow those quotas that come in after the period to be entered at no penalty. This is a vast improvement and certainly one which will help those involved in the import trade. They will now be able to administer their businesses by taking goods into and out of bond and entering them after the due date. I am sure that those in the footwear, clothing and textile areas will welcome those changes enormously. The other part of the Bill which I think is significant is the extension of the benefit to Papua New Guinea in relation to the forum countries. We provide special concessions of entry into Australia from the forum country group. This will include Papua New Guinea in terms of its access to the forum area. I commend those additions to the House. The other two Bills are purely related matters and I do not propose to go into them. They flow on as a consequence of the IAC findings. I repeat that I have great personal satisfaction in supporting the measures. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(11.34) —I too, like the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), wish to speak in support of the Customs Amendment Bill 1983 and the consequential amendments to the Industries Assistance Commission Act and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Act. Customs is an area of policy which is usually ignored by politicians and the public generally as being too complex, or simply about social issues such as drug imports or pornography. It is certainly about those, but Customs performs a major economic role as well. Unfortunately this economic role has never attracted the attention or parliamentary scrutiny that I believe it deserves. When consideration is given to the economic aspect of Customs many of us tend to see it in terms of the amount of revenue collected, and that is a substantial amount-something between $3,000m and $4,000m. While revenue raised as a result of the operation of the Customs Acts is, indeed, important, Customs is mainly about protection of Australian industry rather than about raising revenue. Even revenue items such as those covered in the list of Excise Tariff and Luxury Goods-for example, furs and jewellery-generally have some protective incidence. While the economic role of Customs is largely ignored by the Parliament, it is certainly very much part of the day-to-day conduct of the large manufacturing, retailing and importing industries. Every large company in these areas has a section devoted to Customs work or employs a Customs agent or consultant to work on its behalf in this area. A large proportion of approaches to Government in Canberra by the business community is related to questions on Customs. Within Customs we are looking at tariff classification, by-laws and dumping as well as the administration of bounty and excise. This particular legislation deals with what was formerly known as the by-law system, which in future is to be known as the commercial tariff concession scheme. Broadly speaking, under the old by-law system, where an importer brought in a product which was not manufactured in Australia he was able to get it free of duty under by-law. The logic of that was that since the good was not manufactured in Australia, there was no Australian industry to protect and, therefore, to charge duty was only to impose extra costs on the importer and ultimately the consumer. The test which was used to establish whether by-law would be granted was whether a 'suitably equivalent' good was 'reasonably available' and produced in Australia. The goods imported into Australia under by-law would, in the normal course of events, be worth about $3,700m per year. About $600m in Customs duties is forgone by grant of by-law. In other words, goods which would normally attract duty of some $600m are admitted free. This compares with $1,600m collected in Customs duty. There has been interminable dispute about whether Australian made goods are suitably equivalent to the imported goods-understandably so, because the judgments are frequently totally subjective. I understand that in times of high economic growth there is a much greater willingness to grant by-law than in times of economic recession. I am not suggesting that officials do not attempt to play the same rules, but it is a fact that pressure from local manufacturers is much greater during times of economic downturn. Because of widespread dissatisfaction among both importers and manufacturers with the existing by-law system, a reference was sent by the previous government to the Industries Assistance Commission asking it to review and make recommendations concerning the operation of by-law. The IAC reported on 2 July 1982. The thrust of its report was that the commercial by-law system should be retained in a modified fashion. Specifically, it made the following recommendations: A. The 'suitably equivalent'/'reasonably available' criteria should be dropped and replaced by the criteria that there were no goods serving similar functions produced in Australia. In addition concessional entry should be refused where the imported goods would have a substantially adverse effect on the market available to goods produced in Australia. B. That where commercial by-law was granted the by-law should be notified in the Commonwealth Gazette. The IAC recommended that the term 'produced in Australia' should be interpreted as: 1. requiring significant transformation combined with substantial local content ; and 2. including the capability to produce in the normal course of business in Australia. Among its other recommendations the IAC said all ad hoc by-laws, that is, by- laws for specific shipments, should be allowed to lapse and that retrospective by-laws should be abolished. Under the previous system it was possible for an importer to land goods in Australia and pay duty but afterwards apply for a refund of duty on the ground that no equivalent Australian good was produced here. Where successful, this provided the importer with a large windfall profit equal to the value of the Customs duty refunded, while doing nothing to reduce the price of the good since it had already been sold and the duty passed on in general costs. There is, therefore, a strong case for objecting to retrospective by-laws and very little useful economic purpose served by granting them. The IAC recommended also that 'fall-short' and 'short-fall' by-laws be terminated. 'Fall-short' by-laws are by-laws which are granted because, although there is an Australian producer, he is not able to meet normal market demands because of seasonal, cyclical, or other short term reasons. 'Short-fall' by-laws are those covering goods for which local producers cannot supply demand under normal circumstances. In future, 'short-fall' or 'fall-short' by-laws will be required to be referred to the IAC before they are granted. Following receipt of the IAC report and an interdepartmental committee report, examinations of the following provisions were accepted: (a) abolition of retrospectivity; (b) abolition of ad hoc concessions; (c) provision of an in transit provision; and ( d) definition of 'produced in Australia'. The new system will come into effect from 1 July 1983. That is the legislation that is now before this House. However, I think a number of things need to be said. First, the legislation has been developed largely as a result of considerations which took place before the present Government came to office, as the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) has outlined. Second, we have the option of introducing legislation to implement a system based on the IAC recommendations and presently administered in accordance with the recommendations, or of going back to the old and often unsatisfactory by-law system. Third, in those circumstances, the Government has little option but to proceed with the legislation and, if necessary, to make adjustments if experience indicates that adjustments are required. I have reservations about some aspects of the new scheme. The Minister's speech indicates that appeals against decisions will be handled in several ways; firstly, by an internal review system within the Department; secondly, by seeking a reference to the IAC; and, thirdly, by using the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Let me make these observations: I am not really very impressed with the internal review system proposal. Basically, this will allow the aggrieved importer to appeal from a junior officer to a more senior officer and, ultimately, to the Minister himself. I think it unlikely that a junior officer would take a decision in a marginal case without consulting his superiors, and in that sense the appeal would be from Caesar to Caesar. Nevertheless, it does provide an opportunity for new or amended evidence to be lodged. Secondly, it is unreasonable to expect a Minister to review a decision of his department in what is a largely technical matter. No one has a greater admiration for the capacity of the Minister than I do. But it would be unfair and unreasonable to expect him to carry out the examinations necessary to reach a proper judgment in each case. In practical terms, it is just not possible for him to undertake the study necessary and he is forced to rely on the information given to him by his Department. Then again, knowing as I do the time taken up by Ministers receiving deputations to put different points of view, I believe that this would be an unwarranted intrusion on the Minister's time. The right to seek a reference to the IAC runs into difficulties as well. Normally a reference would not be granted unless there were a fundamental issue of principle to be established. Again, it is hardly conceivable that a Minister would make a reference to the IAC unless so advised by his department or by an authoritative body such as the IAC itself. This brings me to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. While it is a big advance to allow appeals against decisions by the Department and the Minister and contrary to the IAC recommendations, I think the more appropriate tribunal would be the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Reviews under the Administrative Decisions ( Judicial Review) Act are conducted by the Federal Court of Australia and the proceedings are time consuming, costly and frequently extremely legalistic. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal is far better equipped to review decisions swiftly, cheaply and without excessive legalism. Basically, the questions to be answered and considered are not ones where great legal insight is required but where common sense and judgment need to be applied. In conclusion, the legislation before the House, despite the reservations I have expressed, is a step forward in the rationalisation of Customs law and should provide a more equitable and predictable environment for users of the system. I congratulate the Government on conducting seminars throughout the country to inform manufacturers and importers about the new system. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(11.46) —Of course, the Opposition supports the legislation. It compliments the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) for introducing these moves which will greatly assist manufacturers. I believe that a lot of credit is due to the previous Minister who initiated most of them. It is good that we have had a bit of coming together for the first time . It is good also that there is conciliation and a bringing of Australia together. This is about the first sign I have seen of it and I compliment both gentlemen. The difficulty that the Minister has, of course, is reconciling people who are employed, for example, in the textile and footwear industries who are dependent to a degree on what people will pay for a particular product. If people see other products that are far cheaper there is a scramble. We have always had the difficult problem in Australia of cheaper imports as against what is supplied in Australia and what people are prepared to buy. Of course, the unemployment problem enters the argument. If industries such as the footwear and textile industry restructure and put people out of work there are grave repercussions. The point I make is that there has to be a balance. Therefore, the Minister's job is terribly difficult. The public servants, the Industries Assistance Commission and others who are involved in Customs and tariffs have a difficult job in initiating programs that will be beneficial to Australia. The IAC and other people have to look at an industry and worry about pricing, about whether it will be viable and about whether it will continue to employ Australians. This is a grave problem. When considering simplifying the entry of goods we can talk about the importation of crude oil. We can then take that a step further and consider the pricing of petroleum in Australia. I believe that petrol pricing, for example, should be one matter that governments and others in Australia who are skilled in this regard should look at very carefully. The Collins Royal Commission on Petroleum which was held in 1974 cost about $1.5m. It hoped to overcome some of the problems associated with the petroleum industry but it failed because the petroleum industry is ever-changing. Now we have a ludicrous situation in Australia where, in various States, there are different prices for petrol. Some governments have a freeze on the wholesale price and some have a freeze on the retail price. Of course, as a result of those freezes oil companies are finding it very difficult to expand, to develop jobs and to develop in Australia as they would like. On the other hand other States do not have any restrictions. Ultimately consumers in those States pay a higher price for their petrol. If we are going to look at industries I believe that the petroleum industry should be considered by the Government. In the past I have criticised the IAC. I thought it included a bunch of armchair theorists. I take that all back. It has a job to do and hopefully it is trying to overcome some of the problems associated with changing industries and changing ways of marketing in Australia. We are importing 35 per cent of our crude oil, at the heavy end. We are 65 per cent self-sufficient. If we are to have a source of petroleum in Australia for years to come and if we are to be self-sufficient we need to take into consideration all the problems associated with the industry. We should consider the ludicrous situation that we have in Tasmania-I will name Tasmania because I come from that State and it is easy to talk about-where consumers pay about 48c a litre for their petrol. Mr John Brown —You would know. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, I would know because I probably know more about petrol pricing than any other member in this House. I very rarely praise myself but on this occasion I will. Mr Moore —A constant spokesman. Mr GOODLUCK —I thank the honourable member. Mr Cadman —Too modest. Mr GOODLUCK —I am too modest. Mr John Brown —Pretty stupid too. Mr GOODLUCK —I knew the Minister would say that. The oil companies go to the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority. If they can justify an increase in the price of petrol, they get that increase. At the moment in Hobart with the major oil companies the wholesale price varies by up to 3c a litre. When the dealers put their margin on top of that they are at disadvantage immediately. There is confusion down there. There is criticism of the dealers, the oil companies and of course of governments. In Melbourne there is a fixed wholesale price yet in fact the oil companies are able to sell below that wholesale price, sometimes to the detriment of the dealers within the area, putting people out of work, et cetera. In Sydney there is the same sort of situation. There is a fixture on the wholesale price yet the oil companies are able to sell petrol below that wholesale price so the whole thing is in confusion. The point I make is that, if we are to help industries and consumers in Australia, we as a Parliament should settle a direct point and overcome these problems to a degree. We have the ability to do it. We are able to draw on the experts to look at these industries. We should look at the petroleum industry. People need petrol as much as they need the air that we breathe and the water that we drink. It has an effect on transportation, on goods and on the ability of people to move from point A to point B. It affects their livelihoods. It is a terribly important industry. Sometimes politicians are afraid to face up to the fact that we have to restructure the industry and look at it carefully. For example, we heard the manager of Ampol Ltd at the National Economic Summit Conference talk about petrol. Mr Groom —Mr Gosper. Mr GOODLUCK —No, it was the manager of Ampol Ltd-Gosper is from the Shell Co. of Australia-talking about the petroleum industry. Everybody wants to blame somebody else for it. I believe that we have the responsibility. Mr Hand —Nationalise it. Mr GOODLUCK —No, we will not nationalise it. Why should we nationalise it? If we did that the oil companies would not have the ability to expand or to develop in Australia. We have to look at it sensibly. But we have a unique ability to set up some committee here. Many back benchers sometimes sit and twiddle their thumbs because they do not have the initiative or incentive to get involved in something that will be terribly important to the economy of Australia. I hope we can join together in some way-perhaps with the great Mr Hawke with the albatross around his neck-and we could work together and restructure the industry, instead of leaving it to other people who are not elected to Parliament but who seem to have a heck of a great say in what occurs in Australia. We could join together in harmony and work for the ultimate goal of restructuring that industry in the best interests of all Australians. We could stop what is occurring at the moment with poor dealer against dealer, consumer against consumer and State against State. We could overcome that. Country people are disadvantaged as a result of all this argument. I hope that the Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) will consider the petroleum industry in the way in which he is considering other industries and then I will give him the support that he would richly deserve. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(11.53) —I speak in support of the Customs Amendment Bill 1983 and the consequential amendments to the Industries Assistance Commission Act and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Act. The commercial by-law system to which this legislation refers has been a feature of Australian tariffs since Federation. The system has progressively expanded since that time and now applies to between one-quarter and one-third of total imports. The estimated value of concessions provided under the system is more than $600m annually. As the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) has commented, the system has extensive support from all sectors of the business community. Many Australian production activities depend to varying degrees on the concessional entry of imported inputs and the by-law system provides a means of reducing costs and prices while at the same time maintaining the general protective effect of the tariff on local industries. The Industries Assistance Commission, in its report of 2 July 1982 on the commercial by-law system, concluded that the existing commercial by-law system was not operating in a manner fully consistent with the guidelines for assistance policy and recommended that a number of changes be made to improve the commercial by-law system. The main purpose of the Bill now before the House is to give effect to many of those recommendations by amending the Customs Act 1901 and introducing a new system for granting tariff concessions, to be known as the commercial tariff concession system. As a result of the Customs Amendment Bill 1983, consequential amendments are proposed also to the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975. The adoption of these Bills will improve the administrative efficiency of the system, as well as providing a clearer framework within which importers and local manufacturers can operate. The establishment of a clearer and more predictable trading framework is essential to the fundamental goal of achieving sustained economic growth. In this respect clause 5, concerning sections 269B, 269C and 269E of the Customs Act, is essential to the establishment of this clearer and more predictable trading framework. I intend to deal with each in a little more detail. Section 269C provides for the issuing of a commercial tariff concession where the Minister is satisfied that no goods serving similar functions are produced or are capable of being produced in the normal course of business in Australia. Under existing legislation a commercial by-law may be granted provided that 'suitably equivalent reasonably available goods are not available for Australian production'. Such a definition is vague and somewhat cumbersome. Considerable difficulties have arisen over a period, particularly in relation to the interpretation of the phrase 'suitably equivalent'. These difficulties were well documented in the IAC's report of 2 July 1982. Importantly, the legislation before the House removes that ambiguity and vagueness by providing a very clear definition of the key words 'similar functions'. The test of whether goods do or do not serve similar functions is specified in proposed section 269B of the Act as the degree of cross-elasticity of demand between those goods. Essentially this comes down to the question of whether the imported goods actually compete with, or have the potential of competing with, Australian produced goods. Such a definition is considerably clearer and less ambiguous than the previous definition 'suitable equivalents' and will ensure better protection for Australian industry as well as a more predictable trading framework for our importers. Clause 5 of the Bill, dealing with section 269E of the Act, provides for ministerial discretion in cases where the granting of concession would be likely to have a substantially adverse effect on the market for Australian-produced goods, or if it is not in the national interest. The clause removes anomalies under the existing legislation and provides more effective protection for Australian industry. An example of difficulties arising under the existing legislation was the use of polythylane coated paper board for the packaging of milk. A commercial by-law for such paper board had been in existence for some years before local glass bottle manufacturers realised its effect on their sales . The new provision will allow swift ministerial action to be taken in such instances. Similarly, situations have occurred in the past where already highly protected local industry has sought concessional admission on an essential manufacturing input, thereby receiving substantially greater protection than intended under tariff policy. Again, the new provisions will allow swift and appropriate action to be taken by the Minister. Further improvements to the existing by-law system are also provided for by the Bill in relation to the advertising of applications for new concessions in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. This new procedure will allow local manufacturers and other interested parties an opportunity to have their views taken into consideration before a commercial tariff concession decision is made. In summary, the legislation before the House does not provide for substantive changes to the tariff system, but does improve and modify the existing by-law system. The legislation was originally proposed by the previous Government. As I have indicated, it should provide a much clearer and more predictable framework in which our importers and local producers can operate. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 12 noon, the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101 (a). The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Foreign Minister. May I say that, with a considerable and growing number of Government members, the Opposition warmly welcomes the Minister back to Australia. We noted with considerable interest a number of his statements while he was overseas. I ask the Minister: Does he still stand by his statement to the House on 22 October 1981 that 'We are opposed to the commitment of Australian troops overseas in any multinational military force unless it has United Nations sponsorship'? In the light of the Deputy Prime Minister's suggestion last weekend that Australia could participate with Japan in a Kampuchean peacekeeping force, has the Minister received any indication as to whether the United Nations is prepared to sponsor such a force? Mr HAYDEN —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the warmth of his welcome which is mildly exceeded by the depth of its genuineness. It reminds me that I often wish I had an uncomplicated and perhaps at times unnoticed presence in this place. All I can say is that I made some comments on the matter in Hong Kong. I do not propose to go beyond that except to remind the honourable member that in a few weeks time I will be going to Hanoi after speaking with our colleagues from the Association of South East Asian Nations at the post-ASEAN meetings. There I will be engaging in what will be quite obviously complicated and demanding consultations. I put it no higher than that. I would be the first to acknowledge that the probabilities of success must be seen as rather low. It is, I repeat, a very difficult undertaking we are embarking upon and the risks are high in the sense, I suppose, that one's reputation swings on these things. In our sort of society commentators are interested only in success stories, not when one fails to meet targets one sets oneself. For all that, however, I think we have a responsibility to take risks. I am certain that on that occasion I will go with the good wishes and best hopes of the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues. Ms FATIN —Is the Prime Minister aware of the continuing misrepresentations of the Government's wages policy by members of the Opposition? Will he again make clear what the Government's attitude is towards the level of and machinery for settlements in 1983 and 1984 so that it can be open to no misunderstanding or misrepresentation? Mr HAWKE —Indeed, there has been a continuing misrepresentation and, while I would not normally be an advertiser for the particular commentator in question, I would suggest that honourable members opposite should read the comments of one hirsute commentator in the Age today, who seemed to get it right. So that others can have the clarity of perception of that hirsute commentator, let me make clear again what the position of this Government is. It is that there shall be a return to centralised wage fixation; that the increase that comes out of any hearing by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the latter part of this year should be small. Everything that I look at, all the experiences that I have, confirm that that is a correct position of this Government. Yesterday I had the opportunity of speaking with representatives of unemployed young people, who have been in the vicinity recently. When honourable members understand that this Government and this country must have an overwhelming concern for those who do not have jobs above those who have the good fortune to have them after seven years of the policies of the previous Government, they will know that we must have a wages policy which at one and the same time is consistent with the industrial realities that wage increases of any kind cannot be stopped nor would it be appropriate to stop them. But any wage increases that occur should be minimal. If honourable members understand this they will see the correctness of the policies which I have outlined and which, as far as this Government is concerned, will produce that result. The increase that we see as appropriate in the latter part of this year is only 3 per cent to 4 per cent which, I repeat, will be significantly below what would have resulted if the policies of the previous Government had been allowed to continue. Mr PORTER —My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer to the high level of Aboriginal unemployment, estimated to be around 60 per cent in urban areas and up to 100 per cent in isolated communities. I refer specifically to the allocations under the wages pause program for employment projects in the States. Can the Minister advise the House whether he has ensured the allocation of a fixed proportion of those funds to Aboriginal employment? If so, what proportion of funds will be allocated? If he has not done so, has he taken action to ensure that the States include Aboriginals in their employment projects? If he has not taken any such action, will he do so? Mr HOLDING —First of all, I congratulate the honourable member on his appointment as shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I also congratulate him on asking his very first question ever on Aboriginal affairs. I am indeed pleased to see that the honourable member in his new role as shadow Minister now has a concern for the problems of Aboriginal unemployment, most of which were magnified and increased as a result of the policies pursued by the previous Government. The matter is of concern to this Government and it has formed the major part of the Budget submissions which we have endeavoured to put in place. At the appropriate time it will be made clear to the honourable gentleman and all honourable members that it is the policy of this Government in respect of Aboriginal employment to enhance those opportunities throughout Australia. The biggest single emphasis in our Budget allocations is first on Aboriginal housing, to try to come to grips with the problem and, secondly, on increased employment opportunities. At the first available parliamentary opportunity, I will make a much fuller statement on all the objectives of this Government in terms of the needs of Aboriginal people. The honourable member need have no fear that the neglect which characterised the policies of the previous Government of which he was a supporter is being remedied and will be attended to. Ms MAYER —Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to further allegations by the honourable member for Denison that the Prime Minister is aware that the expelled KGB agent, Ivanov, channelled substantial funds to local organisations? Is there any foundation to these allegations? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for Chisholm for that question. Indeed, my attention has been drawn to the statements made by the honourable member for Denison. I preface my reply by saying that in respect of issues which are related to the Royal Commission on Security and Intelligence Agencies which my Government has commissioned, obviously our general view is that those matters should now be considered by that royal commission. But I must say that in respect of the question by the honourable member for Chisholm, all canons of decency require that I make a statement at this point. I want to say at the outset of my reply that the conduct of the honourable member for Denison has been beneath contempt. The honourable member, as reported in today's Press-I particularly refer to the front page of today's Age-made reference to three conversations that he had with me yesterday. He was reported as saying that he would not disclose the contents of those conversations but he then proceeded to make statements which he knows to be totally inconsistent with the contents of those conversations. Let me, Mr Speaker-- Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order. The Prime Minister is not entitled to quote from a Press report unless he is prepared to vouch for its accuracy. I suggest that he cannot vouch for the accuracy of what he is just about to quote. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HAWKE —Let me give the House the background to this matter-I will refer to proceedings which took place in the House yesterday-so that honourable members on both sides of the House can make their judgment about the conduct of the honourable member for Denison. What happened was this: There were indeed three conversations yesterday between the honourable member for Denison and me. I will recount them in order and in relation to what happened in this House. Before Question Time yesterday the honourable member sought to have time to speak with me. Of course, I granted him that time. He came to me and indicated that he was going to ask a question. I do not know why he put this point to me but he asked me to listen very carefully to the question that he was going to put. I listen carefully to all questions, even those coming from the honourable member for Denison. He said that I should listen very carefully to the question. I did listen carefully. I now go, in sequence, to the question and to my answer. The question put by the honourable member for Denison yesterday was in these terms: 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? The answer that I gave-I make no apologies for repeating it because this matter is going to be nailed; so is the miserable conduct of the honourable member going to be nailed-to this House was in these terms: 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. Following that, the second conversation between the honourable member for Denison and me yesterday took place just behind your chair, Mr Speaker. In that conversation I conveyed to the honourable member for Denison, in respect of the issues he had raised, that to the best of my recollection at no briefing I had attended in regard to this issue had one single word been raised with me which gave any substance to the allegations or innuendo in his question. I said to him : 'I am relying on my recollection. I will go to my office and I will take steps to check whether in fact I am mistaken in my recollection, whether in fact I was informed at any briefing I have had about this matter'. I would have been surprised if that were the case but I said I would check. I did that. I checked with those who had briefed me and they confirmed that what I had said in the second conversation yesterday with the honourable member for Denison was totally accurate-that I had been given no indication of any kind that would sustain any suggestion of the kind made in the question by the honourable member for Denison . The third conversation took place in the corridor outside this chamber last night when I bumped into the honourable member. I confirmed to him again that there was nothing that I had been told which would in any way sustain, in my mind, any belief in regard to the matters that he had raised. I have no knowledge from the briefing I have had, or from any other source, which would sustain the allegations that he has made. It is in that sense that I find totally repugnant this report in today's Press. I read from it. Mr Hodgman said- - Mr Hodgman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr Holding —Are you ashamed? Mr Hodgman —I have nothing to be ashamed of. The Prime Minister has missed out one conversation. He has missed out the telephone conversation. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should raise his point of order. Mr Hodgman —My point of order is that the Prime Minister is again quoting from a Press report in respect of which he cannot vouch the accuracy, and the accuracy of which I dispute. He also has omitted the telephone conversation. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I will reply to the point of order to make the matter quite clear. It has been the practice of my predecessors in the Chair to allow members to quote from newspaper articles, and I see no reason for reversing that decision. Mr HAWKE —I have not overlooked the other conversation. After I had had the confirmation from my security sources and from those who had briefed me in regard to this other matter, I rang the honourable member and told him that. The information which I told him then in the telephone conversation after my recollection which I had given to him behind your chair, Sir, had been confirmed . Again in the third conversation out in the corridor I conveyed that to him. Now, in this morning's Press, we find this statement: Mr Hodgman said outside Parliament last night that he had spoken with Mr Hawke three times yesterday about the matter: once before question time and twice after question time. I have conveyed that to the House. The article continues: He said that Mr Hawke had phoned him about his allegations during yesterday afternoon, but Mr Hodgman refused to disclose what was said in that conversation . Marvellous! The article goes on: Mr Hodgman said: 'If the Prime Minister does know of these matters, he should tell Parliament. If he does not know, it indicates a very serious situation indeed'. This is in quotation marks, Mr Speaker: 'I would find it incredible if he did not know'. So what this House now has before it is a situation where the matter was raised in the House, I gave my answer and spoke to the honourable member behind your chair, Mr Speaker, and told him directly that as far as I could recall there was nothing to sustain his question. I checked with those who had briefed me and was told: 'No, you have been given no information'. I rang the honourable member and told him that and then again last night in the corridors of this House I told him the same thing. Then this man says: 'No, I am not going to talk about the conversations but I am going to say that I would find it incredible if he did not know'. I leave all honourable members of this House to make their judgment about this man. Mr McGAURAN —I ask the Minister for Primary Industry whether he is aware of fears of the United Dairy Farmers of Victoria that up to 20,000 dairy factory employees and 17,000 dairy farmers could lose their jobs because of the continued dumping on the Australian market of highly subsidised cheese from the European Economic Community? Given that the Minister has just visited Brussels, did he raise this issue with EEC officials? What is he doing to stop this dumping activity and to protect those 37,000 jobs? Mr KERIN —I doubt somewhat the magnitude of the honourable member's figures, but what he points to has also been pointed out most strongly by the honourable member for McMillan, and that is that the rising level of cheese imports, particularly from the EEC, is causing a real problem to Australian dairy farmers . In the last year imports of cheese from the EEC rose by about 54 per cent and in the first six months of this year they have risen again by another 25 per cent. The industry has taken an action before the relevant authorities. It is pretty clear in my mind that it is in a position to show, if not damage, then that it is being very much prejudiced by the action of the EEC in putting cheese into this country often at subsidised prices, because the EEC is paying export restitution on the cheese that is coming in. This matter is before the relevant authorities. It is a matter of which I am very well aware. It is a matter that I raised with the EEC officials in Brussels . As a matter of fact, it took up as much time as did sugar. It is a matter that is under the closest consideration by me and my Department, and we should have some decision on it within days. Mr SCOTT —Is the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs aware of the remarks made yesterday by the honourable member for Denison in response to the Minister's announcement of the Government's migrant intake policy? Is the Minister concerned that such remarks might cause grave concern within the ethnic communities, especially the allegations that the Government's immigration policy is 'authoritarian' and is moving towards an 'anti-English-speaking' policy? Mr WEST —Yesterday-I note that this received some publicity in the media-the honourable member for Denison replied to my statement on the new immigration intake policy by suggesting that we were implementing a bias against English- speaking people. This is in line with his usual capacity for misleading and outrageous statements. What I said was that, within an overall parameter of a maximum of about 90,000 visaed migrants, this Government will be giving a very high priority, as it should, to family reunion and to refugees, and that under the former Government family reunion was affected by admission criteria which were heavily biased in favour of English-speaking professional people with loads of money. That is the fact. That is what happened. Under the former Government some people were more entitled to family reunion than others. There are six million people in Australia who were born overseas or who have one parent or both parents born overseas. Family reunion should not be based on employment grounds alone, as it was almost, under the previous Government. There are humane social considerations. We believe that people, perhaps at the middle or at the lower end-- Mr Macphee —On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the immigration policy that prevailed until yesterday was a bipartisan policy. It is not true-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr WEST —If it was a bipartisan policy, it is the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Denison, who is attempting to destroy that bipartisan policy. Arranged employment will still retain 10 points out of 60 in the sponsorship criteria. But what was happening before was that people who were fluent in English were getting two points more-that is not very much-than people who just had a capacity to learn English. I have removed that category-that is, removed the ability to get two points more. The honourable member is trying to misrepresent that very necessary move as a bias towards non-English-speaking people and a bias against people who speak English. That is incorrect. Employment will still receive just consideration. A person will get 10 points, out of 60, for pre-arranged employment. I conclude by informing the House that to remove an extraordinary bias against non-English-speaking people is not in itself a means of commencing a bias against English-speaking people. Mr ANTHONY —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the public disquiet about organised crime and the need for a national crimes commission-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. Mr ANTHONY —I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. The right honourable gentleman is entitled to ask his question without interjection. It seems to me that there are interjections from both sides of the House. A reasonable degree of latitude can be permitted but we are getting beyond it. I call the Leader of the National Party to ask his question. Mr ANTHONY —I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will proclaim the legislation passed by Parliament last year to establish such a commission? What is the position of Sir Edward Williams, who was appointed commissioner designate ? Mr HAWKE —I am very pleased that the honourable member asked the question that he did. I am in a position to inform the House of very concrete steps which the Government is taking, not to talk words but to translate into action the unqualified determination of this Government to ensure that everything that can possibly be done is done to smash organised crime in this country. I can assure the House that, in the very short time we have been in government, those steps make the relative inaction of our predecessors pale into insignificance. Recently the Special Minister of State, the Attorney-General and I met in Melbourne with Royal Commissioner Costigan and senior members of his staff to be fully briefed on the stage which their work had reached. I can say to this House that a magnificent amount of detailed work has been done and we are so committed to ensuring that that work will be facilitated and moved to the point at which effective prosecutions can be put in place that, as I think the Special Minister of State announced recently in the House, we have made very significant increases in the financial support available to the royal commissioner, in terms of the request that he has made, to ensure that the work that that royal commission is undertaking will be brought to effective fruition. As to what we are doing in respect of the legislation to which the honourable member referred, while ensuring that the resources available to Royal Commissioner Costigan- and I think the honourable member will appreciate the great work that has been done there-are increased, we are ensuring that, as a result of those increased resources, there will be a position in which there can be the most effective transition from the work of the Costigan royal commission to the work of the National Crimes Commission. We will see-- Mr Newman —That was in place already. Mr HAWKE —I understand that the honourable member who asked the question is following the answer. I think he would appreciate and, I hope, approve the course we are following. What we are doing is to ensure that by increasing the resources of the Costigan royal commission the work of the commission will be increased and improved and that, at the beginning of 1984, we will be in place, with the proclamation of the Act, for the National Crimes Commission to take over, in the most effective way, the work of the royal commission. In respect of the question that the honourable member asked with regard to-- Mr Anthony —Sir Edward Williams. Mr HAWKE —I have not forgotten that part of the question. It has been indicated that we will not at this stage be requiring the services of His Honour because it will be appreciated, in terms of the answer that I have given to this point, that we just cannot keep him hanging around until 1984 when we will have the National Crimes Commission take over the work of the Costigan commission, work which we have increased. His services have been made available back to the Supreme Court of Queensland and the Government, at an appropriate and an effective time, will be making a decision as to who is most appropriate to head up the work of the National Crimes Commission. Mr KEOGH —Has the Minister for Health seen an article in last Sunday's Brisbane Sunday Sun in which the Queensland Minister for Health, Mr Brian Austin, accused the Federal Government 'of leaving thousands of old people out in the cold while it dithered over a new nursing home policy'? Will the Minister say whether Mr Austin's statement was accurate? Dr BLEWETT —It is extraordinarily difficult to establish co-operative relationships with a Minister who uses every communication simply for pretty base political purposes. Six weeks ago I informed Mr Austin, as an act of courtesy, of an investigation which was about to take place in a Queensland hospital. He immediately blabbed that information both to the Press and to Parliament thereby potentially imperilling that operation. Last week I sent him information concerning new policy guidelines in relation to nursing homes. He immediately sought to exploit that letter for the same cheap, partisan purposes. He made two allegations in the newspaper, both of which are incorrect. First of all, he said that we were leaving thousands of old people out in the cold. As a nursing home takes at least 12 months to be built, if there are any old people out in the cold in Queensland they are there as a result of the policies of the last Government. I do not believe that there are in that sense; I am not blaming the last Government. But, if they are out in the cold it is the responsibility of the previous Government. The other charge he made is that we are dithering over our new nursing homes policy. The opposite is the truth. Immediately after coming to government we were faced with the recommendations of the McLeay Committee report, which was highly critical-Opposition members are aware of this-of the allocation, distribution and effectiveness of the nursing home program. Therefore, immediately, rather than dithering, we asked that new guidelines be prepared for determining the allocation of nursing homes and that, while those were being prepared, no allocations be made. Those nursing home guidelines have been completed and have been sent to all State Ministers. Of course, we are still waiting for a reply from Mr Austin. As soon as those replies are in we will initiate that new policy and there will be special instructions to the Department to deal quickly with all the applications which are now in the pipeline. I think responsible members of the Opposition will agree that next year the nursing homes policy will cost us, in benefits, over $800m. A responsible government must see that that money is spent in the most effective way possible. We have taken immediate action, rather than dithering, to make that policy effective. Mr FIFE —My question is directed to the Treasurer. It refers to a recent ruling by the Victorian Deputy Commissioner of Taxation that losses arising from the difference between income received and interest paid on investment properties are not tax deductible. Does the Minister agree that this ruling, applied throughout Australia, will be a disincentive to investment and lead to an increase in rental payments by Australians who do not own or who are purchasing their own homes? Further, does the Treasurer agree that the ruling will lead to a significant number of investment properties coming on to the property market, thus having serious ramifications for new housing demand in relation to his Government's plan to increase housing commencements? Will the Government take action urgently to rectify this matter? Mr KEATING —There has been some Press speculation and comment about the assessment issued by the Victorian office of the Commissioner of Taxation in respect of negative cash flows on properties. It is a matter which is causing some disquiet, I understand, in property circles. Of course, the assessment was issued last November in terms of the administration as the Victorian Deputy Commissioner saw it. The Government believes that clear policy implications are involved in the ruling. The matter is now under review. The Government will make a determination about it at the appropriate time. Mr GEAR —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce aware of recent articles, particularly one which appeared in the Australian Financial Review of Tuesday, 10 May, purporting to be based on a confidential draft report of the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Advisory Committee? Is it the Minister's understanding that this report is circulated to members of the committee on a confidential basis in order to promote informed discussion and comment on a wide range of issues and that the leaking of this information undermines the whole process of the committee? Mr JOHN BROWN —I thank the honourable member for Tangney for his question. It goes to the heart of a very important committee report. I think everybody in this House would share the concern that we all have for the continued viability of textile, clothing and footwear industries. Mr Lusher —Don't count me in that. Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member for Hume wants to be counted out of that so we will count him out. I am aware of Press reports purporting to quote extracts from the advisory committee's draft report. Members of this House, particularly members of the previous Government, will understand that the independant chairman of that committee is Mr David Elix, for whom I think there is widespread respect. I wish to emphasise that the report was in fact in draft form and was circulated, as the questioner has noted, on a confidential basis to members of the committee's advisory council in advance of the council meeting that took place on 13 May. Of course, it has been a long-standing practice to circulate draft reports in advance so that councils, with the benefit of draft reports, can involve themselves in meaningful and informed discussions at council meetings, the objective being that discussions be as constructive and as non-partisan as possible. I understand also that industry council members value this practice. The advisory committee is now finalising its report on the whole question of continued support and protection for those three very important industries and will submit it to the Minister for Industry and Commerce later this month. On that account, therefore, it is not appropriate at this stage for me to comment on the draft report or its contents. But I say to the House that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is very disappointed that the very basis of advanced circulation has been jeopardised, as was pointed out in the Press reports, by the precipitate action of some rather unprincipled and unknown person. Mr McVEIGH —Has the Prime Minister noted that the recent report of the Industries Assistance Commission on assistance to Australian agriculture has found that the overall level of assistance to that sector has declined significantly in contrast with the increased assistance to manufacturing industry? Further, has he noted the findings in paragraph 4.64 of the Balderstone report that Australian agriculture should receive more assistance than it currently obtains? In the light of his pre-election commitment to Australia's great primary industries and in the light of the findings of these two great reports, will his Government honour at least one of its election commitments and increase assistance to agricultural industries? Mr HAWKE —The answer to the first part of the question asked by the honourable member is yes. I have applied my reasoning to it and have come to the conclusion that the fact that the IAC has made these findings in regard to the present state of assistance to the primary sector vis-a-vis the rest of Australian industry reflects the outcome of the decisions of the Government of which the honourable member was a member for so long. Whatever is the current misallocation of assistance, if there be such, between sectors, it is, as the IAC will have found, a result of the application of the decisions of the previous Government of which he was a member. In regard to the second part of the question, yes, I am aware of the Balderstone report. Thirdly, regarding what this Government will do about Australia's great primary industries, these are the things we will do: Firstly, we have provided them with a man who has already established his mark as the best Minister for Primary Industry that has been seen in this country for more than 20 years. He has the total confidence of every sector of those great Australian primary industries. I am very proud of the very effective working arrangements and understanding that exists between the Minister and the primary industries. Secondly, we have established close working relations with the representatives of Australian primary industry. As recently as this week I was honoured to open the national conference of the National Farmers Federation. I did this with great pleasure and conveyed to that conference the attitude and the policies of this Government, which I am very glad to say were welcomed by it. Mr SNOW —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. In view of the high level of public interest in the maintenance and retention of Australia's lighthouses, such as Montague Island, Green Cape and Point Perpendicular, their importance as part of our heritage, and their considerable value not only as marine navigational aids but also as a key element of coastal search and rescue, can the Minister indicate whether the former Government's policy of demanning these installations and converting them to automatic operation is to be continued? Mr PETER MORRIS —I must say that the honourable member has been most assiduous in his representations to me on these matters. Lighthouses are an essential maritime navigational aid. Since our Government assumed office I have received a wide number of representations not only from the honourable member for Eden- Monaro but also from other persons and organisations covering aspects of the lighthouse demanning program, such as heritage considerations, search and rescue functions, their coastal surveillance capacity and, very importantly, the needs of local fishing communities and small boat operators. There are some 287 lighthouses-or light aids, as they are technically known-around the Australian coastline, 42 of which are still manned. They involve considerable expenditure- some $28m a year-in maintenance operations. Most of this expenditure is recovered from the shipping industry. Because of the wide public concern about the demanning program of the previous Government I have called a halt to the demanning program until such time as there has been an opportunity for full public inquiry and examination of all the issues and aspects I have mentioned. I was pleased to learn from the honourable member for Grayndler, who is the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, that the Committee has decided to undertake a public inquiry into what I see as a very important problem. Mr Braithwaite —What do you know about the Budget? Mr PETER MORRIS —It is a Budget item. Considerable expenditure is involved. It does have an impact upon sea transport costs and a very important impact upon small fishing and local communities which depend upon these lighthouses, firstly , for navigational aids and, secondly, for safety and rescue operations. I understand that the Expenditure Committee will be advertising shortly to invite submissions to the inquiry. Through you, Mr Speaker, I say to the Chairman of the Committee that I hope the Committee will undertake the onerous task of visiting some of these lighthouses in their remote locations. Mr Hodgman —You are junketing. Mr PETER MORRIS —It is not junketing. This is a very important service. I hope the Committee will visit the communities, meet the people of the communities and come back to this Parliament with a comprehensive and responsible report and recommendations. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Treasurer to his answer on interest rates on 17 May and, in particular, his premature jubilation at the fall in Treasury note yields as a result of a tender held a week earlier. Applying the reasoning contained in his own answer, does the honourable gentleman now assert that yesterday's rise of more than one per cent in 26-week Treasury notes indicates a lack of confidence in financial markets in the Government's policies? Alternatively, will he agree that it was absurd of him in the first place as Treasurer to draw longer term interest rate implications from movements in the notoriously volatile area of short term interest rates? Mr KEATING —I think I indicated in fairly measured and reserved terms, as distinct from those just described by the former Treasurer, the fact that there had been declines in interest rates across the board in a number of areas-in secondary market yields, in Treasury notes at the short term end and in both the short and the long term ends of the bond tender. I indicate also to the-- Mr Howard —Would the Treasurer-- Mr KEATING —Just listen. You have asked a question. I also indicate, Mr Speaker, that-- Mr Howard —I am sorry to bother you Paul-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is really trying the patience of the Chair. Mr KEATING —He cannot contain himself after the hammering he received a few minutes ago, Mr Speaker. I just indicate that in the last day or so the Australian exchange rate has started to level off in the appreciation which we had seen with it for quite some days. At the same time, coincidentally, there was a strengthening in the United States dollar. Quite an amount of money was left on an uncovered basis at the time. I think those institutions which had uncovered money sent that money off-shore the day before yesterday-something like $200m crossed the exchanges. I think that yesterday a very much lower figure was involved-$30m to $50m. Any movement in short term rates yesterday reflected a number of factors. The first is that perhaps there was a misinterpretation to some extent of why that money went off-shore the day before last. Secondly, there was some uncertainty about the prospects on the wages front after the announcement of the Australian Council of Trade Unions claim. The third factor is the general anticipation that there always is in money markets about a major government economic statement. However, I am quite confident that in the light of tonight's statement and the fact that, as distinct from our predecessors, the Government has demonstrated and will be demonstrating over time that it is prepared to run a disciplined fiscal policy in line with our stated policy, money markets will settle down in the period thereafter. I take this opportunity of saying that I will be very interested tonight, after the Government's statement has been made, to hear the former Treasurer say precisely what he would do with the deficit in prospect, whether in fact he would accept a deficit of $9.6 billion. Will he say precisely whether and where he would cut programs and whether he would resort to taxes in fulfilment of the statement he made a couple of weeks ago that the former Government would have had a deficit far below $9.6 billion? So I invite the former Treasurer, after tonight's statement, to leave off the waffle and come on with some hard detail about what that group of so-called economic managers would have done in the circumstances. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —For the information of honourable members I present a report entitled 'So Much Left Undone'. The report was prepared after the National Women's Advisory Council's special consultations with disabled women and girls. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members I present the Department of Primary Industry 1981-82 annual report. Copies of the report were distributed to members and senators of the last Parliament by mail at the direction of the previous Minister for Primary Industry. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 49 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977, I present the annual report of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation for 1981-82. Copies of the report were distributed to members and senators of the last Parliament by mail at the direction of the previous Minister for Primary Industry. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —For the information of honourable members I present the summary record of proceedings of the eleventh meeting of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers held in Hobart on 3 June 1982. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HODGMAN —The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has remained in the chamber and I thank him for that, but he misled the House-intentionally or otherwise-in answering the question put to him by the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer). I would like to put the matter right and make the following points. First, the Prime Minister is correct in saying that there were in fact four conversations, not three, between himself and myself yesterday. The first conversation took place before Question Time; the second was behind the Speaker' s chair after the Prime Minister had replied to my question; the third was by telephone at approximately 4.15 p.m.; and the last conversation was in the corridor outside this chamber when the Prime Minister was in the presence of Mr Paul Kelly of the Sydney Morning Herald. Secondly, I told the Prime Minister in the presence of Mr Kelly-as I am sure the Prime Minister will recall-that I was treating his conversations with me as confidential, that I would not disclose them to any person but that if he wished to disclose them, to make them public, that was quite okay with me. Thirdly, in relation to the report in the Age, the Prime Minister has answered a Dorothy Dix question based on a report which is not accurate in context because I was asked specifically a number of questions by Mr Davis. Mr Davis will hear this and be in a position, I believe, to confirm it. He asked me whether it was true that I had spoken to the Prime Minister. I said : 'That is correct'. I told him that the conversations were confidential and that I did not intend to disclose them. Mr Davis then said to me: 'Leaving aside your discussions with the Prime Minister, do you believe it to be incredible that he would not have been told of these matters which you have raised in the House'? I replied in the affirmative. That is my position and I deeply regret the way the Prime Minister has misled the House. I will now give evidence to the royal commission and the Prime Minister and his Government will have to live by that. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(12.53) —by leave-I move: That Standing Order 48A, as amended by sessional order of 4 May 1983, relating to the adjournment of the House, and Standing Order 103, 11 o'clock rule, be suspended for this sitting. I give the House an assurance that it is only in case the presentation of documents connected with the economic statement cannot be completed in the two hours made available to us. It is not intended that any other matters would be raised in that period. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(12.54) —The Leader of the House (Mr Young) canvassed his intention with me. In the light of the economic statement to be brought down tonight, together with accompanying statements and legislation, the Opposition does not oppose the motion submitted by the Leader of the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —by leave-For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the National Committee for the Evaluation of the Youth Services Scheme. The report is entitled ' ''One Step Forward'': Youth Homelessness and Emergency Accommodation Services'. The Youth Services Scheme is a program providing joint Commonwealth and State funding for services providing emergency accommodation and support for homeless youth. The Commonwealth funding is being provided under the Children's Services Program. During 1979-82 the program operated on a pilot basis. Funding was extended for this financial year pending the completion of this report and the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, which was tabled last August. The Government now has at hand two substantial reports on youth homelessness and is carefully examining them in the process of making decisions for future assistance in this area. The evaluation of the Youth Services Scheme was conducted by a committee of officials representing Commonwealth and State governments. It reported to all the Ministers involved. As required by the Committee's brief, the report focused entirely on the Youth Services Scheme and the assistance it was or was not able to provide homeless youth. It is not a general research document on youth homelessness as such, nor does it provide a comparative analysis of other methods of assistance to the homeless supported by other programs of the States or the Commonwealth. The principal focus of the report is on the youth who used the services. It assessed their common situations, their needs, and the degree to which the Youth Services Scheme, as established within its guidelines, was able to meet these needs. The conclusions and recommendations concentrate on the type and level of demand, the needs of the youth, including preventive measures to reduce homelessness; and the features seen as required in future guidelines of any national program of accommodation services to improve the ability to respond effectively to the needs of youth and to make national administration more efficient. The recommendations are not drafted as a policy document ready for implementation but rather suggest parameters and essential features for inclusion in a future policy document. The report itself contains a summary, on pages 2 to 7. Briefly, the main findings of the evaluation Committee are: The scheme as established was not able to meet all the continuing demand for emergency accommodation. Reasons suggested for this are the volume of demand and the number of youth remaining in accommodation for extended periods. The Committee estimated that for about half the users the principal need was for long term accommodation, that is, some form of independent housing. There is a significant demand from young adults in the age range 19-25 not covered by the guidelines for the particular scheme. A recommendation is that the eligible age range be extended in a future funding scheme. The youth predominantly lack support from their families for a variety of reasons and when this is combined, as it is almost invariably, with unemployment, the ability of youths to attain independence is hindered, rendering them homeless. Recommendations cover the need for employment opportunities for youth, so they may achieve independence and for improved support for families with adolescents to help them provide a more supportive environment for the youth. A new expanded youth accommodation program is recommended and it is suggested that a program which can better respond to youth homelessness needs to have three components, in an integrated network on a regional basis. Those components are: First, a front line of emergency accommodation services; secondly, a secondary group of services, accepting referrals from the frontline services, providing medium to long term supportive accommodation and services providing assistance in obtaining housing; and, thirdly, a third group providing services directed at the needs of the younger and particularly disadvantaged, for example, those who are handicapped or who have health problems or institutionalised youth. Recommendations covering administration of the recommended new, expanded program suggest continued Commonwealth and State involvement in funding with the Commonwealth component provided through specific purpose block grants to the States. The report emphasises the need for employment and adequate income for unemployed youth as a means of preventing longer term homelessness. As the House is aware, job creation programs are a high priority for this Government. We will be moving as soon as possible to get the programs under way. It is our hope that these will go a long way to redress some of the problems highlighted by this report. It is also Government policy that the young unemployed living away from home and all unemployed people renting privately should be paid supplementary rent assistance. The Government is concerned that young people should have the opportunity through schooling, or other technical and further education or community courses, to have appropriate training before attempting to enter the work force but, of course, for those unable to obtain work the income benefit should be adequate to allow them to live with dignity. This Government will be establishing a task force to examine the programs currently available which provide educational allowances and other income support for youth between 15 and 24 years of age. We see this as an area in need of urgent review. We will be examining this report and other information closely in this regard. The Youth Services Scheme is presently being examined as part of a review of all Commonwealth crisis accommodation programs. This review was instigated by the previous Government in 1982 and it is being undertaken jointly by the Departments of Housing and Construction and Social Security. It is expected to be completed in August 1983. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) will also be consulting with the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan) on matters which relate to her portfolio. The recommendations contained in 'One Step Forward' and the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, 'Youth Homelessness', will be considered in the crisis accommodation review. The Government will not be responding separately to these reports until decisions are announced following consideration of the review. Pending finalisation of decisions relating to the long term, the Government is giving urgent attention to the immediate funding requirements of the services. As honourable members will be aware, current funding is only approved until 30 June 1983. The Government hopes to be in a position to make a statement about this shortly. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar) —by leave-Before lunch, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), representing the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), introduced a paper to the House which was the report of the National Committee for the Evaluation of the Youth Services Scheme. The report is entitled ' ''One Step Forward'': Youth Homelessness and Emergency Accommodation Services'. There is under way a major review of all Commonwealth crisis accommodation programs instigated by the Fraser Government in 1982 and it is being undertaken jointly by the Department of Housing and Construction and the Department of Social Security. It is expected that this will be completed in 1983. The Government has also a report on homeless youth from the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, 'Youth Homelessness', which I am pleased to hear the Minister and his colleagues are considering within this crisis accommodation review. The Opposition welcomes the appearance of this report. I am sure that to be concerned about homelessness for youth is a bipartisan matter. I am sure that the Minister, although he makes ritual attacks on my supposed mindlessness and lack of interest in this matter, would in all truth and fairness concede that there has been a genuine interest on the part of both sides of the House in the effects on youth of unemployment in particular and the problems that lead to unemployment, some of them unassociated with economic conditions but, of course, made much worse by economic conditions. I have had some immediate contact with the establishment of a youth refuge, and contact with the Community Youth Support Scheme and associated groups that have tried to do something for the housing of homeless youth and have come to appreciate some of the particular difficulties of dealing with these problems. It was these kinds of concerns which led the previous Government to take a deep interest in these matters and I note that that interest is continued by the present Government. We shall certainly be looking forward anxiously to the result of this review, which will be completed, we hope, by the time of the Budget session. The problems of those who are helpless-not just homeless but helpless-will continue to be with us even if we manage to get through the present economic difficulties and reach lower levels of unemployment. Regretfully, we appear, on the economic projections available to us, to be facing a continuing high level of unemployment, and that will mean that we shall have these problems of those who are the least able to support themselves and to cope in society for some time. I can certainly assure the Minister and his colleagues in the Government that we shall be approaching any proposals that they put forward with humanity and compassion. Despite any of the words that might be flung about in this House during partisan debate, I hope that a genuine approach to the real problems of these young people will continue. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Before the debate on this Bill is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill, that is the Customs Amendment Bill 1983, the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1983 and the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill 1983. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(2.19) —Mr Deputy Speaker, as you have indicated, the House is continuing its debate on the Customs Amendment Bill 1983, the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1983 and the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill 1983. This legislation is significant in that basically it is seeking to tighten up the approaches to dumping procedures, a matter that has caused concern both for importers, exporters and competing industries within Australia. However, I say in passing that the legislation draws our attention to the whole matter of protection for Australian industries. The by-law entry and the by-law amendments are just one aspect of the whole anti-dumping amendments and anti-dumping procedures. Over a period of years there has been consistent discusssion and debate on industries such as the steel industry, and that matter is before the Government at present. The Australian steel industry feels that it cannot continue at current levels of protection and it has sought from successive governments assistance, protection and a capacity to have a greater share of the market for particular steel products. Despite the claims of the current Government just prior to the election, I have to say that at this stage there is apparently no action or no decisions by the Government in regard to the steel industry. The Government claimed before the election that it would be able to solve these problems and provide for all Australians an effective, viable steel industry which would maintain employment, but the difficulties of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and of the Wollongong area continue, and they are continuing in such a way that people are still losing jobs and still having the same problems, because the problems have not changed. The whole of Australia waits with great anticipation for the decisions of the current Government on the Australian steel industry, when they are finally made. I should like to suggest that by postponing a decision the Government is allowing the problems to solve themselves. That is hardly consistent with its approach to this problem before the election. In the textiles and footwear industries, in which many Australians have been employed-many on a part time basis; and many females have been employed in these industries-there has been, over a period, firstly an equal pay for equal work proposition, then further protection measures, and finally, when it was realised that these industries were not competitive by world standards or by any standards, a fairly dramatic shedding of labour in them. The structured downturn of protection-if I may call it that-over the last 10 years in Australia has now produced some fairly significant effects, both in the composition of the Australian manufacturing industries and in the composition of those who are seeking employment. In many instances, individuals who have trained for a lifetime in an industry find it difficult to replace their skills or to upgrade their skills to the type that are needed in the work force today. Probably one of the real tragedies of unemployment are the 50-year-olds who, through redundancy or lack of prospects, are now on the job market. But the current Government has decided that there will no changes in protection policies at present. I should like to draw the particular attention of the House to the way in which some of the decisions on, first, the steel industry were arrived at, and then perhaps to decisions on some of the metal trades industries also, because I think that they are revealing and offer us some prospect for decision taking in the future. In regard to the steel industry, the previous Government considered a draft report from the Industries Assistance Commission. The report proposed to leave open the question whether the steel industry should be permitted to survive over the long term. Given that doubt, even the maintenance of a satisfactory level of activity in it over the short term could have been in jeopardy, and that is what we are now looking at. I quote from page 151 of the report: The major company in the industry, BHP, says that without assistance comparable with the least efficient manufacturing industries, i.e. a sectoral policy, it will cease investment and will phase out of steel production. The choices confronting the community are daunting, not only because of the gravity of the issue, but because they depend upon judgments involving certain major uncertainties, conflicts of policy and, ultimately, a choice between undesirable alternatives. The report went on to state: The Commission believes that the best course at this stage may be one which keeps the community's options open until the current uncertainties are resolved. The two 'undesirable alternatives' between which the Commission posed its ' daunting' choice are the liquidation of the Australian steel industry and the granting of protection to the Australian steel industry to the extent necessary to ensure it long term survival. In fact, the Commission proposes to indicate to the industry the clear intention that the additional assistance should terminate and that it should be adjusting towards existing on the current long term rates of assistance. The IAC considers that, even if the interim assistance period were extended to ten years and all other BHP requests were acceded to, there is a real possibility that, at the end of that period the industry would not be viable at the existing long term levels of assistance or even reasonably close to those levels and that, accordingly, the industry should be liquidated rather than receive further protection. These are serious issues. I know that the current Government is, as was the previous Government, applying its mind to the issues. It is a serious day for Australia indeed if we have to consider whether we should have a steel industry. I shall quote from a letter from the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia, a body which has sought extreme protection in some instances, but at the same time which has offered a point of view that should be noted both by governments and those making decisions. The Metal Trades Industry Association in 1981 drew attention to the appreciation of the Australian dollar and the fact that it had already created a significant rise in imports. It said that a further significant rise was expected as orders were placed overseas to take advantage of the appreciation of the Australian dollar which occurred over the 18 months prior to August 1981. The Metal Trades Industry Association points out : Tariff reductions, reduction of preference for Australian-made goods, and the continued appreciation of the Australian dollar can only lead to serious economic and social problems, including increased unemployment. Those problems, indicated at that stage when the whole Australian economy was buoyant, have been brought very much into focus as the Australian economy has turned sluggish and has failed to move. At the same time, a rundown in protection, geared over a period, has taken place. Much the same sort of thing can be said, of course, concerning the Australian textile industry. What I wish to focus the attention of the House on today are the long term policies that are needed not only to create efficient industries-industries that are competitive in world markets, if that is possible-but also to identify what type of industries they should be. Should they be encouraged? Should there be continuing levels of protection? Are issues within the economic judgments now being made relevant to those long term decisions? I think everybody is concerned about the shedding of labour that has taken place in Australia's great manufacturing industries. No one who is aware of the situation could be unconcerned. I think if we look at some of the competing factors in manufacturing industries there can be no doubt that the interference by government, whether it be to protect or to relieve protection, is a factor that is not considered carefully enough by governments and their advisers. It is a simple thing for the Industries Assistance Commission to write a report that recommends reducing protection. That body in fact has not with capital, with expertise, with skill and judgment in what it thought was a set market, had to make the decisions on investment that many of our manufacturers have had to make . It is simple on a theoretical level to say that there should be free world trade, that there should be free trade by Australia with other countries. In fact, last year we saw the efforts of the then Deputy Prime Minister going into the world trading market and putting the proposition that there should be reduced protection by all major traders. They all agreed with that proposition without a single obstacle being raised. The only problem was-it did not matter whether it was Europe, the United States or Japan-not a single country was willing to follow the lead offered by the Australian Government. In light of that practical demonstration of the inability of major manufacturing countries, major producing countries, to open up world trade, it becomes extremely difficult for Australian governments and the Australian people to accept that they should be the only ones that move into the area of free trade and open their boundaries and their shores to the entry, on a non-protected basis, of the goods of any country-no matter what forms of protection, support, assistance or indirect support or protection those countries could offer or do offer to their manufacturers. One of the most difficult things that I think Australian primary producers have had to cope with over the last two or three years is the fact that sugar refined from sugar beet has been dumped on our traditional markets by highly subsidised industries from Europe. These industries are inefficient and uncompetitive, yet they are highly supported. It does not matter what section of Australian industry we look at, whether it is our traditional exporting industries, our primary and mining industries, their activities and their success can be dramatically affected by the protection and support policies of our trading partners and the other nations which enter into trade. I put the proposition to the House that it is not a one-sided matter as to what is the best future for Australian manufacturing industries. No careful work has been done on identifying those industries in which people can be employed successfully. We hear about sunrise, sunshine industries. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has entertained this House at length. He has produced only one piece of material, a section of a pipe, saying that this material offers great prospects. It is nothing more in fact that a refined process which employs some people but does not employ the number of people that the total Australian automobile industry can employ. It is an add-on industry. It is a part of the story. It is not the total story and it is not a substitute for the Australian manufacturing industries that we have scattered throughout the nation supplying high levels of employment and opportunities for training and expertise, skills and technology. I quote from a speech made by Sir Robert Cotton in 1976, in which he said: The calendar year 1974 showed an unprecedented rate of increase in Australian wages. Hourly earnings in manufacturing increased by almost 35 per cent in that year, compared with 29 per cent in the OECD country showing the next highest rate-Spain-and with about 15 per cent on average over the OECD countries. The first reaction of the Australian corporate sector to this surge in wages was to try to absorb the increased costs. Profits were thus eroded. When further absorption became impossible, and wage rates continued to rise, firms began to react in other ways. On the other hand, many firms attempted to reduce labour costs by retrenching staff, reducing production levels or moving from full manufacturing to the assembly of imported components. These actions naturally affected employment. Meanwhile, the erosion of profits limited the ability of most firms to invest in new productive capacity and hence to create new employment opportunities; and the escalation of Australian construction costs made some firms which could have raised investment capital defer their decision to do so. That is a situation that we have in Australia today. The same reasons and the same factors are at work in causing the problems of this nation at the moment. Over the last few years it has been obvious that there has been a real growth in wages. Over the last 20 years there has been a real growth in wages in all industries and in all employment. In particular, from the June quarter 1980 to the June quarter 1982-I am aware that that period ended more than 10 months ago- average male earnings increased by 32.4 per cent. During the same period inflation ran at a rate of 20.5 per cent. Average earnings increased over that two-year period by the inflation rate plus an additional 9.9 per cent. Those are the factors that make decisions on employment and the protection of Australian industry extremely difficult. Wage settlements at such extravagant levels make it extremely difficult to decide whether industries which are paying their employees such great increases should continue to be protected. It is not always the role of the employer to decide these matters. In a speech which I made yesterday on industrial relations, I indicated the significant bullying and standover tactics that are adopted by various unions. That is a matter that is of concern to the Government. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) raises it during every Question Time, trying to convince himself, rather than the Opposition or members of his Ministry, that the accord and the National Economic Summit Conference have solved the problem. Yet, the community knows and we all know that in the metals industries, the oil industry, the building industry and the transport industry-major employing industries- there are problems about whether people will accept moderation of their wage claims. In the 1920s and 1930s the protection of Australian industry was important but it was possible in those days for people to understand what was a reasonable return for their day's work. Mr O'Neil —The blue collar workers aren't getting away with it. Mr CADMAN —Blue collar workers are some of the most highly paid people in this country. Those in the oil industry, the coal industry and the building industries which I have mentioned, are among the most highly paid, and the honourable member knows it. They are the very people who will bring the manufacturing industry of Australia to its knees. What is needed is wage moderation, careful understanding by union leaders of their responsibility to employment and to the nation and sensitive, well-planned protection and support policies by the Australian Government, directed to these major employers. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(2.40) —I am disappointed because what looked like being a bipartisan approach to this issue has been shot down in the last five minutes. I am disappointed also that the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) sought to apportion blame or responsibility. If he is looking for responsibility certainly the last seven years has been indication enough of where it lies. That kind of simplicity of thinking, that kind of polarisation of thinking, has for the last 20 or 30 years bedevilled discussions in Australia as to the future of our industries. It is as a result of that kind of black and white attitude, that kind of shallowness, that the Australian public does not understand the issues. Nor, I suggest from political debate over the last 20 or 30 years, do speakers from the Opposition side of the House understand them. They seek to paint the issue as one of trade unions forcing themselves out of the market. The ironical thing is that the unions mentioned by the previous speaker are non-import competitive industries. The building industry and the transport industry have a very marginal effect on imports and exports. Therefore , they do not fit into the protection situation to anything like the same degree as do the genuine manufacturing industries. These unions are, in many cases, as honourable members know, very weak. It was not my intention to speak today in defence of unions or in criticism of the previous Government. To do either of those two things is to carry on the shallow, simplistic kind of attitude that has taken us nowhere for so long. One can go back over speeches and Press statements made by Ministers of previous governments over many years. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) last December, in speaking on protection and dumping, pointed out the very great problems involved. He pointed out the difficulty of the situation. So there has been a long history of members of the Opposition speaking in very strong terms about the problems that Australian industry has faced in this regard. In those speeches they were not talking about unions, or engaging in the kind of drivel that we have heard this afternoon. As one who has only recently ceased to be a layman, I can say that what I have read in the Press and in the record of parliamentary debates about protection is very disappointing. Australia has had a free trade group and a protection group. To all intents and purposes those groups have been very polarised. The group that is in favour of protection is described as threatening loss of competitiveness and so on. The group that is against protection is described as threatening loss of employment and the collapse of the industries concerned. Those attitudes have just not allowed the community to understand where Australia stands in relation to today's economic conditions. The theory of import competition is quite straightforward. By allowing minimal duty and imports to compete with local goods, pressure is put on local manufacturers to keep their prices and wages within reasonable parameters. Pressure is put on the inflation rate and Australia's economy is assisted. That has been the theory, but for the last seven years it has been torn to pieces. In practice, the man in the middle does not necessarily pass on the advantages. I suggest that what has happened in many industries is that, because of the marginal difference in the cost of imports in relation to market prices, advertising budgets have been that much bigger. If free market forces are allowed to go to work goods will find their own market level. They will not necessarily reflect the import price. The difference is made up in the advertising budgets, which make sure that those goods outsell Australian goods at marginally reduced prices. The fact is that the inflation figures of the last seven years have shown that import competition is not passed on, and reflected in lower inflation rates. The inflation rate has remained the same despite the massive increase in imports of manufactured goods. This afternoon, I want to inform honourable members about a particular industry . It is not the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. It is one that is, technologically, very current. It has machinery and equipment which represents the state of the art in Australia and in the world. A single company produces all of the light globes and fluorescent tubes made in Australia. That company has been making submissions to the Industries Assistance Commission and the Temporary Assistance Authority on anti-dumping action for many years now. From reading its submissions and looking at its operation, I find it incomprehensible that the previous Government did not come to terms with it. I am optimistic that the current Government will. The company, to maintain technological levels of skill, reduced its staff from 629 in December 1979 to 522 in December last year and increased its productivity at the same time. In other words, as new machines became available, they were introduced. The company had a market capacity in Australia of some 60 million light globes, whereas for European industries the market is so much larger and more capacious that the unit cost in terms of production is less. The major cost is the translation of silica into glass which process is a major energy user. This has meant that the Australian company's volume of production can never compete with the very large European plants. But in recent years there has been a downturn in the use of globes and fluorescent tubes, not only in Australia but also in Europe. People have become less able to buy tubes and globes when they have wanted them. Government departments have not replaced all their globes every year; they have waited until they have needed replacing. There has been a general contraction in market demand. But in European terms, the need to keep the industry rolling and the furnaces moving to make the glass has meant that European manufacturers can afford to take a very much reduced level of profit. What has happened-the case is well and truly proven-is that the globes that sell at the best wholesale price of 22c in places like Belgium are being sold at a wholesale price in Australia of 16c. The company spent six months working on that project, it spent three months investigating what was happening in Europe and it then waited three months for the anti-dumping action to become mobilised. Six months is a very long time for a single company to try to probe the international market to prepare a case. When the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), Senator Sir John Carrick and many other members of the previous Government indicated their very real concern about anti-dumping mechanisms and the difficulties they had, they were correct. The whole procedure is almost incomprehensible. The terms of the treaties of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade mean that we have to go to Europe and make inquiries in that market place about current prices. We cannot force those prices to be made known to us and we cannot establish with any real veracity what the market conditions are because, once a government does that, the organisations know about it. If it is hard for a government, it is even harder for a single private organisation. But we expect an organisation as one company to do all that homework to prove its case in advance of any action by government. A company can become bankrupt while going through those procedures. Even if the current dumping action against Belgium is proven, the same globes are also manufactured in Italy and France. It would be quite straightforward for the company to transfer its source country from Belgium to France with the same globes, stamped 'Made in France' rather than ' Made in Belgium', being exported. It would be another three, six or nine months before that case would be examined. If dumping action against France were then successful, the European company would switch to Italy. It is an impossible procedure because we are one country dealing with a whole community, the whole of Europe. We talk about dumping from country to country, not from economic community to economic community. We are an economic community and so is Europe. It seems to me that we are making a very grave mistake to treat Europe on a country by country basis. If dumping action is successful, because of the integration of companies the potential for transfer pricing becomes paramount. We know what transfer pricing is and what damage it has done. We know how unfair it is not only to Australian industries but also to Australian taxpayers. The question on dumping then becomes: Where is the margin of profit taken? Is it in Australia or somewhere else? The potential then for a company to bring its price up to the current Australian price, but still retain a greater profit potential in the total transaction than it appears to be able to do, is enormous. How on earth can Australian companies continue to exist, particularly those that have done their best to maintain the current state of the art technology? Having done all those things, if we look at tariff assistance and dumping assistance and consider the effect on prices, we find that it is marginal. European companies can absorb all of that and still be more than competitive and vastly undersell Australian companies. As Australian company's share of the market contracts, its unit cost increases. In other words, the costs become less and less competitive as fewer and fewer globes are made because the energy cost to make the globes becomes higher. Dumping is prevalent in high technology industries and capital intensive industries. Capital intensive industries are the most affected because they require great volume. If the volume is maintained , cost savings are involved. It is worthwhile to sell at an apparent loss to keep the machines going. That is what we find. As Europe is contracting, Australia is presenting itself with open arms but, with all the dumping actions and tariff actions, there is no way in the world that our industries can compete . Eventually the Australian company closes and we then become part of the European market. I have raised these things because I have read and been aware that the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) has announced that there will be an inquiry into dumping. I wanted to flag the kinds of things that should be looked at. I wanted to try to make sure that in the months ahead in this place we take a much more intensive look not only at dumping and protection but also at integration. As the honourable member for Mitchell said in his speech, and I agree with him, we need to examine industries to see which ones can survive and what kind of support is needed. We have to look at integrating dumping protection, government support and industry development in the industrial future that we have. If we do not do that, I am afraid that our industries will collapse one by one. I hope that in the months ahead we can produce a bipartisan approach. It looked to be emerging this afternoon until late in the speech of the honourable member for Mitchell. I hope that we can pick that up in the next few months. With an inquiry and a review of dumping procedures, we will approach the problem in a much more mature and profound way. I can assure honourable members that the industries that I know of cannot afford a parliament that is shallow about approaching this problem. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(2.52) —in reply-I close the debate by making a few comments that I hope are pertinent and intelligent about some of the contributions that have been made. Firstly, I pay tribute to my new colleagues, the honourable members for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris) and Bendigo (Mr Brumby), for their reasoned, obviously intelligent and interested approach to the Customs Amendment Bill and cognate Bills. It has long been my view in the Parliament, from when I was shadow Minister in this area, that the whole subject of Customs, tariffs, protection, dumping, et cetera has been largely ignored by honourable members, more to the detriment of the Parliament than otherwise. Parliamentarians have failed to realise that the Customs Bureau is responsible for the collection of over $12,000m in various duties, excises and other forms of revenue in a 12- month period. It has always struck me as odd that debates on the subject have been largely ignored by honourable members. I am pleased that some of the new members on this side of the House have made intelligent and reasoned responses and contributions to debates on Customs matters. I refer particularly to the honourable member for Canberra, Mrs Kelly, who has long been an intelligent contributor to these sorts of debates. She asked why appeals against concessional tariffs are not directed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal rather than to the Industries Assistance Commission. In answering that, I point out that the tariff concession system is basically part of the administration of industry assistance policy. Decisions obviously should be taken by the Government-that is, the Minister for Industry and Commerce-in that context, rather than referred to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In fact, this approach was recognised by the Administrative Review Council several years ago when it recommended that appeals should go to the IAC rather than to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, with the Minister making the ultimate decision. That is the view that this Government will take. I will take one minute to refer to the contributions from the opposite side of the House. The shadow Minister, the honourable member for Ryan, (Mr Moore) who is the former Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, contributed a rather short speech but I must pay tribute to him because the legislation being debated today is the fruition of attempts that he made when he was the minister to improve the whole system of the administration of by-laws. I pay him tribute for the intelligent piece of legislation that he brought forward before his demise, in rather unfortunate circumstances, from the Ministry. I am pleased to see him stage a resurrection because I have had the ultimate respect for the honourable member for Ryan for a long time. I felt that he was treated very harshly in the whole context. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) read us a rather curious little homily. He treated us to a peculiar little speech. It struck me as being rather odd. It is a pity that he is not listening to me because he might learn something. Mr Shipton —You had just started to be charitable too. Mr JOHN BROWN —I was being charitable but I cannot let his comments pass without some attention. It strikes me as being very odd that someone who sat on his hands for seven years as a member of a government that presided over the whole sorry state that Australia is in at the moment-it has an enormous deficit, incredible unemployment and a manufacturing industry which is in absolute tatters-can start lecturing this Government on what we should be doing about it. I found it rather curious that one of his last expressions was 'bringing Australia to its knees'. The former Government brought Australia to its knees and it is still on them. It is praying that this Government can do something about resurrecting the country from the mess the former Government made. I found it very odd that the honourable member spoke about the steel industry. We had a little debate in the House the other day about the steel industry. Let it be recognised by the Opposition that this Government is producing a long term plan for the steel industry, something that it lacked for the seven years that the former Government was in charge of this country. During those seven years the former Government absolutely destroyed the steel industry. I think that Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, for one, has confidence in this Government's chances of resurrecting the steel industry and making it strong and viable again . The Opposition might note that the decision taken by BHP a couple of weeks ago to stand down a large number of workers at Port Kembla has been reversed. Mr Loton, the managing director of BHP, was able to convince his company that under the present Government there was a chance for the steel industry. That stand down decision has been reversed. The Steel Industry Advisory Council, with which I had discussions the other day, is busily involved with the Government, the unions and the employers in bringing down a long term plan to resurrect and reconstruct the steel industry, which is very important not just in terms of its employment capacity but also because of its great importance to Australia's national defence policy and national image. The honourable member for Mitchell also said something about the textile, clothing and footwear industries. He may have heard an answer I gave in Question Time in which I said that the advisory commitee concerned has produced a report which is now in the hands of the Minister. Hopefully, within the next month or two, a long term plan for that industry will be produced. I am pleased to say that the honourable member has a new interest in the fact that industries have been shedding people and that unemployment is rife. It became rife because of the lack of any leadership on the part of the previous Government in every form of industry, but particularly the textile, clothing and footwear industries and the steel industry, to which he referred in particular. The Government is pleased to introduce this legislation although it was initiated by the previous Minister. We are pleased that we have developed a new system of handling concessional entry into Australia. The old by-law system which probably served us fairly well since Federation is now outmoded. We think that the new concessional tariff system which we have introduced is based on what is practical and realistic in the market place. The key factor will be competition, or the potential for competition, between various kinds of goods. Applicants will be obliged to look beyond their own immediate needs. This system should minimise the risk of inconsistent or inequitable decisions. Certainly, predictability will be improved. I am pleased that I have been able to introduce this legislation. I am sure the new system will serve Australia well. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 11 May, on motion by Mr John Brown: 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 John Brown) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 11 May, on motion by Mr John Brown: 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 John Brown) read a third time. Address-in-Reply Debate resumed from 12 May, on motion by Ms Fatin: That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to: MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY: We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(3.2) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to pass on my congratulations to the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) on his elevation to the high office of Mr Speaker. I would like also to congratulate those honourable members who have made maiden speeches. I always find maiden speeches interesting as one can ascertain the mettle of new members. It is apparent that a large number of new members are thinking people. I have no doubt they will make a contribution in this Parliament. This afternoon I wish to say a few words on economic policy. As we know, this evening the Government is to bring in what is termed a major economic statement or, as it is called by others, a mini-Budget. I do not want to canvass in any way what may or may not be said by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) this evening but I do want to talk a little about what I think this country needs. I think it is appropriate that people contribute to debate in this Parliament about this important subject. There is no doubt that there is a need for a sound economic policy if we are to have any sort of recovery in this country. If the National Economic Summit Conference did anything it did expose much of what is needed if that recovery is to begin and if it is to take hold in Australia. Many eminent contributions were made in the context of the Economic Summit. It is to the credit of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that he was able to bring it off and that he was able to reach the level of agreement that was reached. I think that all sides involved in the Summit expressed willingness to co-operate. The Government provided information and displayed a willing attitude. Business-big it may have been-expressed a willingness to co-operate and the trade union movement at that time also expressed its willingness to assist in the process of economic recovery. The tragedy of the Summit was that significant portions of the Australian community were not represented. Another tragedy is that the trade union movement has walked away from the Summit. Within a period of only a couple of weeks it has in effect knifed whatever achievements may have been made at the Summit. The announcements following the executive meeting of the Australian Council of Trade Unions the day before yesterday must have come as an enormous blow to the Government and its economic managers. Mr Dolan and his executive have signalled quite clearly that the trade union movement is not going to co-operate any more with Mr Hawke and his Government than it co-operated with Mr Fraser and his Government. I think that is something which all Australians, if they are going to be honest about it, would want to regret. I think everybody was hoping that the trade union movement would realise that there was a lot of merit in having some industrial sanity in relation to wage policy in this country. I think the fact that the trade unions, so soon after the Summit, have been prepared to walk away from and effectively kill it is a tragedy for all of us in Australia. As I said last night, the million dollar buzz phrase at the moment is that the Summit continues. I think the actions of the ACTU executive earlier this week have laid the Summit to rest. We have a million dollars worth of advertising perhaps but this is not going to change the reality that the Summit does not continue. The Government which has a responsibility for economic policy these days has to achieve a slowdown in wages. If it does not, the effect on the economic recovery of this country will be devastating. It must bring about a significant change in the share of the gross domestic product which is going to wages and profits. If it is not able to bring about a significant alteration so that a greater percentage goes to profits, economic recovery will not get off the ground. There also has to be significant taxation reform in this country if the people are to support the sorts of initiatives that government might choose to take. Recovery, obviously, is going to involve the availability of money and investment in the country to move to the areas where the return is greatest. Obviously, the same applies to labour. I listened with interest to many of the contributions that were made in the previous debate in which matters such as protection, tariffs and the problems of certain industries were raised. In that debate the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), as he did during Question Time today, made passing reference to the clothing, textile and footwear industries. If there are any industries in Australia which have demonstrated that they do not have the capacity to survive without massive handouts from consumers and taxpayers through the Government, it is that group of industries. These industries probably have received more protection per head than most others. Certainly, they have received far more than they deserve. Despite that, employment in this group of industries continues to decline and obviously will continue to decline further. Despite the extent of assistance that may be made available they are high cost inefficient industries. To the extent that these industries are in the manufacturing sector, they have no future whatsoever. I want to express my very firm belief that we have to achieve some long term commitment to the reduction of protection in Australia. There is only one way we can achieve any sort of growth in Australia. We have to encourage those industries in Australia which are the efficient industries. There is no point whatsoever in going down the track and trying to prop up the clothing, textile and footwear industries, trying to prop up all the inefficient bleeding hearts around the manufacturing sector of this country that have no contribution to make unless they can operate under a very heavy protective umbrella. Yet there are efficient industries in Australia, industries which contribute to growth and development and to raising the standard of living in this country. I refer particularly to industries within the rural sector that survive with little or no protection. I put to one side for a moment those industries that cannot survive without massive doses of assistance. But there are, within the rural sector, industries-principally wheat, wool and meat-that contribute enormously to the economy of this country and which receive little or no protection. I think also of the great mining and extractive industries that survive without any protection and which have the capacity also to contribute enormously to our export earnings and the standard of living in this country. I think also of industries in the tertiary sector which survive very well without any protection or need for assistance. Also, there is no need for handouts or government support in the enormous small business sector of Australia. Those industries will provide growth as well as employment and investment opportunities. They do not need protection and should be encouraged. There are obviously industries in the manufacturing sector that survive without handouts from government. They survive without having to bleed consumers and taxpayers as do so many others through the protection process. I would like to say that I did not always agree with the policies of the former Government in relation to these matters. I think the former Government responded too much to sectional interests in different parts of the economy. Perhaps it acted properly because of its honest and genuine concern about unemployment. But the fact of the matter is that the stage is reached where governments have no option. Government has to encourage growth and it has to ensure that the resources of the economy are being directed into those areas where growth will be maximised if the standard of living of the country is to continue to expand. I think this is of fundamental importance; it is something we must look at. I will be very keen to see the sort of attitude that is developed by the new Government. My belief at this early stage-without wanting in any way to be condemnatory before matters are introduced into this Parliament and before Ministers make statements -is that the realities are that the Labor Government will continue to support low growth industries that may have some employment problems at the moment but which in the longer term must face up to reality. Future economic growth, job creation and innovation would be prejudiced by a recourse to the strategy of the 1950s which demonstrably failed in the 1970s. Higher employment levels can be achieved only by structural adjustment to changed conditions. It is fundamental that we realise that. Policies such as protection that hold up such adjustments are anti-growth and anti-job creation policies. It is still true that economic welfare and jobs would benefit in the medium term from a gradual pre-announced reduction in protection levels. That is something to which the previous Government in philosophy and in policy was committed and I hope that the present Government will continue to move down that track. Other things are of fundamental importance if recovery and economic growth are to become a part of this great nation again. It is import- ant that we reduce controls and intervention because all they do is perpetuate inefficiency. They restrict the freedom of movement of capital and labour particularly to those areas where they will do the most good for Australia. They inhibit economic growth. Anything that does this must not be allowed to become part of any economic policy in Australia. It is obvious that we must reduce the level of inflation. I am bitterly concerned and disappointed when I look at the track the Government has chosen to go down as a result of the Economic Summit. I refer to this matter again and again because the figures that have been made available by this Government, which bear the imprimatur of this Government and which have been put before the country by this Government make it clear that this Government is not only a high unemployment Government but also a high inflation Government. That is what this economic policy that the Government wants to pursue is all about. If we are prepared to stand by in this Parliament and not be critical when criticism is deserved, we will fail as an Opposition. There is absolutely no doubt that the economy of this country is now in the hands of the Government. It is in the hands of the Treasurer and those behind him who make economic policy in the Cabinet of the Hawke Labor Government. I do not want to hear any more of this nonsense about economic policies being determined by John Howard or by Malcolm Fraser. That is over and done. Whatever may have been done or not done by Fraser and Howard in the previous Government, it is finished. It is now, as it has been for the last two and a half months, the responsibility of the Labor Government, of Paul Keating and his cronies, to develop the economic path that this economy will go down in the years ahead. Mr Scholes —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that members are required to refer to members in accordance with the Standing Orders. The honourable member is not doing that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —That is correct. I ask the honourable member for Hume to follow that course. Mrs Kelly —This is the same speech as you gave last night. Mr LUSHER —I inform the honourable member for Canberra that I will give it again and again. It is important that its message is emphasised to not only the people in this Parliament but also the people outside. The unemployed in Australia who voted for a new deal under the Hawke Government have been told in the papers from the Economic Summit that under the scenario which the Government prefers, scenario A, by the time we get to the end of the track, 1985-86, unemployment will be at a level of 9.7 per cent. That is what the unemployed of this country have to look forward to under this Government which was elected by the people of Australia in some sort of enthusiastic belief that they would get a better deal. However, I did not start off with the intention of speaking about unemployment; I intended to speak about inflation. That is at the core of everything-honest money and a responsible approach to monetary management in this country. It has already become apparent that the Government is not prepared to take the decisions that need to be taken if we are to have recovery, sound economic management, a return to profitability, the creation of jobs in the private sector-which is the only sector of the economy that can create them-and to have some sound economic recovery and growth. I wanted to speak about inflation because under this Government's best inflationary expectation, scenario A-which is the scenario that the Government thinks it is following; I say thinks because since the ACTU executive meeting earlier this week that has been shot down in flames-by 1985-86 the consumer price index increase will be 6.5 per cent. That is some reduction on the present position, but if we consider what is happening in the countries with which we trade, those economies with which we compare ourselves, we find that that is not a satisfactory result particularly if we take into account that under scenario C there was the prospect of having inflation by 1984-85 at 2 per cent and in 1985-86 at only 3.7 per cent. We have to look along that track, and that is the sort of scenario the Government must be prepared to adopt. When the Treasurer brings down his economic statement tonight, I hope that is the track he is prepared to follow. If we are realistic about this, we have to be prepared to look at what will happen to scenario A after the ACTU's climb down from the Summit. What will happen? Inflation will be in excess of 13 per cent even if wage increases can be held down to the sort of figures outlined in scenario B. Scenario B will in reality be the economic policy that this Government will accept, because it is what the trade union movement will demand of it. I come back again to the fact that the priorities for this economy and for economic management in Australia are being determined by this Government, not by the last Government. We will undoubtedly come to a situation of economic shambles. Honourable members opposite who have recently arrived in the wave of the 5 March election must remember that two or three years down the track- whenever it is that we reach the polls-the economy of this country will be in a shambles. It will be in a shambles because of the decisions that will be announced tonight by the Treasurer and those that have already been taken by this Government. It will be in a shambles because of the lack of capacity of the Government to hold the ACTU to the contents of the communique from the Economic Summit and its total incapacity to hold any sort of economic line in this country. When that shambles develops, honourable members opposite will not be able to point their fingers at us. The fingers will be properly and directly pointed at the Government because it takes the decisions. It develops its priorities and responsibility and accountability must be sheeted home to the Government. This Government has the responsibility; it is making the decisions. I throw out a challenge to this Government to rein in the trade union movement and to act responsibily in the interests of Australia. I challenge it to follow an economic policy that will bring about growth in this country and increase the standard of living of all Australians and provide jobs for those who want to work. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Before calling the honourable member for Kingston, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech and that he should be afforded every courtesy. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(3.22) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In this, my maiden speech, I take this occasion to ask you, sir, to congratulate the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) on his election to his high office of Speaker and to say to him that I am sure that he will serve the House with distinction and for a long time. I begin by thanking the electors of Kingston for placing their confidence in me at the election on 5 March. I undertake here that I shall serve them to the best of my ability-importantly, in doing my part to implement the policies of the Hawke Labor Government which received such resounding endorsement at the general election; and even more importantly, in making myself personally available to my constituents as their channel to their Government. I thank also the many hundreds of women and men in the Australian Labor Party who worked so wholeheartedly during the campaign. Words do not express thanks as well as deeds , and it will be on my actions in giving effect to these undertakings that I hope to be judged in the coming years. Also, as is traditional, I pay tribute to my erstwhile opponent, Mr Grant Chapman, who represented Kingston from 1975 until this year. I wish him well in his present occupation and I am hopeful, if not entirely confident, that he will be my opponent again. The division of Kingston, since its creation in 1949, has always been a marginal seat. It was held first by the Liberal Party, longest by the late Pat Galvin for the Labor Party-from 1951 until 1966-briefly again by the Liberal Party, by Dr Richie Gun for the ALP from 1969 to 1975, and by Mr Chapman from 1975. The present division is also in many respects a cross-section of South Australian society and of Australia generally. It contains a variety of important industries for South Australia: A major car plant; a number of manufacturers, including makers of components for the automotive industry; South Australia's only oil refinery; an important meat works; and not least, several industries based on innovative technology. A major university lies just outside Kingston and several other tertiary education institutions lie within it. Kingston covers also the wineries of the southern vales where, I assure the House, the best wines in Australia are produced. It also has a developing tourism industry based on the twin attractions of the wineries and the best beaches in Australia. Its population is also mixed. There are a number of older suburbs, but the bulk of the population lives in newer and still rapidly growing suburbs and rural areas. The attractions of the area have meant that many young married people have gone there to buy their first home. Equally, however, many older people have gone there to retire. Kingston is thus a microcosm of Australia and, like much of the rest of Australia, voted decisively for a change of government on 5 March. This representative character of Kingston prompts me to spend a few minutes analysing why, as it seems to me, the Australian people voted as they did on 5 March. I believe that the main reason was that the Labor Party was seen by people in all walks of life as caring about their problems. We did not just dismiss those problems by saying that 'life was not meant to be easy', or by promising simply more of the same policies which had proved so unsuccessful over the past seven years. In the areas that were most important to people in my electorate of Kingston we, as a party, not only showed our concern but also put forward constructive policies to deal with those problems. We cared, to begin with, about the chaos in the health system in Australia. We cared that because under the Fraser administration health care had become so expensive and so complicated, some two million Australians had opted out of the health system entirely, taking the tremendous risks that that entails. We cared; and we promised, and we will deliver, a return to a universal health system-a cheaper and more efficient system which will provide the benefits of decent health care to all people, regardless of their incomes. We cared about housing. The housing crisis in this country is nowhere more evident than in the new growing areas where young people are seeking to buy their first home. Kingston has one of the highest proportions of first home buyers of any electorate in Australia and, therefore, has suffered disproportionately from the massive increases in home mortgage interest rates under the previous Government, as well as from the previous Government's unconscionable slashing of funds for public housing. The South Australian Housing Trust, which is an excellent and innovative body which does a first rate job depends largely on Federal funds for its home building program. It has been forced to curtail its activities drastically in recent years, relative to the demand for housing, since things are rapidly reaching the ridiculous point where the Housing Trust receives less under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement than it has to pay back to the Commonwealth to service existing loans. We cared, for example, that for every emergency housing place in the Kingston area there are 40 eligible applicants, that every night homeless kids are sleeping on the beaches or inside the used clothing bins which are placed by charities. We cared that so many people are being driven from their homes into second-rate accommodation such as caravans that many caravan parks in my electorate are now almost exclusively occupied by permanent residents. We cared: And the priority given in the Governor-General's Speech to greatly increased assistance to housing is, for those people I represent, the most welcome and practical indication of our determination to do something about this situation, and to do it quickly. We cared about the situation of women, and about issues such as the availability of decent child care, accessible to all, which bear disproportionately on working women. Many of my constituents-people, for example , who depend on two incomes to pay off the first home that they are buying-are unduly disadvantaged because of the lack of accessible child care facilities, coupled with the fact that many have to travel so far to work. For the many supporting mothers in the area which I represent, accessible child care is an absolute necessity if they are to have any kind of reasonable existence. We cared about the situation of pensioners. Those receiving the age pensions have seen the value of their pensions decline from some 25 per cent of average weekly earnings when the Whitlam Government left office to a little over 22 per cent now. We cared also for the situation of many other groups of Australians who are wholly dependent on social security. We cared about education and about the situation of young people driven to drop out of formal education to take some dead end job because they see their colleagues with a better education nevertheless leaving school to go on the dole. We cared about the situation of small business. We in the Australian Labor Party know that it is the small businessman-the service station owner, the pharmacist, the furniture maker and a hundred others-whose enterprise provides the bulk of employment in this country. But small business has suffered tremendous difficulties over recent years from policies which at times almost seemed designed to drive them to the wall. We cared about the situation of rural producers also. In my area there is an important wine industry, made up mainly of small independent grape growers and wine makers, who are battling past governmental neglect. They were fearful, with good reason, that the previous Government would further disadvantage them by imposing an excise on wine. Our Government has undertaken not to impose such an excise. We cared too about issues which went beyond the Kingston electorate. I think particularly of the proposal to dam the Franklin River and of conservation issues generally. People in my electorate know, from direct experience of the many historic sites and unspoiled areas within Kingston-nearly 20 such areas are listed on the Register of the National Estate-that we have an environment and a national heritage which needs to be preserved, if there is to be anything left for our children and their children to wonder at in this beautiful country which belongs to us all. It is no wonder that the vigorous campaign pursued by the Tasmanian Wilderness Society in Kingston struck such a responsive chord. Above all, we cared that people-young people, mature people-were unemployed through no fault of their own. That was the key difference between ourselves and the Fraser Government, which was responsible for bringing about levels of unemployment unprecedented for 50 years. Not only did the Fraser Government not care, but those levels of unemployment were brought about quite deliberately through the pursuit of policies which were the economic equivalent of the flat earth theory. In this most vital area we not only cared, but also offered a comprehensive and constructive plan to get the country back to work again. I am particularly pleased that we will not be waiting for the August Budget to start tackling this most urgent of the tasks before us. But policies as such are not, I believe, the whole story of why Australians gave their confidence to the new Government on 5 March. Behind those policies and underpinning them was a deeper consciousness by people that only the Labor Party seemed equipped, seemed competent and willing to take on the active role they expect the Federal Government to play in tackling the problems of society and the economy. I believe it is fair to say that over the past several years the previous Government spent much of its effort in trying to persuade Australians generally that nothing was its responsibility, nothing was its fault . It claimed that the state of the economy was not its fault; the housing situation was not its fault; the level of interest rates was not its fault; and that the chaos into which the health scheme had fallen was not its fault. In fact, it was ready to blame everybody else but itself, and to wash its hands of the mess it had made. The Labor Party does have a different philosophy. It is not a matter, and it never was, of pursuing some doctrinaire ideology, regardless of reality. Rather, it amounts to an acceptance that the Federal Government has a duty to play an active role, in co-operation with the private sector, with other levels of government and with individuals and groups, to ensure an acceptable standard of life to all Australians, whatever their circumstances. What that Federal role will be at any given moment differs with the times. John Curtin, for example, took over during the dark days of war from a conservative administration in paralysis. The great task his Government accomplished was to mobilise the unprecedented national effort required to bring Australia through those critical times. Ben Chifley's task, by contrast, was to win the peace. His administration was responsible for the great era of post-war reconstruction in this country, the nation building represented by the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme, the establishment of major manufacturing industry in Australia, the introduction of a visionary scheme of mass migration from countries shattered by war, the foundation of a comprehensive social security system, and the acknowledgment, for the first time, of the duty of Federal governments to maintain employment in Australia. But Chifley left office in 1949 when most Australians now living here either had not been born or had not yet arrived. For a contemporary exemplar of Labor philosophy in action at the Federal level one has to look to the governments of Gough Whitlam. I welcome the chance to do so. It is my belief that no governments in the history of Australia have suffered so much unjustified vilification as those Mr Whitlam led. In speaking of those years, I do not want to be taken as saying that from 1972 to 1975 no mistakes were made; of course mistakes were made. But criticism of those mistakes has been so unbalanced as to obscure the many positive achievements of those years which changed Australia and the lives of Australians for the better-achievements which have largely endured. For the first time in Australia, we had a decent and comprehensive health system, even though it has been vandalised since. For the first time, between 1972 and 1975, genuine attention was given to the situation of women. Equal pay for women was introduced. Women's refuges were established and the supporting mother's benefit was introduced. For the first time a voice was given to other community groups which were previously powerless or neglected. Particularly through the Australian Assistance Plan, small local groups were encouraged to approach the Federal Government for assistance for small scale, locally initiated projects of benefit to the community. For the first time, the Federal Government became directly involved in upgrading the standards and facilities of all our schools. It allocated increased funds through the Schools Commission set up for that purpose, on the basis of need. For the first time, child care took its place on the agenda of governments and an Office of Child Care was established. For the first time, local government was given substantial and direct funding by the Federal Government. That led, in turn, to a great expansion of the role and relevance of local councils which had been previously confined to worrying about the garbage and the gutters. Now councils in my area such as those of Noarlunga, Marion, Brighton, Willunga, and Meadows are engaged in providing a much more comprehensive range of services which meet genuine community needs. For the first time, during the Whitlam years, issues relating to the quality of life were taken seriously by the Government. The Department of the Environment was established and environmental impact legislation was passed. The Australian Heritage Commission was set up; so was a department dealing with urban and regional development; so was the Australia Council, to encourage development of the arts. For the first time comprehensive attention was paid to law reform: The Law Reform Commission was established which, under its tireless Chairman, Mr Justice Kirby, has carried out valuable work on the many references subsequently sent to it. There were major reforms in administrative law, particularly the setting up of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the introduction of legislation for an Ombudsman, to deal with a situation in which bureaucrats and bureaucracies seemed to be taking increasing power over the lives of individual citizens without being answerable through any court of law. Finally, in an important area in which many Australians take particular pride, Australia in those years for the first time acquired a foreign policy which was genuinely independent and which genuinely reflected, in our stance towards other countries, the decency and fair dealing on which we pride ourselves as Australians. Within days the Whitlam Government ended the absurdity of 23 years by recognising China, which is now a major market for our exports. In the first week it ended Australia's involvement in the futile and tragically misconceived war in Vietnam, in which so many Australians died, and after which so many of those who survived were callously neglected by the very Government which sent them there. That practice of militarism was replaced by the active pursuit of peace and disarmament objectives, including importantly the proposed Indian Ocean zone of peace. Atmospheric nuclear tests in the Pacific were stopped after Australia took France to the World Court. Papua New Guinea was brought to independence in orderly fashion without bloodshed. Constructive relations with Third World countries were enhanced, particularly in our own region. And nowhere was the Australian philosophy of a fair go for all better expressed than in the firm opposition immediately undertaken towards the abhorrent policy of apartheid practised by South Africa. That particular foreign policy stance, too, was matched by a new attitude and practice towards Aboriginals in Australia. Altogether, this record of the Whitlam Government, as I can affirm from my experience as a diplomat serving overseas, brought Australia a degree of genuine respect abroad which was quite unprecedented. It is a formidable catalogue of achievement which, as I have said, has largely endured, despite its being made the object of denigration and destruction by a subsequent Prime Minister with no such record of achievement of his own. By happy contrast those who now lead the Liberal Party have already displayed signs of a more fairminded attitude; not least in their graceful response in respect of Mr Whitlam personally on the occasion of his appointment as Ambassador to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation. I hope and believe that this new attitude on the part of the Opposition is a step on the road back to decency in public life and towards constructive co-operation for the good of all Australians. It is to this theme of co-operation that I address my concluding remarks. Nothing has struck me so much in recent years as the extent to which social divisions in Australia have been deliberately fostered: Groups of Australians set one against another, and a philosophy developed of open slather for the rich and powerful and the devil take the hindmost. Of course one cannot blame one man for this deterioration. But the fact remains that to a considerable extent ordinary Australians take their lead from the behaviour of politicians, and especially from the behaviour of the Prime Minister of the day. I believe that by the time the last election came around Australians were absolutely fed up with this confrontational and divisive approach. They were sick to death of the back stabbing, the distortions and the spoiling for a fight , which seemed the only way the former Prime Minister knew to conduct the Government of this country. Indeed his behaviour reflected one view of the kind of country this is, the kind of people we are, which many people found profoundly depressing and distasteful. It is a view which sees Australia as a land in which the most powerful are free to plunder our resources for their private benefit, and sees Australians as a people incapable of vision, fit only to be exploited, lied to and treated with contempt. This view has a long pedigree and since Eureka it has prevailed more often than not amongst those who have governed us. But there is a different vision of Australia, of the kind of people Australians are, which equally has been part of our history from the earliest days. It is a vision of a country which, starting out afresh, would not perpetuate the class divisions, the distinctions based on wealth and power and the stink of privilege of the old world. This new country would instead dedicate itself to a new degree of equality among people, would put its trust in the capacity of Australians to work together in a common cause, for the good of the whole country and all the people in it. The member who represented Kingston for longest in this House, the late Pat Galvin, caught some of this spirit when in his maiden speech in 1951 he concluded: The time has come when instead of blaming the other fellow we all should take our share of responsibility . . . Let us all show more tolerance to the other fellow's point of view. That goes for honourable members on both sides of the House. I am certain that the people of today are awaiting good strong leadership , even if that leadership makes mistakes. They will not tolerate the Government or any other authority shirking its responsibility and seeking to establish an alibi by always blaming somebody else. But perhaps Henry Lawson said it better and certainly earlier. His poem For'ard was written during a sea voyage from New Zealand when he observed the different conditions under which the common people lived crammed into the for'ard part of the vessel, compared with the luxurious cabins of the plutocracy aft. The poem concludes with these lines: And we will meet amidships on this stout old earthly craft, And there won't be any friction twixt the classes fore'n aft. We'll be brothers, fore'n aft, Yes, and sisters, fore'n aft, When the people work together, and there ain't no fore'n aft. In the end I believe that is the fundamental choice that Australians made on 5 March, between confrontation and the accentuation of conflict in Australia on the one hand, and on the other the vision of Henry Lawson, of the Australian people brought together to work for the good of us all. I pledge that my time in this Parliament will be spent in attempting to bring that vision to reality, for every Australian I have the honour to represent in this place. Mr PORTER(Barker)(3.43) —Australia today has a choice. That choice is between revitalised and expanded growth, bringing with it sustained economic recovery, or economic mediocrity. It may be that recovery in the international economy will have beneficial consequences for our economy through increased demand and better prices for our rural and resource exports. But the question which remains is whether an overseas induced recovery will overcome the disastrous unemployment situation in this country and whether such recovery will in fact lead to sustained growth in our secondary and tertiary industries. Certainly recovery in the international economy is likely to result in a lift in our export sales and prices which will flow on to other industries. But will we see a resultant growth in the gross domestic product such as we saw through the 1950s and 1960s? Many people are now starting to realise that whilst we are a lucky country in relation to our rural and resource industries, we have fallen behind in many of our secondary and manufacturing industries. This is a matter of concern because these industries have historically been large employers in Australia. However, a significant change has occurred over the last decade or so. The net increase in employment has not been in these industries but in the service industries. In fact there has been a net decline in employment in the manufacturing industry. If this decline continues, where will the new jobs for the mass of unemployed be created? Will there be a resurgence in the manufacturing sector or has a permanent change taken place in our economy? Is the pool of unemployed more likely to be absorbed mainly into service industries? I suggest not. I suggest that our best hope for full employment lies in a different approach. In the past the engines of growth in Australia have been firmly based in the initiative, ingenuity, incentive and entrepreneurial skills of the individual. I believe that the next resurgence of real economic growth will come from the same source. Some industrialists, when times are tough, come to the Government and say: 'We are in trouble. Either bail us out or tell us what we should be doing'. As has been said on numerous occasions, governments are incredibly bad at forecasting the future. Unfortunately, they invariably seem to get it wrong. As my colleague the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) made clear in his excellent maiden speech, the Government is only made up of individuals. If people in government knew better than those in the market-place which industries were going to be the boom industries of tomorrow, I would be very surprised if those same people would not soon be out in the market taking advantage of their wisdom rather than telling others how to make money. Whilst government can help industry to a limited extent, through the provision of information, infrastructure, research and the like, if one accepts that governments have a poor record in the market, it must be the individuals in the market who are most likely to provide the engines of growth. It is they who are going to produce, market and use technological innovation. It may be that new industries will be established or old industries revitalised. There is no doubt that a technological revolution is taking place. Similarly, there is no doubt that it is the entrepreneur in the market place who is going to produce, use and market these technological innovations. This, to me, seems to be the path which offers the greatest hope for the resurgence in growth in our economy and a resurgence in growth of employment. The question then becomes: How can the Government help those in the market who are likely to create jobs? The first priority must be to get the economic fundamentals right. We must get inflation down, interest rates down, money supply under control and profits up; and, of course, one of the most significant factors in achieving those goals in the current situation is wage restraint. However, there are other factors such as taxation, regulation and intervention which inhibit the entrepreneur. I am not one who supports the laissez-faire or total free market economy. The government does have a role in ensuring that those in the market operate under known and fair rules. The rights of the individual must be protected, for example, from the monopolistic powers of government, big business and big unions . Unfair trading practices, predatory pricing, and the like do not encourage the entrepreneur but rather inhibit competition. Whilst accepting the need for some government regulation, I am one who firmly believes in minimising rather than maximising such regulation which can act as a restriction on the entrepreneur. Clearly, it is a fine balance between appropriate government intervention and strangling government bureaucratic regulation. There is little argument, except perhaps from the left wing of the Australian Labor Party, that the market is the most efficient means of allocating resources to meet popular demand. I set aside the obvious needs for governments to meet other demands, such as defence, education, social welfare and the like. Opponents of the market as a means of allocating resources often point to market failures as evidence of the need for intense government intervention, but I suggest that failures in the exercise of government authority are much more rampant and, indeed, more damaging than any market failures. This is one of the basic differences between the Opposition and the Government, because there is a thread which runs through the Government's policy and that is the belief that government knows better than those in the productive sectors of the economy what is good for them. It is a fundamental flaw which prevents this Government from solving the problems of the economy, because it cannot adhere to its philosophy and, at the same time, create the environment whereby those with the will, skill and ability will be stimulated to initiate innovative business enterprises, thereby creating the new jobs which are required to absorb our pool of unemployed. This fact was clearly recognised by the scenarios which were put to the National Economic Summit Conference. None of them offered a satisfactory solution to unemployment but, rather, they were comparisons of policies which would result in different but unacceptable levels of unemployment. In the short term there clearly are not any quick-fix solutions; nor were they offered. But the fact remains that the Government is not offering employment. It is merely indicating a holding operation on unemployment at around current levels. I thought that the Summit, in bringing together Government leaders, union leaders and business leaders and making them listen to one another, was a worthwhile undertaking. Obviously, everyone cannot be represented at such a conference. However, unless one acknowledges that, then we may get the wrong idea of the result of the Conference. Essentially, the Conference was a meeting of institutional leaders. The point has been made several times that many sections of the community were not present and were not heard, such as the unemployed, the consumers, the non-union labour force and so on. But there is another very important group, the innovators-the people out in the market who are, or are attempting, to get a new business undertaking or a revitalised business undertaking off the ground. Some of these enterprises will be the big businesses of the next decade, the new miners, manufacturers and engineers; maybe the new BHP, CSR, News Limited, Coles, Boral, Faulding, James Hardie, TNT, Ansett, Wormald-any large company one cares to mention. The Government certainly obtained an acceptance of the inevitable; that is, the Economic Summit acknowledged that the Government would press on with its policies of price control and centralised wage fixing. These two areas are good examples of the concern I am expressing about the philosophy of Labor's policy. One of the consequences of price control will inevitably be to reduce and redirect capital out of profitable areas of investment. That action will be a great disincentive to those contemplating a new enterprise. In relation to centralised wage fixing, let me say at the outset that there is no doubt that union action in demanding and obtaining wage increases beyond the capacity of this economy to pay has directly resulted in high inflation, higher unemployment, lower profits and lower investment. I also believe that it was a significant factor in bringing down the previous Government. The answer of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to that is to say: 'The previous arrangement allowed powerful unions to use their industrial muscle to obtain unreasonable wage increases. These increases flowed through to other industries and thereby brought the economy to its knees.' The answer, the Prime Minister says, is to have centralised wage fixing. But the problem with that is that by giving across -the-board wage increases one does not distinguish between those industries which can afford to pay wage increases and those which cannot. Those which cannot afford it will clearly shed more labour or go broke. Either way, there will be more unemployment. In my view, such centralised wage fixing which institutionalises unemployment must be wrong, and the answer, of course, lies somewhere between the two poles. We just cannot afford to have the entrepreneur sacrificed by government, big business and the monopolistic unions. I willingly concede that to the extent to which the Summit produced an acceptance of the continuation of the wage pause, it was helpful. However, the measure of the success of the Summit lies not in rhetoric about consensus but in the actual wage increases which are achieved this year either through the arbitration system or outside it. I must admit that , on the basis of that test, the signs for our economy are ominous. Given the outburst from the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Dolan, they are ominous for two reasons. The first is this: If the wage pause were continued to about October this year, then I believe the economy could withstand a wage increase of 3 per cent to 4 per cent, representing the June and September consumer price index increases with no allowance for catch-ups. That is, of course, with some sensible arrangement for future wage increases in line with the October determination. However, Mr Dolan has indicated already that he wants the March 2.2 per cent increase as well as future CPI increases, as well as catch-up at some time in the future. What is worse, he said that unions want it both ways. If they do not get what they want in the arbitration system, they will go outside it to obtain their objectives. That will be the time when this Government will be able to prove to the Australian public the special relationship which it suggests exists between the Australian Labor Party and the union bosses, because large scale avoidance of the arbitration system will clearly not be able to be sustained by this economy. The second reason for concern is the effect that such uncertainty regarding the future levels of wages has on confidence in the private sector. It is well known that there is a large amount of money currently invested in short term deposits, cash management funds and the like, because investors and entrepreneurs are uncertain as to the direction in which the economy is heading. One of the most important factors in investment decisions is projected wage costs and right now there is enormous uncertainty. Investment expenditure cannot be turned on like a tap. It will be produced only where there is a favourable economic climate, when there is confidence and when there is certainty as to future Government decisions. Unfortunately, to date this Government has shown itself to be a bad and incapable manager of government business, let alone the economy, and its performance has not instilled confidence in the market. I conclude by referring again to my initial point. We need to encourage the companies and individuals in our society who are prepared to have a go, to innovate, to experiment, to upgrade. The opportunity must be given to the entrepreneurs of our society to come up with the new industries which will create jobs. Those opportunities will most likely be taken when the economic climate is conducive to investment, when government is encouraging rather than discouraging, and when government interference in the market-place is minimised. Finally, I quote from the book Liberal Thinking by former Senator Puplick and Sir Robert Southey. Mr Chynoweth —That will be good. Mr PORTER —It will be good. The honourable member is quite right. They state: Equality is not to be confused with conformity or uniformity. This confusion is very common in political debate. Conformity or uniformity can only be brought about in a complex society by oppression, by discrimination against those with talent, by treating people unequally to ensure that they fit into a common mould . The confusion of equality with conformity or uniformity runs through socialist thought. For that reason socialist states are based on discrimination and always tend towards oppression. The basic distinction is between liberalism's insistence on equality of entitlements to freedom and to civil and political rights, and socialism's enforced uniformity which inevitably reduces individual expression. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Before calling the honourable member for Eden- Monaro (Mr Snow) I would remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech and ask that he be afforded every courtesy. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(4.0) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I congratulate you and your colleagues on your appointments as Deputy Speakers. I congratulate also the Chairman of Committees and Mr Speaker on their election. Twenty-five years ago I used to dispense Mr Speaker's medical prescriptions. I trust I will be able to observe his instructions in this House with the same devotion, but perhaps not the same accuracy. Walking into the House of Representatives on 21 April, I brought with me some mental reservations about the ability of any government to act on the vital questions of peace, of poverty and of efficient government. Those reservations have been weakened. The will of the Hawke Ministry to wade systematically through the economic slough for a few months, with the clear aim of acting on the issues of poverty, efficient government and peace, is so evident that I know I am in a House of Representatives which is prepared to plan and prepared to have a go. My reservations still have some basis. Legislators have got the troublesome job of sorting out what can be done, when so much needs to be done. The legislators have also to sort out which truth takes precedence over another. I want to dwell on another aspect of this conflict between the obvious needs- the truth about our circumstances-and the old adage that politics is the art of the possible. Andrea Dvorkin said, in her book, Our Blood, that there is a difference between truth and what she called reality. Before Columbus, the reality was that the earth was flat. The truth was that the earth was round. Reality is often shaped out of ignorance but is nonetheless real at the time. The reality today is that we have up to four levels of government in Australia, which are there and which are difficult to change. In fact, when the Australian Labor Party is prepared to dissolve its State branches, I will believe that it is possible for Australia to exist with just local and national government. The truth is that we are over-governed, that State governments are an anachronism and ought to go, in favour of a reformed local government. That does not mean that all State boundaries are unsuitable. Decades of government in Tasmania, on average, show that Government to be a pretty efficient local government. It is just that there are many powers which Tasmania does not have and ought to have. There are other powers which Tasmania has which are not appropriate to local government and the one perceptive thing that Milton Friedman said when he was in Australia was that we were wrong to put up with State governments. The Northern Territory Government is the sort of structure that we can put up with. So is the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly, if it is given true local powers. The system would suit north Queensland and the rest of Australia. But for now we have to live with the reality. We have the States and, unlike Arthur Calwell, we must not stir the possum. Another truth was expressed by Dwight D. Eisenhower when he retired from the Presidency of the United States and fired a parting shot at the military juggernaut which had sent its tentacles into the Eisenhower Administration. He said: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in a final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, from those who are cold and not clothed. That is the truth. The reality is that no country is prepared to go without and leave others in a position of military strength. It was on this conflict between truth and reality, the conflict about nuclear disarmament, that the preacher at the service held at the opening of this Parliament said, as I recall, that where the truth seems difficult, and even impossible, politicians ought not thereby dismiss it but always store it in the mind as a basis for action. He was talking about disarmament and there are few issues which require this continued perception of the truth more than nuclear disarmament. No strategy is more important to the resolving of the problem of poverty than the acceptance of the truth about that issue. The failure to cope with the poverty created by the monetarist philosophy-a failure to cope with that weakest to the wall philosophy-would be a denial of social justice. The bypassing of social justice to the poor in the name of economic efficiency is now starting to create unstable forces in the community and, not surprisingly, is threatening economic efficiency. The bypassing of social justice is a denial of the heritage of the Australian Labor Party. Those nineteenth century moves in Australia by an unusual combination of humanists, protestants, atheists and catholics which is still holding together to this day and the pioneering of world democratic socialism here in Australia were dedicated to the elimination of poverty. The emotional claptrap which just voices sorrow for the poor or which, on the other side, voices contempt for those who do not pull themselves up by their bootstraps, will get the country nowhere. One does not have to cry crocodile tears or snarl to realise that poverty is a looming threat to the stability of our nation. Cry by all means if it moves one to action. Eden-Monaro's statistics, not far from the average of all of Australia's electorates, brand the electorate as a microcosm of the whole nation, like most marginal seats. There are few areas which more reflect poverty than that of accommodation. Women's refuges and other voluntary agencies in Eden-Monaro will tell one that. In Queanbeyan, a place of residence for quite a few honourable members of this House during parliamentary sittings, government and voluntary agencies and refuges are trying to cope with the problems of unemployment, including family breakdown and the resulting crises in health, food supply and accommodation. In Goulburn young people on $40 a week unemployment relief are confronted with rents of $30 to $50 a week. The knockers say they all live in group housing. Only a minority of those living away from home live in group housing. Then there are the new poor, the people who are not able to come up with the money to pay mortgages and people who are forced out of the homes for which they have skimped and saved. The stimulus now to come from the Hawke Government's new housing policy will help these people. Also, the Hurford-Hawke housing policy propagated and nurtured by the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) will also revitalise jobs in the construction and associated industries. The policy will give soundness to the timber industry. Only six months ago timber mills along the south coast of New South Wales, on the tablelands and on the Monaro were reducing hours or retrenching staff. This added to the unemployment crisis. Economic crises in local industries and a rising number of bankruptcies in small businesses dealing in timber, fishing, manufacturing and the retail trade added to unemployment and, therefore, added to poverty. To help primary industries such as fishing, Labor's traditional tack towards orderly marketing should continue. The great successes of Labor Governments since Federation have included primary industry. Ministers such as Reg Pollard, Ken Wreidt and now the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), guided by responsive local members such as my predecessors, Alan Fraser, Bob Whan, and in part of my electorate, Ben Chifley, never dilly-dallied through fear of backbiting from a limited number of corporate bodies or large landholders. They led Australia and even the world in their steady promotion of orderly marketing. Marketing, research and promotion will do more for our primary industries than all the subsidies in the world. But we must continually check the marketing systems so that they work for the national economy. Eden-Monaro is a microcosm of Australia's march backwards in the past few years . Our primary industries, whether fishing, dairying, potatoes, sheep, cattle, deer, horses, honey or goats-I will not mention those in other electorates-among many others will join with the great tourist industry, light industries, small businesses and public works on roads and water supplies to become a microcosm of Australia's recovery. That recovery will not be based on only the economy and local infrastructures; social programs must also play a role. A carefully planned and well researched Medicare and pharmaceutical benefits policy will stop the disastrous, inconsiderate and costly policy changes which have occurred over eight years. The secret of the Hawke Government's future success is that, for the first time since 1946, the ALP has a broad spectrum of support across Australia. Small businesses and primary producers have united with pensioners, the retired, the unemployed, and pay-as-you-earn taxpayers to vote in a democratic socialist government. Democratic socialism was pioneered in Australia but has never had a fair go in this country. Countries which have democratically practised this very successful form of government for many more years than we have-countries such as Austria, Sweden, Holland, Denmark, Finland and, until recently, West Germany- have a far better economic and social record than we have. It all started here in Australia. Those democratic socialist countries also have a far better employment record. The Hawke Labor Government has started to build on the broad support given by the electorate and the broad backing given at the National Economic Summit Conference. I look forward to changes which will reduce the mounting disillusionment and lack of operative confidence in youth and will return breadwinners to work. I look forward to new confidence in the public and private sectors. We on the Government benches are well aware that economic, social- including health-and environmental issues have been at the forefront of every election since 1966. All the people in the Eden-Monaro campaign contributed substantially to a win by the ALP on those issues. This Government's success will be linked with its policies on the economy and on the social and environmental conditions of Australia. Eden-Monaro has a say in the Hawke Labor Government. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.13) —I begin by congratulating you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your appointment and offer my best wishes to those honourable members of the House who have joined us here for the first time. I add that since most of the new honourable members come from the Government ranks, while I wish them a pleasant stay, I do not wish them a long stay. Mr Robert Brown —We are here for a long time. Mr SPENDER —The honourable member says they are here for a long time. On the Government's progress thus far, it will go out of office at a quicker rate than any other government since Federation. I want to say something about the style and substance of this Government and also about its wages policy. I want to say something about the style because the style of a government reflects the substance. With this Government one must begin with the National Economic Summit Conference because that was the centrepiece for the Hawke Government. We know who participated at that Summit. I add that in many ways I think it was a sensible exercise because it provided a means for people to get together to debate issues and to be, one hopes, better informed. The participants at the Summit included, of course, Mr Dolan, although judging by his recent pronouncements, one can only say that he has forgotten everything that took place there. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, set the tone of the Summit when he said: The results we seek-and these must be regarded as only a minimum measure of our success-should be: First, a heightened appreciation of the need to work constructively together to meet the great challenges now confronting our country; and Second, an increased likelihood of all participants tailoring their expectations and claims upon the community's resources to the capacities of the economy, and the urgent need for a reduction in unemployment and a restoration of growth to an economy now in deep recession. If those were the minimum measures of success, all the evidence is that the Summit has been a failure. Since the Summit and the high expectations that it engendered amongst many Australians, we have seen a catalogue of disasters in the way in which this Government has handled its business. One can commence with Tasmania and the strange means adopted by the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) and the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to gain evidence. It passes understanding how two senior Ministers could think that using military aircraft was an appropriate way to gain evidence in a civil case. It was neither appropriate nor proper. What did we have next? Of course, we had the Combe affair. We all know what the version of the Prime Minister is of his handling of the Combe affair. He has told us that he has been moved by two considerations-the national interest and fairness. We all know the sequence of events and Mr Combe's version of what happened. What do we know? We know that the Prime Minister and the inner group which comprise the Cabinet Sub-Committee on National and International Security made a decision which effectively caused the greatest possible harm to Mr Combe and to his capacity to earn a living. That was done without bothering even to give him the opportunity of a hearing. Mr Combe was an old and valued colleague and, one would think, an old and valued friend of the Prime Minister and of those Ministers who were concerned in the making of the opinion that destroyed his livelihood. Yet he was not consulted. He was not asked to give his story until of course it all became public, when it was too late. It is perfectly plain from that that the Prime Minister regards friends and associates as expendable and that he belongs to the 'hang now and give them a fair trial later ' school of justice. One of the astonishing things about the Combe affair was that, while Mr Combe had, I suppose, many friends and colleagues on the Labor side of the House, not one stood up to support him. When last year we had some difficulties and there was a disagreement as to what should be done, some of our members went public against the Government's decision because they thought that decision was unfair. Do we find that coming from the Labor ranks? We do not, because the truth is that they believe that justice is something that one has to alter according to the expediencies of the situation. What happened after that? Within three weeks of the making of the decision to expel Mr Ivanov, the Prime Minister commissioned a royal commission, part of the terms of reference of which are into the Government's decision on that matter. It surely must be a record for any government in Australia or elsewhere that, within three weeks of making a decision of national importance-the Government is to inquire into its decision and has appointed a judge for that purpose. After that we had the bizarre Kampuchean affair, with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), formerly the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, speaking about Australian and Japanese troops going into Kampuchea. Then, of course, in the Parliament we have had the litany of promises thus far broken by the Labor Government. We will hear some more this evening. We will be able to know the Labor Government by two epitaphs. The first will be the streaker's defence: 'It seemed like a good thing at the time'; and the second will be that dictum of Lenin's: 'Promises are like pie crusts-made to be broken'. Therefore, the conclusions one draws about the style of this Government is that it has thus far shown itself to be dangerously inept, and to have a selective view of justice to its closest associates. God help those who are not closely associated with this Government. That of course reflects the group ethic of the Labor Party, which believes that because a blueprint may have been laid down for the Government of the country, everyone should accord with that blueprint and if a few people get hurt in the process that is neither here nor there. I turn now to the Government's wages policy. It has been stated by the Prime Minister to involve, first of all, a return to the centralised system. The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) referred to some of the defects of that system, with the flow-on of decisions made in one industry to other industries which are less able to pay. Secondly, the Prime Minister said that in 1983 there will be a small increase in wages, which he has put at about 3 per cent to 4 per cent. Thirdly, he said that we will have a return to indexation, although he has been ambiguous as to when that return will be. He and the whole Government have either been ambiguous about, or simply do not know, whether there will be a catch-up in the end, although it appears from what one can understand from their answers that there will be and that it will be a part of Labor Party policy. In my view, it is a fundamental proposition that the benefits of the wages pause will be lost unless there is a permanent reduction in the share of the national cake taken by wage and salary earners and a restoration of their share accorded to the profit makers. Some of the speakers at the Summit Conference made this fairly plain. For example, the Treasurer, Mr Keating, speaking on the subject of profitability of organisations, said: By the end of 1982, all profitability measures were at historically low levels. He said later, at page 26 of the record of proceedings, in reference to Labor's prices and incomes policy: . . . it is clear that at one level the prices and incomes accord is firmly in place. An explicit agreement has been reached with the trade union movement. So we have these two factors. The Treasurer, Mr Keating has said that profitability is at historically low levels, which it most certainly is, and that this explicit agreement is in place. Sir Roderick Carnegie, on the subject of profitability, said: Today our companies are weak. They are earning low profits. Their debt position is high. Their competitiveness in world terms is poor. All too often they rush to the Government seeking to be bailed out when the going gets tough. The link between adequate profits and secure jobs is not well understood. The responsibility facing the leaders of companies and unions is to educate their members as to the reality of where their long term interests lie. Another speaker at the National Summit, Sir Arvi Parbo, in commenting upon what Sir Roderick Carnegie had said, stated: I believe it has been well established that the major cause of the low level of economic activity, and therefore the lack of employment opportunities, is the inadequate financial returns to enterprises. Sir Roderick Carnegie made a most important point on Monday, which I think was largely missed by the audience, namely, that the financial returns to enterprises are essential to service the money invested, just as all of us expect to be paid interest on our money deposited in the bank. One might say there is general agreement between the Treasurer, Sir Roderick, Sir Arvi Parbo and others on the need for profitability. What then is the present position? Let us consider the accord and what has happened since the National Summit. Honourable members will recall that the accord, that is, the accord between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Labor Party, very specifically provides: The maintenance of real wages is agreed to be a key objective. It is recognised that in a period of economic crisis as now applying that this will be an objective over time. From what one can understand it is certainly a key objective of the ACTU, but it seems to have forgotten that the accord stated the maintenance of real wages would be an objective over time. What did Mr Dolan say on the subject? As we all know and as the Sydney Morning Herald of 18 May reported he claimed, on behalf of the ACTU, a 2.2 per cent cost of living wage increase to cover the first quarter of this year, followed by similar full quarterly increases for the remainder of the year. In the same issue, in reference to a figure of 3 per cent to 4 per cent which was put to him, he was reported as saying: This is a figure in the minds of some persons in the media. According to the newspaper he said the Federal Government had never told the ACTU that it wanted pay rises for this year limited to 3 per cent to 4 per cent. That is the figure which the Prime Minister has put to this House on more than one occasion. He is perfectly clear about it. One can assume only that he and Mr Dolan are living on different planets because they are saying two different things. It is impossible to reconcile the views of the ACTU as expressed by Mr Dolan with the Prime Minister's often reiterated reliance upon a rise of 3 per cent to 4 per cent this year. Mr Dolan has made his position perfectly plain. It will not accord in any way with the policy that has been put forward by this Government. In later interviews Mr Dolan has made his personal position and the position of the ACTU perfectly plain. He has been asked about his attitude if the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission does not agree to the claim for a 2.2 per cent award to cover the March quarter. On the Australian Broadcasting Commission radio program AM on 18 May the following question was put to him: If the Commission then knocks back such a claim, will you accept it? The answer was: 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. Mr Dolan has sought to say that that really did not amount to a confrontation, but that is very clearly his position. What does that mean? It means that we are returning to the days that existed towards the end of indexation when the tribunal was used for the purpose of getting rises within the indexation principles. When the powerful unions go outside the tribunal to get their own results-according to what Mr Dolan has said-it will be a case of: 'Well, fellows , it is business as usual because if the Commission does not give it to us that is the end of the Commission and we will get it anyway'. Where does that leave reconciliation, consensus and the Prime Minister's wages policy? In the last one or two minutes let me sum up my views as to the Government's wages policy. The Government inherited a wages pause which has been the linchpin of the policy of this Government. The Prime Minister has said constantly that it is a policy of returning to a centralised system of wage fixation. Mr Dolan has made it quite plain that he will not accept that policy if it does not suit him or the ACTU. So much for the sanctity of the centralised system! The Prime Minister has said that there is an agreement, a consensus, between the ACTU and the Government. Mr Dolan has made it perfectly plain that he thinks there is no such consensus and that some media person-perhaps he had the Prime Minister in mind-brought up a wage rise of 3 per cent to 4 per cent in 1983. It would seem that the hopes of keeping wage restraint in place are not good. They can be made good only if this Government has the courage to ensure that they are made good; if it is willing to state a plain position from this point right through 1983, and if it is willing to involve itself in whatever difficulties may occur with the union movement. Looking to the future, if we do not have restraint we will be living beyond our means. If we live beyond our means we will continue to lose jobs and become less competitive with all the misery that that entails. There will be further devaluation and this country could find itself in a downward spiral from which it would be very hard to recover. If, however, we take a more positive approach to the future we should remember just one thing: Profits are the motor for the recovery of this country. Until the Labor Party learns and takes on board that lesson the future of the Australian economy will remain in danger. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Before calling the honourable member for Barton I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech. I ask that he be heard in silence. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(4.32) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I offer my congratulations to you. I trust that you will pass on my congratulations to the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) on his election to the post of Speaker. It is most appropriate that I should make my maiden speech after such a prelude from the honourable members for Hume (Mr Lusher), Barker (Mr Porter) and North Sydney (Mr Spender). I say at the outset that with such contributions from the Opposition's front bench it gives great heart to the new members on this side of the House to know that we will be here for a long time. On 22 November 1940 a predecessor of mine in the seat of Barton rose to make his maiden speech. He said that the people of Barton had honoured him by electing him to the national Parliament at a time of unparalleled emergency. That member was, of course, the great late Dr Evatt. He was speaking at a time not long after the commencement of the hitherto most destructive of wars, that is, World War II. Nearly 43 years later I rise similarly to thank the people of Barton for the faith they have placed in me by allowing me to represent them in the national Parliament at a time of another great emergency; for I arrive here not in the context of a military war, thank God, but at the commencement of what is in a sense another great war; that is, the war against the rapid and thorough improverishment of this great nation-impoverishment which manifests itself not just, albeit not the least, in economic terms but also in moral and political terms. The economic impoverishment of Australia, now so full of momentum as this Parliament commences, is as obvious to the Australian people as the bankruptcy of policy and humanity of the last Government which now sits opposite and which created this great national emergency. May I say that the only relief of conscience for their deeds that members of the Opposition can look forward to is the axiom that after the Australian public has had an opportunity to compare our programs with theirs there will indeed be less of them here in the next Parliament. After seven years of monetarist inflation-first economics the rate of inflation now stands at 11.5 per cent. In November 1975 it stood at 11.1 per cent. While history was moving through its cycle to 5 March 1983 the great cost of the national tragedy unfolded. Today that cost in human misery is measured by two statistical comparisons. The number of official unemployed, itself deflated by the despair of many people resigning all hope of finding work, particularly women and the young, now stands at an official 10.3 per cent. Seven years ago it stood at 4.3 per cent. In the electorate of Barton there are now 8,954 unemployed persons. The unemployed to job ratio for those under 24 is 13:1. In my electorate approximately 30 per cent of people are non-Australian born. When the first generation Australian-born children of migrants are included the figure is closer to 40 per cent. Unemployment falls particularly hard on these communities . I should point out that 27.1 per cent of Lebanese, 11.7 per cent of Yugoslavs and 10.1 per cent of Greeks were estimated to have been unemployed in my electorate as at November last year when the national average was 7.5 per cent. Now, obviously, it is much worse. The proponents of the total private enterprise society in their text book assumptions of mobility within the work force from places of low labour demand to places of high labour demand forget the harsh limitations of youth and inexperience or of language and cultural barriers in that market. But the most telling indice of human misery is that three million Australians now live in poverty. The lucky country has faired badly in the Fraserism game of chance. Our standard of living fell from eighth to fifteenth amongst Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nations between 1973 and 1980. All of this -all of this-in the name of efficient government and smaller government, which was revealed secretly, hidden from the Australian public only days before the last election, resulting in a record projected Budget deficit of $9.6 billion- the highest in Australian history and one of the highest amongst OECD nations per capita. The Opposition, limited in numbers, policies and compassion, now decries our stated inability as a government to pursue all the elements of our platform enunciated during the election. On each occasion the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), and his colleagues smirk this irrelevancy I shall remind them of the editorial in the 11 March Australian Financial Review, aptly entitled 'The politics of Austerity', which states: Any objective examination of the Fraser Government's deficit record can only lead to the conclusion that at no time did Mr Fraser make a serious effort to come to grips with the deteriorating state of the public finances. Perhaps better still, I shall remind them of the editorial in the Australian of 10 March 1983 under the heading 'Lessons from the Budget Blow-out' which, comments in its second last paragraph on the deficit and on the honourable member for Bennelong, and the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is increasingly becoming one of the Government's greatest assets, and who will be there at least until the inevitable challenge to the Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Peacock). It concludes: It will take a long time for him (Mr Howard) to live down his ministerial legacy of huge Budget deficits this year and next. I will keep these editorials in my drawer in the chamber to remind those members opposite from time to time when their memories lapse. It is the monumental legacy of economic impoverishment which the first Hawke Government must arrest and reverse. It is a battle that will be fought. It is a battle that will be won. Resulting from this economic tragedy is the impoverishment of the broad public morality of this nation. Under the guise of freedom of enterprise and the supposed liberalism of the individual, the basic tenets of the philosophies of the last Government, with their roots in the myths of the Menzies era, have set aside compassion for those less fortunate, the aspirations of the Australian family and, indeed, the basic rights for many Australians. There is no freedom for the individual when many of the 17,000 pensioners in my electorate are individuals with scarcely enough to eat. There is no freedom for the individual when devastated health care, public education and child care services prohibit many individuals from pursuing their chosen role in society and fulfilling their potential in life. I note that my colleague the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) vividly mentioned the death of a young girl in the city's centre from a drug overdose. I ask: Is there anything morally decent about policies or philosophies of government that have abandoned much of my generation to this, arising from sheer despair; or is there any decency in government when the hopelessness of groups of young, often homeless unemployed persons, forces them to sell their bodies on street corners in order just to eat? It is a nation on the verge of moral collapse, at the very least of moral impoverishment, that cares little for its young, its aged and its handicapped. That is the legacy passed to us. This must change. I am sure that under the Australian Labor Party in government it will change. Every Australian has an inalienable right to the basic services and commodities of the modern society we have built. Every Australian has a right to a home. Every Australian has a right to health care. Similarly, every Australian has a basic right to an equal opportunity in life, and I say that especially with respect to women. A commitment to a rising standard of education for all is central to this. These tenets of our philosophy are the true reflection of the rights of the individual in terms of both needs and aspirations. They are the values that we must, and will, restore to Australian politics. The third manifestation of the impoverishment of our great nation is the very great damage done to the political system by the deliberate manipulation and blatant devastation of the conventions and spirit of our democratic processes. There is no need to return to the precipice of 11 November 1975, a thin edge over which the conservative political forces were prepared to dangle this country for what is now seen exclusively as being due to their greed for power. But as I stand here looking over the vast empty wasteland of the Opposition branches, it serves to remind me that the precedent set then has been followed as ruthlessly by those opposite since, both in government and in opposition. In opposition this has been shown in recent weeks by their shameful activities at the Australian Constitutional Conference, the implicit attempts at deception in their questioning in this House on the economy and their consistently divisive attitude, while we on this side strive to establish a national consensus on the common goals of the Australian people. In government this warping of the political process was clearly shown in the blatant in-house use of the Government Information Unit by the Liberal Party, the cynical use of taxpayers' money for political advertising and the sustainment of the worst undemocratic features of the electoral system-features which include the insistence of full preferential voting to the disadvantage of ethnic minorities and the elderly, alphabetical listing on ballot papers to allow the deliberate stacking of tickets, as occurred in Barton at the last election, and the blatant gerrrymander of seats which produced a result in 1980 of the Australian Labor Party gaining only 42 per cent of the seats with 50.5 per cent of the vote. It is not surprising, therefore, that it is with a firm ideological commitment that I come to this place to play my part in ending the impoverishment-economic, moral and political-of this nation. I am under no illusions that the people of Australia have voted for radical change. They have not. Years of myths, distortions and blatant political fabrication from the predecessors of those on the other side of this House have made the Australian electorate an essentially conservative one. It therefore falls to a social democratic party such as ours to follow the path so successfully trod by our sister parties in western Europe; to change not only the substance of executive and legislative decisions to make our society more just, equitable and democratic, but also to change the political consciousness of the Australian public in order that the great reforms that this Government has a clear mandate to implement, not only materialise, but also have an opportunity to embed themselves in the national body politic to become lasting reforms. The necessity for this is the measure of how little is left one decade later of the reforms of the Whitlam Government. No social reform, no matter how worth while and with no matter how great a mandate, can be guaranteed survival under the political Luddites of the conservative parties. A commitment by ALP politicians to remain in office is the most effective mode that can be adopted to help this country out of its current economic and social morass and its cyclical repetition. The harshest measure of this is that much of our platform now, is a redress of what was sought a decade ago, for the most part won, and then lost between 1975 and 1983. Its re-establishment has become a harder task due to our prolonged absence from the Treasury benches. Our political commitment remains, however, strong enough to stand on its own. Our commitment is the only positive alternative for this nation. While those opposite have an infatuation with the politics of redistribution of income and wealth under a philosophy which dictates a shrinking pool of social resources for Australians, our cause has as its strength an inherent commitment to expanding the potential wealth of our society for the benefit of all Australians , and particularly those most in need. Our cause is unique because it alone has as its fundamental strength the commitment to the constant revision of our society and a mutual commitment to the democratic processes and a pluralist society. Doubtlessly, this Government will create enemies within the community as it makes the hard decisions for the greater good. But it is well worth remembering the words of the nineteenth century reformist journalist, Donn Piatt, that: 'The man who has no enemies has no following'. The onus, therefore, is on each member of the Government not only to bring about those needed reforms, but also to guard against the distractions of a system which we seek to clean up; we need to ignore those distractions and pursue our course of action. As a direct derivation of this, it is my hope for the short term that some small amount can be achieved. In the formulation of policy and its administration, in the interests of my electorate of Barton, I intend to be as parochial as the best of them and on occasions, perhaps, unashamedly a little more parochial, just to spite those members of the National Party. I hope that pay-as-you-earn tax relief and a decline in interest rates will appear in this first term of Government. I expect and, indeed, I will fight for the restoration of a proper level of income for pensioners-not only the aged, but the handicapped, war widows and others who are so much in need of help. I hope also that this term of government will see significant reforms for the benefit of women's rights in the work force and government service. I hope that this Government will be able to proceed with those policies so suitably programmed for the benefit of the ethnic communities that are also so much in need of a wide range of support. I hope also that this Government can breathe life into the many still factories and small businesses of Sydney to give more jobs to Australians, particularly the young. Finally, I thank all those who have played a part in giving me this opportunity to pursue these reforms and end the improverishment of my country. My family, particularly my wife, and our many friends and supporters inside and outside the ALP have given me a rare chance to participate in the implementation of many of the things that they have spent their lives believing in. I thank them for that and hope that I will not fail them. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson)(4.50) —I extend my congratulations to all those new members of this Parliament who have made their maiden speeches. We have listened to some very fine speeches indeed. We on this side of the House are greatly concerned with the Government's present water resources program. Prior to 5 March, the Fraser-Anthony Government had allocated $640m for the establishment of water storages in Australia. This included the provision of funds for the building of the Split Rock Dam on the Manilla River and increasing the height of the wall of the Glenbawn Dam on the Hunter River. It was also to provide funds for increasing water storage capacity in various parts of Australia, with great advantage to the nation. Australia is the driest country in the world and preservation of water is an urgent requirement. With the unemployment situation as it is at the present time in this country, surely consideration should be given to building storage dams which will not only provide water for crops, grain and stock, but also have the twofold advantage of providing employment and creating national assets. We were very disturbed to hear from the Minister for Resources and Energy ( Senator Walsh) yesterday in another place in answer to a question say that this Government's policy would probably be to provide $350m for water resources. Indeed, we will not know just what the situation is until the mini-Budget comes down tonight. But it does indicate to us that there is a lack of regard by the present Government for water conservation. Water conservation is essential not only for crops and the pastoral industries, but also for town water supplies of inland Australia. The towns in my electorate on the Namoi and Hunter rivers depend entirely on water from those rivers. So it is a very important matter indeed. Mr Braithwaite —Don't forget the Burdekin Dam. Mr O'KEEFE —My colleague the honourable member for Dawson has asked me to mention the Burdekin Dam in Queensland. We have visited this area and we know just what the dam would mean to the primary industries in Queensland and to the honourable member himself. I want to refer to the promises that were made prior to election day by the present Government. On 10 February 1983 the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said: 'We will not be devaluing'. Three days after the Government was elected, it devalued the Australian dollar by 10 per cent. This resulted in higher prices being paid by all Australian families. On 16 February in the Labor Party's policy speech there was a statement made to the effect that there would be immediate reductions in income tax for almost six million Australian taxpayers. Three days after the election, the Prime Minister said: ' We will have to consider the whole of our program'. On the Mike Walsh Show, 16 days after the election, he said: 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. These promises were made; they have been rejected. If the Government had not made them, it may not be sitting on the Treasury benches here today. In the first two weeks the Labor Government launched a constitutional fight with Tasmania over the new hydro-electric scheme. It called the Economic Summit Conference. It refused to admit representatives from the Liberal and National Parties and the Australian Democrats which represent more than 50 per cent of Australians. We were denied the right to take part in that Conference. We feel that this should not have been the case. The Government decided not to replace the aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne, without consultation with those most involved; namely, members of the Royal Australian Navy. These are but a few of the promises made during the election campaign-they contributed to the success of the Australian Labor Party at the polls- which the Government is not keeping. The people of Australia will soon find out these facts, to their detriment. The coal industry in my electorate of Paterson plays a very important part in the economy of the Hunter Valley, New South Wales-and, indeed, the nation. New South Wales is now exporting more steaming coal than the more traditional coking coal. That is a further sign that the coal boom has arrived, but without any of the projected financial benefits. Figures on exports from the Joint Coal Board show that in the first 41 weeks of 1982-83 steaming coal exports exceeded coking coal shipments overseas by a comfortable margin. The figures show that 11.64 million tonnes of steaming coal was exported compared with 10.87 million tonnes of coking coal shipped in the same period. Steaming coal exports actually moved ahead of coking coal exports early in 1982-83 as new mines in the upper Hunter Valley, developed over the past two years, came into production or lifted output as contracted deliveries expanded. However, one very serious situation has developed in this region. The Drayton coal mine was completed in early 1982 and cost $200m. The union is refusing to staff the mine. The Drayton mine, which is owned by the CSR company, was completed 18 months ago. The northern miners are refusing to man that mine. It has contracts with Korea, Japan and many other parts of the world. People in the Hunter Valley are very concerned and upset about this situation. Indeed, the areas of Muswellbrook, Scone and Singleton are very seriously affected by this mine not being manned. Miners are unemployed but the union will not allow them to work at Drayton. Mr Cowan —And the Government will not intervene. Mr O'KEEFE —As the honourable member for Lyne said, the Government will not intervene. Recently in the town of Muswellbrook a public meeting was held and 4, 000 concerned people turned up to protest about the action of the northern miners in not manning this mine. What a ridiculous stand. Mr Hunt —It is no wonder they vote for you. Mr O'KEEFE —That is right. We get a good miners' vote. There are unemployed miners in this valley, yet they are denied the right of employment. If this mine were manned it would be of great benefit not only to the people in the area but also to the mining industry, coal exports and the nation. Many of the coal contracts to the countries which I have mentioned-Korea, Japan and others-will be lost if the mine is not staffed. Indeed, the latest information to hand is that contracts will expire in six weeks time. Valuable coal exports will be lost. That will be a national loss and will result in a loss of job opportunities for many unemployed miners. Pleas to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) have not brought forth assistance. This is a serious situation. It is beyond comprehension. Surely common sense will prevail and the mine will be allowed to operate. Shipping of coal from the Australian seaboard is another matter of great concern. When I visited Korea and Japan I met the purchasers of Australian coal. The first question they asked was: 'Why can't you keep up your coal shipments and commitments under our contracts?'. They asked: 'Why can't we rely on your shipping?'. There are times when there are something like 40 ships lying off the port of Newcastle. People refer to them as Wran's navy. This does not enhance our reputation as a reliable supplier. We are not the only nation with coal to sell. Our great competitors, of course, are Canada, the United States of America , South Africa and Brazil. China also could become a competitor in the years ahead. We must tighten our shipping and export facilities. I would like to say someting about China because it will become a very important trading partner of Australia in the years ahead. China, reporting a figure for its gross national product for the first time recently, said that the broad measure of its economy expanded by 9 per cent in 1982, to the equivalent of $499 billion. While outsiders have calculated and reported China's GNP in the past, the Chinese announcement marked the first time the Peking Government has given its GNP figure. Since 1979 it has been making an annual report on the economy. Previously, the Chinese, confined their reporting to more Soviet inspired concerns such as the output value of industry and agriculture, which does not measure much of the economy. It is not clear whether the calculations China uses reflect GNP as it is understood by the rest of the world. China's GNP includes the output value of industry, agriculture, building, communications, transport, the supply and marketing of materials and equipment, and the public catering trade. Production of light industrial goods and consumer goods grew by 5.7 per cent, short of the 7 per cent target last year. Purchasing power increased by 15 per cent in 1982, to the equivalent of $136 per person. The output value of industry and agriculture rose by 8.7 per cent last year to the equivalent of $214 billion. There has been increased production in heavy industrial goods, locomotives, railway cars and ships and the construction of factories and other capital projects. The Chinese have been trying to control their spending and to concentrate their limited resources on production of consumer goods and development of transportation and energy. Spending on production of heavy industrial goods rose by 9.9 per cent to $125 billion, whilst investment in capital construction in State-owned units rose by 25 per cent to $24 billion. China is on the march. It is a very important market for Australian goods. We export to China $670m worth of goods and we import only $270m worth of goods from China. We import mainly textiles, kitchenware, pottery, cotton articles and goods of that nature. We export wheat, wool, raw sugar, iron ore, tallow, steel wire and other products to China. The balance of trade is very much in Australia 's favour. This, of course, is of concern to the Chinese Government. We purchase from China mainly textiles and footwear-not a great item. The Chinese Government is concerned about the imbalance of trade. It believes that ways and means must be found to purchase more commodities from this area. Petroleum, of course, is a possibility. The Chinese have excellent quantities but their petroleum has huge wax and sulphur contents. Australian refineries are not able to refine this crude because of the presence of those substances. If we had ways and means of refining Chinese crude in Australia it would help to overcome the trade imbalance. It is interesting to note that a consortium of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and British Petroleum Australia Ltd have made arangements to explore for oil in the China Sea. If such oil could be refined in Australia our trade balance would be considerably enhanced. A different set of circumstances operate in trading with the Middle East. The balance of trade is very much in favour of Saudi Arabia. We purchase from it approximately $1,032m worth of goods. Wheat, barley, cheese, live sheep and frozen meat, make up the bulk of our exports to that country. In February 1982, as a member of a parliamentary delegation, I visited Saudi Arabia and discussed trade with the top officials there. As a result, considerable quantities of chilled and frozen lamb are being exported to that country and to other countries of the Middle East. Mr McVeigh —They were very impressed with you too. Mr O'KEEFE —They like Australians and we have a great opportunity to expand our trade in that area. We have lost a lot of our trade with the European Ecomonic Community. It is pleasing to note that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is endeavouring to meet with the EEC to see if the position can be changed. In the middle 1970s we exported yearly to Great Britain 300,000 tonnes of beef and 200,000 tonnes of lamb. Now all we are exporting to that country is 5,000 tonnes of beef and, I think 20,000 tonnes of lamb. What a great blow that downturn in agricultural trade has been to Australia. Therefore, we must do all we possibly can to increase trade to that area, although the prospect of doing so looks bleak. Nevertheless, if we do not try, we will not succeed. I would like to say a few words about the shearers' strike which, thank goodness, has ended. We pressured the Prime Minister to intervene in that strike but he said that it was best to leave it to arbitration. The shearers held the primary producers of this country to ransom. They have not been a credit to their families, to the industry or to the nation. Our primary producers have been through a devastating three years, with crop failures and no rain. To think that at a time when our primary producers could have got an income from wool production, they have been denied it! The strike also held up the shipping of our wool. Wool and coal are our greatest exports. The strike held up the arrival of our wool at the ports and consequently its being shipped overseas. That could have an adverse effect on the economy of our nation. It is good to know that the shearers are back at work. Let us hope that the unions of Australia realise the damage they are doing to this country by continuing to have strikes right across the board. Mr Hunt —Thank God the rank and file turned up to vote. Mr O'KEEFE —That is right. We are all Australians. What an opportunity we have in this country. Why does the work force not realise this. We would be a lot better off if it did. This is the greatest country in the world but how much better off would we be if we could get our work force producing instead of striking. The strikers are doing a disservice to their families, to the industry and to the Australian nation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Before calling the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Staples) I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech and I request that he be heard in silence. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley)(5.10) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you upon your election to your most important office. I know that, without any valueless pretension, both you and Mr Speaker will bring to the Speaker's Chair the dignity and propriety that is always so necessary. I say this in the hope that through your example this Parliament, being as it is the fulcrum of our democracy, will uphold, indeed enhance, our nation's dignity. I am sure that I would not be standing in this place today if it were not for the patience and support of my family and friends, the backing and campaigning of the members and supporters of the Diamond Valley Federal Electorate Assembly and the policies and members of the Australian Labor Party. I would not be standing here without the magnificent efforts of my good friend and campaign manager, Gary Greenway. I also wish to recognise the friendship and assistance of my comrades the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman) and the honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe) and the members of the Batman electorate. I wish also to thank my many friends in the Greek community and the National South West Coalition for their trust and support. By this speech I wish to acknowledge the trust and responsibility that the 130,000 people of Diamond Valley have given me . The 1981 census shows that Diamond Valley has a very strong bias toward the conventional family unit. The seat's age distribution is heavily clustered around the 25-year old to 44-year old age group. It has many people of migrant origin, of Greek and Italian descent especially. At least half of the Diamond Valley electorate would, by today's standards, be classified as a very affluent area. It has an extremely high proportion of home buyers and two car families. Mortgage repayments tend to be higher than the national average. By national comparison, the people of Diamond Valley are well educated and tend to have upper and middle white-collar jobs. The suburbs of Diamond Valley are comfortable and good places to live in and bring up a family. On the surface there seems to be little that should concern people too greatly. But on 5 March 1983 the people of Diamond Valley changed their representative and embraced the policies and programs of the Australian Labor Party. In Diamond Valley, and indeed in many other seats throughout Australia, voters chose for the first time as their representatives in the Australian Parliament candidates who were clearly and unashamedly from the left of the Australian political spectrum. The conservative political desperates, who rattled their old beaten commie can as loudly as they could, can throw it away now because the people of Australia know that the year is 1983, not 1953. The red menace is now no more than a jaded electioneering paper tiger. Politically our nation is beginning rapidly to mature. On 28 May the voters of Bruce will accelerate that maturation by electing Heather O'Connor to this Parliament, and this place will be all the better for her presence. As I have said, our nation is beginning to mature politically but it is also beginning to mature socially. The feeling of togetherness that filled our communities in the early 1970s, and which was submerged by the divisiveness, isolation and resultant introspection of the Fraser years, is beginning to re- emerge. It is abolutely vital that this process of healing and national growth be nurtured because this country is plagued by an insidious epidemic and Australians, young and old, are dying from its consequences. It is not Legionnaires disease, genital herpes or tuberculosis. Perhaps if it had been a clear medical condition we would have been more concerned about curing it. Drug companies would be doing research in the hope of making more money and we would be doing all in our power to stop it spreading. Some people are well immune from this disease, often as a result of their birth, while others have little chance of avoiding it. To them it is almost hereditary. In the last few years its incidence has risen dramatically and more and more people of all ages, who thought they were immune and did not have to worry, are now feeling the symptoms. Many people still believe that if they are afflicted by the disease it is their own fault and they should cure themselves. Many others in this nation have been trying for years to help afflicted ones and their families, but with little support from Government. Cures are available for this disease. It just depends how much we, as a nation, want to rid ourselves of this curse. It has been spoken about in this place on many occasions. Hansard is filled with talk, excuses and figures, but words will never cure unemployment. Mr Deputy Speaker, I waive my privilege to be heard in silence and I urge all honourable members in this House and all listeners to hear me because I am not going to be fettered by a well-meaning and gentleman's parliamentary tradition in what must now be stated. In the past eight years, the previous Government of this country used unemployment as an economic weapon, to control working people and their only real means of collective and individual protection-trade unionism . No consideration was ever given to the social cost of unemployment. Unemployment was used by the previous Government as merely an economic indicator , a measure of lost productivity, lost production, lost profits and lost business. Why are we afraid to investigate and examine the social cost of unemployment when we so readily tally up the economic cost? The reality is that the true cost of unemployment has been drastically understated, and, like Dorian Gray, we fear to look at the truth behind the mask we have put up. The truth is that there are more than 750,000 people-750,000 human beings-in this wealthy country of ours, who today barely live on the subsistence level guilt expiator that we call unemployment benefit. One human being, one Australian, in every twenty lives on unemployment benefit. In reality, of course , that figure can easily be doubled to include the hidden unemployed-those who retire early with years of gainful employment before them, those who live on their savings and more so their pride because of the stigma of being a recipient of the dole, those like many in my relatively affluent electorate who support their children from their own pockets because they do not want people to know that their kids have not got a job. More than two million of our fellow Australians live in poverty. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you think that I am angry about this situation, you are dead right. I state again: The former Liberal Government used unemployment as an economic weapon, without any real care, compasson or sense of obligation. The former Liberal Government did nothing about unemployment benefit for the under 18-year- olds for years. Now today, in the Age, we read that girls aged 16, 15 and 14 are having to enter into de facto relationships to get a few more dollars to live on . It is the height of arrogant duplicity for Opposition members to sit on the other side of this House now, and in the future, and to talk about the state of the economy and the plight of the unemployed, when they themselves had seven years to do something concrete about retraining, industry development, unemployment and poverty. Millions of words have been spoken and written about our economic deficit, but it is difficult to find many in Hansard or in journals or in literature that can enlighten this Parliament and this nation about our social deficit, our human deficit. Our economic deficit can be easily calculated. As a society we have many ways and spend much of our time counting money and goods. We spend very little of our time counting the social cost of unemployment, which is just one aspect of our horrific social deficit of poverty. What I say now may be challenged and argued, but the cold fact is that more than 1,500 Australians commit suicide each year. As a general guide, for every person who self-destructs, 17 others are hospitalised. In the past 15 years there has been a marked increase in the self-destruction of those aged between 16 and 25. Self-destruction by suicide is now the second most common cause of death among young Australians, second only to road accidents. Road accidents can often be avoided. Suicide can nearly always be avoided. A South Australian study in 1979 showed that the self-destruction or suicide rate-whicever one prefers- for unemployed men was five times greater than that for employed men. For unemployed women it was seven and a half times greater than that for employed women. These figures are well substantiated by overseas studies. For example, during the last two months of 1974 when there were massive lay-offs in the automobile industry in Detroit, the suicide rate doubled. I could go on to cite studies conclusively linking unemployment to death and sickness from heart disease, domestic violence, and violent and non-violent crime. How many Australians, young and old, now occupy hospital beds because of illness associated with poverty and unemployment? Because of poverty and unemployment, how many people are admitted to mental hospitals? How many are spending their lives in an alcoholic or drugged haze? How many people are wasting their lives in prison because of crimes committed from desperation or anger arising from unemployment? How many women and children are beaten because of the frustration and self-hate of a husband who has lost his job? How many families are disintegrating? What effect is the fear and threat of unemployment having on the classroom behaviour of our young people? How many older people really talk and communicate with the youth of Australia? So many are angry, desperate and afraid. How many young men and young women, and how many children, find that prostitution is the only job that they can get? How many people, young and old, will be without shelter this winter? A report from the Youth Services Scheme issued by the Commonwealth and State departments only a few days ago states that demand for emergency youth accommodation exceeded supply by about 60 per cent. In arriving at the economic cost of unemployment, has anyone included the costings for the hospital beds, medical treatment, cost of prison, foster care for children, or the loss of productivity and the production of a person who suicides? Apart from the human suffering, what is the cost to the dignity of human life, to hope and to the just share that every person has in the common wealth of Australia? How large is our social deficit, our total deficit, and what are we, as a nation and a parliament, both government and opposition, going to do about it? The solutions to unemployment have always been there. They were continually proposed by the former Opposition and they were continually ignored by the former Government. Our educational base is weak by any comparison with equivalent nations. Our young people leave school too early, without expectation or opportunity to develop their skills. We are merely technological serfs in our own country. We have ignored our technology until it has been sold back to us. It is only then that we embrace it. We have many capable people who need encouragement, in many industries, in many technologies, both traditional and radical. Despite record unemployment, the former Liberal Government almost totally neglected any effective work force planning. Only one in 200 unemployed people received training assistance. Last year, in real terms, 38 per cent less was spent on work force programs than was spent seven years before, despite the fact that unemployment had doubled. While 50 per cent of the unemployed are aged 24 or over, only 9 per cent of total training expenditure was directed to adults. For our youth, with 200,000 15 to 19-year-olds out of work, by December 1982 only 2,858 training applications were approved by the former Government. But the greatest travesty of responsibility of all was the continual refusal to put into practice effective job creation programs. I am very proud to be part of a Labor Government that is now committed to equal and greater opportunity of education for all Australian children; committed to the active encouragement and development of new technologies and the upgrading of our traditional manufacturing industries; committed to the development of effective training programs for unemployed people and the instigation of so much needed job creation programs. We are a party, a government, committed to the restoration of dignity to the lives of so many people. But that is only the beginning. We as a society must address ourselves to the realities of life today. Hundreds of thousands of people are out of work. Many have never had a job. Many will never have one again. For hundreds of years, whether it be in factories, in offices, on the farm or in the home, work has given us our self-esteem and our dignity. A person without work very quickly loses self-esteem. With unemployment, increased leisure time, advancing automation and loss of job satisfaction, we as a society must now start to redefine work. We have to accept that people will not be able to be employed one way or another as they used to be in the past. There should be no distinction in society between those who work, as we define it today, for their money, and those who are unemployed, as we define it today, for their money. In an age of increasingly automated production, as a society we must now begin to learn to accept that a human being who does not produce goods and services or, more correctly, does not have the opportunity to produce goods and services, is no less a person than one who is part of the production system. Until we tax the machines which now produce the goods, until we remove from the unemployed the stigma of not being a producer of commodities, until we give those who do not have the opportunity to produce goods and services a dignified amount of money and services to live on, until those of us who do have jobs accept reality and forgo our own arrogance, greed and fear of other people, the social cost of unemployment will grow without check. We have choices before us. They are choices to which we must address ourselves as a government, as an opposition, as members sitting here, and as an Australian community. Many of us are now beginning to realise that our nation's real wealth lies in the skills and minds of our people, not in the rocks and minerals of our land. We must greatly expand our education system so that all Australians have an equal opportunity to learn and to contribute their particular skills. We must stimulate our rational development by teaching new skills and by developing new industries. I believe that it is meaningless to put some arbitrary figure on the economic deficit. Why do we do it? Do we do it to make the accountants and economists happy or to make things look neat and efficient, so that all of our sums add up to zero? It is not how big the deficit is that counts, but what we spend the money on. That is what is important. If we do not use our economic deficit to reduce our social deficit, and in the long run it is the social deficit which will really count, then we condemn ourselves and our children to growing economic and social upheaval. The crass ideological and inhuman use of unemployment as an economic weapon may, in the short and medium terms, be an expedient economic measure, but the long term consequences will be far more costly than Budget Papers will ever reveal. If our bicentenary means anything more than some new roads, a bright new Parliament House and a lot of fireworks, flag waving and self-congratulation, then our economic system must now adapt to the needs of our society and not the reverse. If this is not the case, then we as a nation have wasted 200 years in an abundant land. For years now we have wasted the skills and potential of our people. That must cease. Our real challenge is not to dig everything we can out of the ground; not to allow Australia to be just the lucky quarry. The skills of our people are an unlimited and constantly renewable resource. We have to realise now, before it is too late, that we must have our national investment placed in our people because the investment of our wealth in our people will always give this nation its best return. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(5.27) —We have just heard the maiden speech of the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Staples). A maiden speech is a very important speech. It is one in which the honourable member and his family take a great deal of pride and in that spirit I extend to the honourable member congratulations on the fact that he has spoken in this place. I will not even dare offer the comment that Fred Daly offered to me about not wishing me many returns. I think it is timely to note that there is a practice in relation to maiden speeches. It is referred to in our new bible, the House of Representatives Practice by Pettifer. I would like to draw it to the attention of honourable members. Honourable members no doubt are familiar with the term 'maiden speech' which is described as the first speech of a newly elected member of the House. Pettifer states: There is a convention in the House that a maiden speech is heard without interjection or interruption, and the Chair will normally draw the attention of the House to the fact that a Member is making his maiden speech. The book observes, after that: In return for this courtesy the Member should not be unduly provocative. Mr Steedman —He was not. He was quite reasonable. Mr RUDDOCK —It notes further, and this presents me with somewhat of a dilemma: It is also customary not to make other than kindly references to the maiden speech of a Member. I do not know why my colleagues are interjecting because I have said nothing in deprecation of the speech that the honourable member has made. I could all too easily agree with him and other honourable members who have spoken about the effect of unemployment in the community and the effect it has on individuals. A great deal of what was said in the speech today about unemployment, and has been said in the Parliament over the last few weeks, would probably be a repeat of speeches I made throughout 1974 and 1975 and on many occasions afterwards. The pain of unemployment is something that is of a great deal of concern to any human being who cares about his fellow human beings. But, in a sense, and without in any way casting aspersions on the honourable member, when from time to time comments have been made that honourable members of this side of the House would seek to use unemployment as an economic weapon- Mr Robert Brown —Your record confirmed it. Mr RUDDOCK —I find that assertion not unkind. The expression I would use would be much more in condemnation of those who use such words and I very much object to them because I and my colleagues would in no way want unemployment to be used as a weapon in an endeavour to remedy the difficulties through which we have been going. Government members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! I ask honourable members to remain silent. Mr Kent —You fought inflation with unployment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hotham will remain silent. Mr RUDDOCK —On many occasions, the wheel does a full turn, and all too often we come back to examine the record of those who have gone before. I believe that I will have an opportunity to examine this present Government's record on unemployment and I suspect that as time goes on I will be casting through the many speeches of this week, drawing upon quotations, and pointing out the failure of the Government to be able to remedy the unemployment that I think its policies will leave us with. Mr Steedman —Just give it a chance. Mr RUDDOCK —I am perfectly prepared to give it a chance. I am not here in any sense condemning the will of the people or complaining about that. But I am prepared to examine critically the policies of the Government, as honourable members would expect me to. I hope that they also will examine very carefully the way in which the Government is approaching these matters, bearing in mind the National Economic Summit Conference and the great deal of information that has been made publicly available. I hope they will look at the scenarios which have been painted realistically and ask themselves whether the proposals that they have in mind are likely to remedy that all-important problem of unemployment which has been referred to and which was referred to so eloquently by the honourable member who spoke before me. During the last election I made the point over and over again that we live in a competitive world. Nobody else in the world believes that they owe us in the lucky country a living. All too often we think in a rather patronising way, I suspect, of what we can do for other countries and what support we can offer, without looking critically at our own national performance. That is what I think we ought to be doing. We look too often at the resources that we have and we assume that with our well educated community, our industriousness and our capacity we will be able to make a good fist of it. But I think, if we look at the performance of other countries in the region-countries such as Singapore and Japan which have no resources equivalent to ours but have only their industriousness to ensure that they are able to excel-that honourable members opposite would agree with me that for one reason or another our national performance is found wanting. I do not know whether it is because we take matters all too easily, because we consider that we have all these opportunities, all these resources and collectively sit on our butts, but in a sense I think that we have smugly brought ourselves to the view that we can satisfactorily continue to live beyond our means. Mr Kent —Have you ever been on a production line? You are a lawyer. When have you ever had to work hard? How about the workers? Mr RUDDOCK —The fact of the matter is that before the last election we went through a period in which the work force of Australia was paid a great deal more , directly, and in terms of conditions of service-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Dundas will please resume his seat. The honourable member for Hotham interjects. I remind him that the honourable member for Dundas, in common with every member of this House, has the right to be heard in silence. The Chair has the obligation to see that that requirement is observed. Mr Kent —Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise, I just cannot stand a lawyer telling the workers to work harder. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member's apology is noted. I call the honourable member for Dundas. Mr RUDDOCK —Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for your intervention. The point I was making was that there were very considerable wage increases over and above the increases in productivity and over and above increases in the cost of living. Mr Milton —That was just a catch-up. Mr RUDDOCK —It may have been regarded as a catch-up but it occurred over two years. I think the experience that we then saw of very significant unemployment where there was a shedding of labour revealed the result of those increases. The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) said it was just a catch-up; a catch- up for some meant the jobs of others. We went through a very difficult period because of the drought. We also saw the onslaught of the world recession. Honourable members on this side stated that over and over again but obviously that message did not influence the 5 per cent of the electorate that was necessary to vote against us on this occasion to effect a change of government. Mr Keogh —There will be more next time. Mr RUDDOCK —I suspect there will be more people changing their minds next time. I suspect they will do it very much the other way. I think it is important that honourable members appreciate the importance of wages and wage costs in relation to unemployment in this country. The Summit was designed to draw attention to our economic problems and to bring about a situation where people could sit down quietly and realistically and, we were told, in a non-contentious and non- confrontationist environment and talk about the problems we face. It really brought out, I think, more clearly to me the nature of the effect of wage increases on our economy and upon the jobs of so many people in this community. I mentioned the very significant loss of profits the very significant increases of wages as a percentage of gross national product. Of course, I should mention the wage pause which was initiated by the Fraser Government. The wage pause was beginning to work. The new Hawke Government will benefit greatly, I think, as a result of it. It was slow to have an effect on inflation. That must be acknowledged. But recent figures suggest that it has had some impact. It is important to note that notwithstanding the wage pause which has had a significant effect upon those for whom legislation has ensured that it operates-those in the Public Service and similar areas-it has ensured that for some people there has been a net reduction in their standard of living. But the wage pause obviously has not had that effect overall because some people in the community obviously have been able to bargain outside the system or bargain outside the effects of those arrangements. We have seen an increase of something of the order of 1.5 per cent or thereabouts in average weekly earnings at a time when one would not have expected an increase. Notwithstanding that I anticipate that we will see, as a result of the wage pause put into place by the previous Government, some benefit if it is allowed to operate as it was originally intended. The Government, of course, before the Summit, put before us a number of scenarios in relation to wages which it believed ought to be brought to people's attention. The Government put arguments to us about each of those proposals, the extent to which they would affect the consumer price index and, ultimately, the effect they would have upon productivity and upon employment. I think it is important to state for the record what those scenarios were. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) outlined to the Economic Summit that scenario A assumed no catch up for the consumer price index increases prior to the current wages pause. There would be a 3 per cent wage increase during the latter half of 1983 followed by a return to full quarterly wage indexation early in 1985 with a return to annual productivity cases. Scenario B assumed an end to the wages pause in June with an immediate full catch-up to compensate for all consumer price increases then outstanding. There would be an immediate return to full indexation with quarterly adjustments with the first such adjustment occurring in August- September 1983 and a return to productivity cases in 1984. Scenario C assumed the continuation of the current wages pause, the one put in place by the Fraser Government, until April 1984 followed by a return to half-yearly partial indexation with compensation for consumer price increases in the September and December quarters of 1983. Each of these scenarios was likely to have quite different effects, but the projections presented by the Government with those scenarios show that scenario C-the last one that I mentioned-with the maximum of wage restraint offered the most rapid course for recovery. Of course, scenario C provides the best outcome in increasing employment, decreasing unemployment and reducing inflation. It provides for the Government's stated aim of 550,000 jobs by June 1986. I think with that scenario so clearly pointing to the Government's objective of reducing unemployment by some 500,000 that it would be advocated so strongly by every honourable member of the Opposition, that every maiden speech would endeavour to persuade the community at large of the need for that scenario to be followed. My constituent, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, should stop sounding the retreat and accept that scenario C is in the nation's best interest. Scenario A appears to be the one that the Government, in its fall-back position , is arguing. But there is no certainty that scenario A, which envisages a 3 per cent wage increase this year followed by a return to full quarterly indexation next year, will be achieved because the trade union movement, the natural ally, it is sometimes said, of the Government, is arguing that scenario B be followed. This assumes an end to the wages pause in June with an immediate effort to full catch-up to compensate for all consumer price index increases then outstanding. This is of very considerable concern to me because I believe that wages policy, along with some of the other matters that were mentioned such as restraint on the part of employers, directors of companies and restraint in relation to private incomes-those matters were canvassed very fully at the national Summit- is absolutely essential if we are to grapple with this very important problem. I acknowledge that unemployment is a problem. It is a problem to everybody who is unemployed. I acknowledge it in the terms that have been mentioned so emotively by so many of the honourable members who have spoken before. But we have to look at what policies ought to be pursued by this nation if we are to come to grips with that problem. The wage policy of the present Government will be a key to our national economic recovery. The Government will not be able to run away from it. It does not matter when an election is held, whether it is held in 18 months, three years or four years. Ultimately, if responsible economic policies are not pursued, unemployment will remain with us and will be the very basis upon which the Hawke Government will be judged. Mark my words, I will not let any of the honourable members opposite forget the words of their maiden speeches when they talked about the record of the previous Government in endeavouring to cope with these problems. I will certainly be directing the attention of the community to those words and those comments because it will be the very measure of the Government's record, of its performance on that question, as to how it will be judged. There are many other issues that, if time permitted, I would like to discuss. The question of the deficit is important because the present Government is using it as an excuse for its prospective failure to deliver its promises. The Government has endeavoured-and will later tonight, I understand, in a statement- to sound its retreat on so many of the statements that were made to the Australian people in an election only a matter of months ago. Mr Hurford —How do you know? Mr RUDDOCK —I will be listening very carefully. Mr Hurford —Well, you don't know. You are just misleading the House. Mr RUDDOCK —I suspect that it will very much sound the retreat. The Minister for Housing and Construction may care to look at his interjection tomorrow because he may well find- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! I remind the honourable member that he should not directly address other honourable members but should address the House through the Chair. Mr RUDDOCK —In the few minutes remaining I wish to say that it is not just the statement tonight that will be relevant in making that judgment about the sounding of the retreat. We already know that on the question of devaluation Mr Hawke promised, as reported in the Australian Financial Review of 10 February 1983, that he would not devalue. Yet three days after the Government was elected he and his Treasurer (Mr Keating) devlaued the Australian dollar by 10 per cent, resulting in significantly higher prices in some areas of expenditure for all Australian families. We know that in the area of tax cuts the Prime Minister made certain statements at the time of the election. In the Labor Party policy speech, he said that immediate reductions in income tax for almost six million Australians or taxpayers would be put in place. It may well be that I will have to wait until tonight to see what will happen but I suspect that that promise has already been devalued and the Government's record can be judged on that too. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I call the honourable member for Fadden. I alert the House to the fact that it is the honourable member's maiden speech and require the House to extend the ordinary courtesies. Mr BEDDALL(Fadden)(5.4) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I offer my congratulations on your election to your high office and ask you to pass my good wishes to the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) on his election as Speaker. I would also like to extend to all of my colleagues my appreciation of their entering the House to listen to my maiden speech. It must be quite a feat of endurance with so many maiden speeches from this side of the House. However, the standard of speeches delivered by my colleagues has been exceptional and I am honoured to be part of our Government. The election of 5 March was a watershed in Australian politics and for many of us a vindication of our stand in 1975. The previous Government was dismissed by the Australian people because once and for all the myth of competent economic management by the conservative parties of this country has been destroyed. After seven years of Fraserism, every facet of the economic fabric of our society was in tatters. The past seven years of Australian politics have been marred by division. The campaign of my party at the last election was fought on a central theme of reconciliation. This contrasts greatly with that of our opponents. The proposition that we put forward to the Australian people was that we should all work together for the good of our country, for unless an attitude of reconciliation can be fostered in the Australian community at large no policies of any government can assist us on the road to recovery. The previous Government divided this country. It divided employer against employee and it divided management against unions. It had in its mind only continued electoral success and that was the only criterion for any decision it made. We on this side of the House totally reject that concept. It was proved by the National Economic Summit Conference that all Australians can obtain consensus. I do not suggest that we are a society that has no differences but I do suggest that we are a society that can strive to achieve a common goal. The Australian Council of Trade Unions proved at the Economic Summit that it understands the need for wage restraint and with few exceptions this concept has been accepted by the union movement at large. It was also heartening to hear employer groups at the Summit accept the principle that we must fight both unemployment and inflation at the same time. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to turn my attention briefly to my electorate of Fadden. The campaign to win the seat of Fadden involved dedication and hard work from a large number of party members and supporters. My campaign began in 1978 and during the last five years that I have been the candidate the party organisation built up from just over 200 members to a position on election day where we had 500 people in the field. In particular I would like to pay tribute to my campaign directors Peter Hamburger and Eric McGregor who, along with my campaign secretary, Hazel Hubbard , formed the nucleus of the team. I would also like to pay a special tribute to my wife, Patricia, and two young sons Aaron and Shannon, who have given me tremendous support over the past five years. The Federal division of Fadden is a microcosm of Australia with people of all pursuits represented. I have the unenviable distinction of representing the largest Federal division in Australia ; not in area-that honour goes to my colleague, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell)-but in voters. The information provided by the Australian Electoral Office gives enrolment figures of 103,671 for the seat at the end of April 1983. A large proportion of my electors reside in Australia's newest city-Logan City. Logan City local government area was created initially in 1978 as a shire council and was incorporated as a city in 1981. Logan City has suffered greatly at the hands of the Bjelke-Petersen Government in Queensland. It was an Act by the National Party Minister for Local Government, Russ Hinze, which created the shire. It has been the National-Liberal Party Government in Queensland which has neglected it ever since. There are few people in Queensland, let alone the nation at large, who realise that Logan is now the third largest city in Queensland. This tremendous growth since 1978 has placed great strains on this local authority and it is struggling to supply basic services to its ratepayers. The Queensland Government which created this authority has now turned its back upon it. A dedicated staff of aldermen and council officers have tried to make the best out of funds available , but are struggling after suffering enormous cutbacks in sewerage subsidies by the Queensland Government. It is significant that this Government is the first Government in this country' s 82-year history to have a Minister for Territories and Local Government, my honourable colleague the member for Reid, Mr Tom Uren. Logan city and the electorate of Fadden at large are suffering greatly from the effects of the economic recession. My electorate has the largest unemployment levels in south- east Queensland, and tragically this is even more so amongst our young people. As has been said by many other speakers in this debate, the primary reason for our election was that we offered to the Australian people hope and not despair. We as a government will be judged on our record in job creation more than any other issue. This is why I would urge all members of the Ministry to work closely with local government in any job creation programs. Apart from the Logan city area, other local authority areas which are wholly or partly contained within the Federal division of Fadden are the Beaudesert Shire Council, Boonah Shire Council, Albert Shire Council and parts of Brisbane City Council. All of these local authorities have been starved of funds for many years and are only too willing to work in close liason with this Government for the benefit of all the people in Fadden. The great tragedy for Australia is that for the past seven years the honourable members opposite, whilst the Government of this country, abandoned the principle of long term government planning for short term political gain. Never in Australia's history has there been a Prime Minister so short-sighted as the previous member for Wannon. I think that it is indicative of the man that he took the easy way out and did not return to this place to be accountable for the legacy that he has left this Government. All the principles of monetarism that he espoused were thrown out the window in the last few desperate months of the previous Government to try to buy another term of office. The old saying 'it must be an election year. I feel a dam coming on' was only too true in relation to our predecessors. Let me assure the people of Australia that this Government will not make decisions based solely on political considerations. We have already set in motion proposals for a referendum to have fixed three-year sessions of Parliament so that no longer can a Prime Minister-any Prime Minister-manipulate an election date to his own advantage. Once the Australian people carry this referendum they will know that on the third Saturday in November every three years the Government will be accountable for its actions. The fixed term concept for elections is one that I wholeheartedly support and one that I am sure the majority of Australians in a majority of States will also support. We must always be conscious that the Australian Labor Party is a party of reform and vision. We have not been elected by the Australian people to maintain the position of privilege that so many powerful groups in our society have held for so long. It was the average Australian who elected this Government -men and women who struggle from day to day to support their families. It is the average Australian who has made this country great. The captains of industry would have no powerful corporations without the thousands of people whose toil produces the great wealth of this country. There is also another sector of our society which was abandoned by the previous Government, that is, the small business sector. I had the privilege, before being elected as member for Fadden, of working with the diligent and enterprising people who make up the small business sector. The previous Government mouthed platitudes about the support for small business. That is all they were-platitudes. Honourable members opposite presided over the greatest number of bankruptcies of small business people that this country has ever seen. This was reflected in the last election campaign when small business rallied to support me. Both through financial contributions and physical help, they contributed greatly to my success. A vibrant small business sector is absolutely essential to any economic recovery in our nation, for it provides the jobs. Small business is the largest employer in this country. Many members would be unaware that businesses employing fewer than 100 people employ 61 per cent of the total Australian non-government work force. The small business sector needs this Government's help if it is to flourish. My colleague the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has a great vision of establishing new Australian industries. I am sure he carries the full support of all members of this Government. The problems of small business involve more than deciding just what type of business to establish. There are two fundamental problems that most new businesses encounter. They are: Firstly, undercapitalisation and, secondly, lack of managerial skills. I would implore the Government to expand vastly the role of the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia so that those Australians who wish to commence their own business or expand their existing business do not suffer from the small-mindedness of some of our banking institutions. Too often, the only criterion that financial institutions use is security in terms of bricks and mortar. They do not have the vision at times to grasp a concept that may have tremendous economic benefit for our nation at large. The Commonwealth Development Bank, with an expanded charter and a degree of Government funding, would be able to assist Australians to use their skills in what have been termed the sunrise industries, to create new industries which will in turn stem the tide of economic recession. Australia has sadly fallen behind the rest of the world in relation to the new technologies. It is tragic that many of our own people who have the skills to develop this technology have to go overseas to realise their potential. Many jobs have been lost to Australia forever because of financial restraints placed on Australian enterprises. Through lack of availability of long term credit, many businesses have floundered and Australia's opportunity of sustaining economic growth has faltered. It is not just the financial constraints that bring Australian small business undone. Lack of management skills has often been the downfall of what should have been a prosperous business. Simply being a good tradesman is not enough to be a successful businessman. Such things as debtor controls and basic book- keeping skills are essential if a business is to survive. I do not suggest that this Government should become involved in the day to day affairs of small business enterprises but I do feel that it should expand its role in assisting small business to come to grips with the economic realities that guide the market sector of our economy. In particular, the success of small business has a marked effect on my seat of Fadden. With the exceptions of the General Motors-Holden's Ltd plant at Acacia Ridge and the meatworks at Beaudesert and Beenleigh, there are few large employers within the electorate boundaries. During the past seven years of Liberal Government, many viable small to medium sized businesses have failed, further eroding the economic base. If employment levels in Fadden are to be raised, small business must be revitalised. I look forward very much to the programs that we hope will be implemented by this Government to stimulate the building industry, as this will be one of the few areas in my electorate that will create jobs immediately. One area of great potential for small business people is the tourism industry. Labor governments have recognised the need for Federal Government assistance. There have been only two Federal Ministers for Tourism in Australia's history. The first was in the Whitlam Government, the second was created by the current Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) upon our election to office. This nation is, without doubt, the world's best tourist destination but unfortunately it is also the world's best kept secret. My colleague the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has tried valiantly over the last two months to stimulate a rational debate on tourism. Unfortunately, many sections of the media and certainly all sections of the Opposition have sought to trivialise this debate. Australia now receives only one per cent of the world's tourist trade; whereas if we could increase this to a modest 2 per cent we would be able to create an additional 100,000 jobs immediately and earn hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars in additional revenue. I fully support the Government's Buy Australian program. I would also support a tourist industry program of 'See Australia First'. Approximately one million foreign visitors come to Australia each year but again, unfortunately, 1.3 million Australians leave this country each year either on holidays or business trips. While it is important for Australians to have contact with overseas cultures, it is also important to show off our magnificent country to the nations of the world. The Labor City Council of Brisbane, in October last year, staged the magnificent Commonwealth Games. As well as attracting a large number of foreign visitors who came for the games, this was a magnificent promotion which introduced Brisbane to millions of television viewers throughout the Commonwealth. The Government has already forecast that it wishes to introduce a one-price air ticket to be used by tourists whilst travelling throughout Australia. It is to be hoped that this meets with a warm reception from Australia's airlines so that we avoid the crazy situation where the majority of our flights are, at best, half full. I speak with some experience in the tourist industry, as I come from Queensland, which is undoubtedly the tourist destination of many Australians. However, this is not a matter for individual State considerations. This country offers the full range of tourist destinations from the magnificence of the Great Barrier Reef, to the hustle and bustle of cosmopolitan Sydney, out to the solitude of Ayers Rock. No matter what type of holiday tourists wish to have, they can come to Australia. Who can deny the charm of Tasmania or the awesome beauty of Australia's snowfields? We need to develop a new attitude in Australia in relation to the way in which we treat foreign tourists, for a tourist who comes from the United States expects and even demands a standard of services that we are not used to producing. To give foreign tourists the 24-hour service that they are accustomed to in overseas destinations, we must strike an accord between government, unions and the tourist industry. This Government is not about imposing slave labour conditions on those who work in the hospitality industry, but if the industry itself is prepared to talk, compromise and agree to permanency of employment, we may be able to reach an accord on rostered shifts for this industry alone. It is not, as some see it, an outright attack on penalty rates, because we must understand that the penalty rates imposed on the industry are only to offset a very low base rate. In my own electorate of Fadden, the Moran family has made an enormous capital investment in restoring and upgrading the Beenleigh Rum Distillery. This is a truly magnificient complex which has vast tourist potential. Many other projects could be undertaken in line with the Government's job creation program in providing bush walks and tourist facilities at some of our magnificient national parks. A case in point, again in my electorate, would be the upgrading of bush walks in the Lamington National Park. However, there is one large section of our society to whom the talk of tourism is just an abstract. Two million Australians living below the poverty line have no concept of what an annual holiday is. It should be a responsibility of this Government to provide low cost accommodation at tourist destinations. The construction of hostels similar to the youth hostels that are scattered throughout Australia would give these low income families the opportunity to break away for a short period each year. Again the construction of such hostels would be of great benefit to the construction industry. It would also provide a stimulus to the economy of those areas where such hostels were to be developed. Although Australia is only a medium sized nation in the scheme of world events, it has an important role to play as an independent nation. Without abdicating its responsibilities under treaties, Australia can use its position as a free nation to influence the super-powers. As has been said often, we are one of only 30 remaining democracies in the world and with this we carry a tremendous responsibility. Whilst we do not have the military capability, and hopefully never will, to enforce our viewpoint on other nations, we have the capacity to influence other nations. It must always be remembered that it was an Australian who was considered the father of the United Nations, the former member for Barton, Dr H. V. Evatt. This tradition has endured through the years despite unfortunate lapses by Liberal governments, such as our involvement in the Vietnam War. Even the previous Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) played a world acclaimed role in the settlement of the Rhodesian conflict which led to the creation of the new state of Zimbabwe. Many nations from both the Eastern and Western blocs value Australia's opinion and we should use this goodwill to work towards global peace. For without peace, this small planet is destined for destruction. However, as a national Government we should never let the world stage divert us from our responsibilities to the underprivileged of our own society. While we talk of global peace and global conflict, many of our own people do not even have a roof over their heads. Many parts of my electorate act as dormitory suburbs for Brisbane and as the Brisbane population spreads there is an ever increasing demand for both public and private sector housing. In particular, public sector housing in Queensland is in a state of almost total collapse. The Bjelke-Petersen Government has completely abdicated its responsibilities in the public housing sector and there are some 9,500 families now on the Queensland Housing Commission waiting list. Statistics do not tell the real story, however. I am sure many of my colleagues can recount harrowing stories. I recall that a 17-year old boy had to live in a park in my electorate after being turned out of the family home because he was not able to find employment. As I said, all my colleagues can recount similar stories and it is my firm conviction that these injustices must be rectified. It is only through this Government that there is any hope for our people for we must maintain our commitment to the creation of a just and equitable society. All countries should be judged by one criterion alone, and that is their attitude to the people in their society who do not have access to its wealth. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(6.8) —I welcome this opportunity to participate in the Address-in-Reply debate. At the outset I congratulate all the new members of the House, firstly, for their election and, secondly, for the excellent maiden speeches which have been delivered. We have just heard one example from the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Beddall). Of course, if he is as good as Don Cameron, the previous member for Fadden, he will be a very effective member indeed. One thing that worries me is that so many of the new Labor members look like young Liberals. Perhaps there has been some major shift in politics in this country. It is great to hear the idealism that has been displayed in the maiden speeches of these young members. That is an excellent thing. It would be great also if these members could retain this idealism beyond their first speeches. If they are concerned deeply about the issues on which they have spoken one would hope that they are prepared to criticise, if necessary, to stimulate discussion and debate and, perhaps, to bring issues into this House when their own Government is not performing as it might be. For example, if the Government is not effectively overcoming the great problem that we face at the moment-that is unemployment-I would hope that these members would be prepared to come in here and publicly express their concern about the lack of performance by their own Government. I want to talk briefly tonight about the problem of unemployment. I believe that it is our number one national problem. It is true to say that the previous Government was not able to overcome that problem effectively. Of course, that goes without saying if one looks at the figures. When we came to office the unemployment rate in this country was about 5 per cent. Regrettably, when we left office it was in the order of 10 per cent. I do not mind admitting that- that is a fact of life and we should be frank about these things. However, that is not to say that the then Prime Minister, the responsible Ministers and the members who sat behind them were not concerned about unemployment. They were deeply concerned and they did what they could to overcome that problem. But, of course, there were forces at work which were, to some degree, beyond their control. Anyone who is honest would admit that it is not easy to overcome unemployment in this country or, indeed, in any other country. All the industrialised countries have suffered a similar fate. West Germany at present has a high rate of unemployment-a rate higher than that in Australia. Again, the rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom is higher than that in Australia. Even Canada, which is regarded as having quite a strong economy, has had a higher rate of unemployment in recent times than Australia has. It is worth relating the figures because to some degree they indicate the tragedy that is unemployment. In April 1983, 707,300 people were unemployed in this country. That figure was 271,100 or 62.2 per cent greater than that in April 1982. This compares with an increase of 271,900 or 59.1 per cent over the year to March 1983. The present rate, as I mentioned, is a bit over 10 per cent- 10.2 per cent. This compares with 6.4 per cent in April 1982-that is a year ago- 5.6 per cent in April 1981 and 6.1 per cent in April 1980. So we have seen quite a rapid increase in the rate of unemployment in this country in the past 18 months to two years. There has been a very significant increase indeed. One can look at the reason why the Opposition is now in opposition and the Government is now in government. I think that the answer very much revolves around the issue of unemployment which has affected so many families, not just those directly involved and young people in particular. This problem has pervaded the community at large. I think that many people were very frustrated. They were not satisfied with what was being done and they decided that perhaps they should give the then Opposition a chance to see what it could do. Now the Labor Government has the opportunity to see what it can really do about this very serious problem of unemployment. Emphasis on the problem of unemployment is given in the fourth paragraph of the policy speech of the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) which he delivered at the Sydney Opera House on 16 February 1983. He said: There are tremendous issues involved in this historic election of 5 March-first and foremost, the right of all Australians to a job; and whether the disastrous economic policies, the political opportunism and the divisive leadership which together have produced Australia's present catastrophic unemployment are to be changed. 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. I do not mind repeating those words. They were perhaps historic words. I think it will be worth while in two or three years time to look back to see whether the then Leader of the Opposition-the present Prime Minister-was really able to produce the goods to overcome this problem and significantly reduce unemployment . There is no doubt that the Government was elected with a sense of optimism- certainly on the part of those on the Government side-and confidence that it would overcome this problem. But we have seen something of a change in tune since the election. Before the election the inference was that Mr Hawke as Prime Minister would be able to overcome the problem of unemployment, that suddenly we would see a significant reduction in unemployment. He talked about half a million jobs being created. He did not say they would be created immediately but that within a reasonable time he would create all of these jobs. He attacked the previous Government for its policies which he said were not doing enough. He said that his Government would do very much more. But, as I said, there has been a change of tune since the election. I think that the Government is now to some extent backing away from this issue. Mr Hodgman —Running. Mr GROOM —It is running away from this issue and that is a very tragic thing. It is going very quietly and softly on the issue of unemployment. There is not the same strength in the remarks that the Prime Minister is presently making. If we look at the statements that were made at the historic National Economic Summit Conference that was held not so very long ago in this very chamber we see in the various scenarios painted by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) an acknowledgment that unemployment will remain at a very high level. One of the scenarios indicated that unemployment would increase significantly by 1984-85. The other two scenarios indicated that unemployment would remain at about the same level as it is now. So I ask honourable members to consider the fact that the Prime Minister , when Leader of the Opposition, said he would do all sorts of things to get unemployment down and get young people into work and, within a matter of weeks, he has acknowledged with the Treasurer and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) the fact that unemployment will remain at around about 10 per cent for a number of years. I believe that a weakening in the stand taken by the Government is a most unfortunate occurrence for the country. If the Government is to overcome the problem of unemployment it has to attack it pretty swiftly and with a great deal of strength and resolve. It will not overcome it by giving any indication of weakness on its part. Already we have seen that the Government is not prepared to really bite the bullet. It is not prepared to acknowledge that the wage and salary levels in this country are a major cause of unemployment. Recently, we saw the President of the ACTU, Mr Cliff Dolan, effectively shoot down the ALP- ACTU accord and the Summit communique. The Summit communique did not mean very much at all. It was very much overrated; it contained nice words. At the time of the Summit there was a very cosy situation in this chamber. Everyone was patting each other on the back. It was great to see the leaders of industry meeting with the leaders of the labour movement and the leaders of the Government and discussing their various points of view. But the communique was a pretty wishy-washy sort of document. It did not really tackle the problems this country faces. In particular, it did not acknowledge the very simple fact that the costs of employment are a major reason why there is not enough employment at present. There is absolutely no doubt that if, in a real sense, we were able to reduce the cost of employment by reducing wage levels and the various allowances that go to employees-I am referring also to people who earn salaries, because we are not just talking about wage earners-very many more job opportunities would be created. Three or four years ago I had the opportunity of going to a Labor Ministers conference in Western Samoa on behalf of the then Minister. At this conference, Ministers and others from various countries around the Pacific region talked about unemployment. It is a major problem in so many of the countries in this region-indeed, as I have said, it is a major problem all around the world-and the common concern of those Ministers was the high levels of wages paid in their respective countries, particularly the junior rates of pay. It was generally felt that if we could somehow get wage levels down, particularly junior wage rates, we would provide so many more people-especially our young people-with a chance to work. What a tragedy it is that so many young people at present do not have the opportunity of experiencing work and its accompanying rewards or of having the confidence and self-esteem that having a job brings. I referred earlier to some of the figures but they do not tell the full story. Figures do not take account of the human factor, the trauma that affects the individual who is out of a job for a long time or who may never have had a job. Such people see prospective employers, trying to get jobs, and time after time they are knocked back. They lose their confidence and self-esteem and wonder what their life is all about, what they are here for, and what they should be doing with themselves. In my town I hear stories and see young people wandering around the streets. Some of them go to the pub. Perhaps there is no harm in that , but they spend a bit too much time in the pub. They meet their friends there and have a bit to drink. This goes on day in and day out, which brings its own problems. Some turn to alcohol, some to drugs, and some become involved with petty crime. Honourable members on the Government side should not believe that people on this side do not have some understanding and feeling about the problem . We trust that the Labor Government has some answers. As I said earlier, new members are idealistic when they first come to this place. They are full of idealism. It is a sad thing that the longer we stay in this place-I have been here for almost eight years now; many others have been here much longer-the more we become embroiled in party politics and lose that sense of idealism that the new members have displayed in their maiden speches. The problem of unemployment should always be focused upon in this Parliament. I hope that the Government might agree to set up a select commitee to look at the problem of unemployment. I recall that the Prime Minister, when he was the Opposition spokesman on employment, said that we should have a joint committee to look into this problem of unemployment-its causes, its effects and remedies, if any. What effect do wage rates have on unemployment? Can we reduce unemployment through job creation schemes? Mr Cadman —Junior rates of pay? Mr GROOM —The honourable member for Mitchell mentions junior rates of pay. He is very concerned about this problem as it affects his constituents and he has voiced his views on many occasions. I believe that it would be appropriate for this Parliament to establish a select committee on unemployment. We have committees on so many other important problems. We have had a committee on road safety, a very serious problem. It has been a very effective committee. It has made many important recommendations, some of which have been accepted by the relevant governments, particularly the State governments. Some of its recommendations have been ignored, but it has done some very good work. We have defence committees, foreign affairs committees, committees to look at this and that. Perhaps we need a committee to really consider the problem of unemployment . Many members of the Government side acknowledge that it is the major problem facing this country at present. If it is the major problem, surely Government members would support the honourable member for Mitchell, myself and others on this side who believe it would be appropriate to have a select committee to go around Australia and look into this problem, to find answers to it and, in particular, to oversee the actions or inactions of the Government over the coming months and years. The sooner that committee is established the better. Mr Cadman —That's real consensus. Mr GROOM —It would be real consensus. This is the Address-in-Reply debate. If we look at the speech made by His Excellency, the Governor-General on 21 April of this year we will see that he made a point about consensus. He said: My new Government has pledged itself to the pursuit of national reconciliation, national recovery and national reconstruction. Those objectives would be very much helped if we had members who, in a bipartisan way, approached this problem and were prepared to speak up and, if necessary, criticise their own party or government if it does not act in the right way, in a way which will grasp this problem and make sure that we provide real jobs for these young people. I do not know whether we can provide the answers. I certainly believe that there is a good chance that we can. If we look around the world we can see that no one has tackled the problem very effectively . That does not mean that we in Australia cannot do so. We should make every effort to tackle the problem effectively. Members of this Parliament should not be underrated. As I said before, representatives at the Summit sat in this chamber and the Prime Minister called them the representatives of the people. But we happen to be elected by the people. We might be pretty ordinary, but we have been elected and we reflect the values of our electorates and constituents. We reflect, or should reflect, their desires and aspirations. This Parliament has to lift itself and become much more effective. At the moment I do not believe it achieves very much from day to day, except perhaps to create a few crises. That is not a good thing for the Government of the country. Mr Cohen —We occasionally get a stimulating half hour like this which sets us aflame. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member will ignore interjections and the Minister will remain silent. Mr GROOM —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment is attacking me for the comments I am making. I am trying to make some reasonable comments about the problems that we have and, in particular, about unemployment. Mr Cohen —The country is in a mess because of your government. Mr GROOM —If the Minister is not concerned about unemployment what is he doing here? Mr Cohen —Your Government was in office for seven years. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will remain silent. Mr GROOM —You are in government now and you have to try to do something about it . Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will address his remarks through the Chair. Mr GROOM —I am suggesting that we should set up a select committee to really grasp this problem and to try to find some answers which could give the Government some strength because at the moment it certainly has had a bad start. It has gone to water on a number of issues. We have had all sorts of problems. It is very sad-this government was elected with a significant majority-that the Government has had such a bad two weeks. It has got the smell of decay about it already, after only a couple of weeks in this place. It needs to be beefed up a little. The Government needs to be given some good advice. I believe that the members of this Parliament can give the Government good advice, especially on this important subject of unemployment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment in attempting to interject made a remark which was decidedly unparliamentary. I ask him to withdraw it. Mr Cohen —I do not know what I said. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister should be fully confident in the Chair's ability to firmly hear his remarks. Mr Cohen —I do not know what remark I am supposed to withdraw, honestly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It could well have been an involuntary remark but the Minister must withdraw. Mr Cohen —I cannot remember what I said but if I said something to offend you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. Debate (on motion by Mr Steedman) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6.27 to 8.30 p.m. Ministerial Statement Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —by leave-It is now just over a month since representatives of governments, employers, trade unions and other sections of the Australian community met in this place, as participants in the National Economic Summit Conference, to exchange views on the serious problems facing Australia and to discuss how to deal with those problems. Since then, the Government has given intensive consideration to many of the major issues discussed at the Summit and referred to in its communique. Following the general agreement reached then for the establishment of an Economic Planning Advisory Council, we have had further discussions with representatives of other governments, of the trade unions and of business, and have decided upon the detailed arrangements for the Council. Legislation to give effect to those arrangements will be introduced in the House in the current session. The Economic Planning Advisory Council will therefore shortly be a reality and through it we shall continue the process of information sharing and consultation initiated at the Summit. Similarly, we are participating, along with employers, unions and other governments, in conferences before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which have been called in accordance with the request in the Summit communique to develop the option of a return to a centralised wage system. In other specialised forums we have furthered the process of consultation with a view to reaching agreed solutions to the problems confronting particular industries or regions. Such processes must lead in the end to policy decisions by each of the participants, including by governments. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said in his opening address to the Conference, this Government cannot escape and does not wish to escape its primary and fundamental responsibility for the economic and social policies of the nation. Since the Summit we have been pushing ahead with the necessary policy decisions to give effect to our basic objectives of promoting economic growth and creating additional employment. Tonight I outline the decisions we have reached on substantive changes to expenditure and taxation programs and associated monetary policy issues. We have been determined to act with speed so that any uncertainty as to the broad nature of our intentions should be resolved as soon as possible and the processes of recovery set in train. Equally, however, we have been determined not to rush into decisions which require more thorough study and deliberation. We have no intention of indulging in the wholesale reversals of policy which have been all too frequent in this country in recent years and which have done much to generate uncertainty and shatter not only the confidence of business but also the aspirations of thousands of unemployed Australians. The decisions which I shall shortly announce should be taken as indicative of the directions in which we will be moving in the months and years ahead and, in particular, in the Budget for 1983-84 to be brought down on 23 August. We have of course also been guided by the nature of the economic problems highlighted in the Summit discussions-most particularly, the parlous budgetary situation which we have inherited. This background requires further elaboration before I turn to our specific decisions. Agreements from the Summit As reflected in the communique, widespread agreement at several levels was reached among Summit participants. First, there was agreement on the basic facts of the economic crisis. Naturally, individual perceptions and emphases differed somewhat, but there was broad recognition: That unemployment is unacceptably high and is still rising, and that the burden of unemployment has fallen unequally upon the various groups in our society; that inflation must be brought under control if the economy is to recover and lasting jobs are to be created, a view since heightened by the release of the March quarter consumer price index figures; that profits are depressed to historically low levels and that recovery must come here, too, if economic prosperity is to be restored; and finally that, particularly when the economic cake has been shrinking, moderation in claims for a share of that cake is required, a recognition that underlies the need for burden sharing which has been central to our decisions now to be announced. Secondly, there was substantial agreement about the factors which had contributed to our economic malaise and which must be addressed if that malaise is to be overcome. In particular there was widespread recognition of the role of : Unrealistic expectations, generated for political ends, which had resulted in large increases in real wage levels for some and unemployment for others; high interest rates, resulting from erratic and inconsistent application of monetary policies in a high inflation environment; and the pervasive but largely unavoidable consequences of the recession abroad and drought at home. Finally, there was agreement on the general approach necessary to deal with our problems. Sustained economic growth must be restored and, contrary to the policies of the previous Government, inflation and unemployment should be tackled simultaneously. That is, of course, a very demanding approach. The interrelationships between inflation and unemployment were widely acknowledged in the Summit discussions. To combat inflation and unemployment simultaneously cannot merely involve allotting one policy to reduce inflation and another to tackle unemployment. On the contrary, in these as in other regards policies must be complementary and mutually supportive. The Economic Context As I have said, participants at the Summit were in general agreement in their assessment of the current economic situation. Because of that agreement and because such a wealth of information was made public at the Summit, it is not necessary for me to repeat all that now. I should, however, note in passing the more significant information which has become available since the Summit and briefly review the economic outlook as we presently see it. Recently released statistics indicate that: Price inflation, as measured by the consumer price index, remained high in the March quarter; wage increases moderated in the March quarter and real wages declined slightly-however, average weekly ordinary time earnings for full time adult workers were still 2 per cent higher, in real terms , than a year earlier; employment continued to fall in April and, after allowance for seasonal influences, unemployment continued to rise; and the balance of payments has strengthened with capital inflow remaining high. That latter point-the strength of capital inflow-appears to be associated, at least in part, with some strengthening of optimism and confidence since the Summit. In particular: The somewhat better prospects for the international economy have received further confirmation, including at the meeting of senior Ministers from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries held in Paris last week; widespread rains have broken the worst drought in many areas; the flow of housing finance has continued at the higher level established in February; and interest rates have fallen. As I noted in my address to the Summit Conference, we expect some improvement in economic activity in the course of 1983-84 with the main impetus coming from: The fiscal stimulus implicit in the Commonwealth Budget for 1982-83 and in prospect for 1983-84; the improvement in the international economy; a marked slowing in stock decumulation so that a greater proportion of increased demand will be met from additional production; the improved prospects for farm production and exports; the pick-up in dwelling construction already under way; and finally, but of fundamental importance, the improved prospects for ongoing moderation of income claims as the prices and incomes accord is implemented. Private sector spending is not expected to improve within that time frame and business fixed investment is expected to fall substantially further before it picks up. If the expected pick-up in total activity is to be sustained beyond 1983-84, it will be a central task of policy to ensure that this imbalance is corrected; that is, that growth spreads through the private sector as well as the public sector. The expenditure and revenue decisions we have reached have had that consideration very much in mind. We are aware that the improvement in demand will take some time to lead to additional job creation. Accordingly we have given particular emphasis to the early introduction of direct job creation schemes. At the same time our decisions, overall, have been directed to the ongoing requirement of improving the general economic climate. Given that approach, and the implementation of our incomes policies, we would expect the pick-up in activity to be accompanied by a significant reduction in inflation and an improvement in profit levels. Budget Policies I turn now to the general objectives we have pursued and the general principles we have applied in reaching our present decisions. At the broadest level, as I have said, the objective has been to frame our budgetary policies to contribute both to reducing unemployment and to winding back inflation. In operational terms, that means looking to fiscal policy to stimulate employment directly but without placing intolerable burdens on the conduct of monetary policies or distorting the general economic environment needed to support the prices and incomes accord. Achieving the right balance is, of course, no easy task. The Government is well aware that if the balance were not right-if the Budget were expanded too rapidly-there would be increased pressures on interest rates and on the balance of payments. Should that occur, any direct increases in employment flowing from the Budget would be offset-perhaps more than offset-by indirect falls in employment as private sector spending decisions were curtailed . That said, we have come to the judgment that a substantial increase in Budget programs and hence the Budget deficit from 1982-83 levels can occur in 1983-84 without incurring those risks. Fundamental to that judgment is our determination to see the prices and incomes accord implemented along the lines agreed at the Summit and to see that the accord is adequately supported by appropriate monetary policies. I shall have more to say on that later. We believe that inflationary expectations are already on the wane. It is critical to the success of our expansionary fiscal policies that they remain so. We have had to judge how large the 1983-84 Budget impact should be to meet the requirement of stimulating employment without detracting from our efforts to reduce inflation. And we have to do that in the context of a prospective deficit for next year approaching $10 billion on the basis of the ongoing programs of the previous Government. We have said categorically-and I maintain-that such an outcome is simply not on. It would entail too many risks for the policy of sustained growth that we have in mind, risks connected with interest rates and the balance of payments, and indeed with the safe conduct of the prices and incomes accord. In order to provide for productive job creation activities, while minimising those risks, we have therefore been obliged to offset the additional expenditures involved by rather greater reductions in the previous Government's programs. In approaching that task we have been heavily influenced by the guidance given by the Summit. In particular, we have focused upon the central concept of equality of sacrifice and, where savings have had to be found, we have sought them in areas where those affected can most readily afford to shoulder the burden. In taxation, our long-standing policy has been to restore equity. We are committed to providing the Commissioner of Taxation with the legislation necessary to achieve that end. In the Budget sittings we will introduce further legislation and will continue to support the Commissioner in this and all other possible ways in ensuring that the tax burden is once again correctly spread across the community. Without this action we cannot expect the community to share with us the view that we all have an obligation to pay our fair share of taxes. Without this action the opportunities for taxpayers to opt out of the tax paying system will continue to grow as they began and were sustained under the previous Government. It is our overwhelming conviction that such a burden sharing approach is in the interests of the Australian community at large and particularly those most affected by the economic recession. Policy Decisions In this light the Government has reviewed many of the programs of the previous Government and is proposing a number of new programs. We have placed emphasis on creating new jobs, on increasing activity in the housing industry, on directing assistance to those in need and on removing unwarranted concessions. Many programs we have inherited are ill-suited to meet the current economic problems which Australia faces. They are also poorly designed to meet the needs of low income earners. We found that a substantial proportion of the costs of tax concessions announced in and immediately prior to the 1982-83 Budget by the former Government-amounting to around $3,000m-first come to account next financial year . The Liberal Government which preceded us went beyond the limits of fiscal responsibility in increasing commitments to outlays and tax expenditures and reducing taxation through 1982 in a desperate attempt to retain office. But even more reprehensibly, it concealed the extent of the fiscal imbalances which it was creating from the Australian people, and arranged for the bills for its extravagance to be presented a year later, in 1983-84. When we have raised these points before, Opposition members have said that they would have changed their policies had they been re-elected. Perhaps they would have; the Australian people remember the fistful of dollars before the 1977 election which was taken back after the election. I have no doubt that the Opposition will find fault with some of the measures that we are announcing tonight. But they cannot have it all ways. If they say that they would taken steps to reduce the 1983-84 Budget deficit by as much as we will do in this statement, or more, then they accept our measures or propose alternatives. What would they have done? What would they have done for job creation and housing? What tax expenditures would they have amended? I look forward to hearing their alternatives. I outline below the major initiatives of the Government from this initial review. Details of all affected programs are summarised in a paper I now table. Further information is to be provided to Parliament by relevant Ministers. Retirement Incomes Retirement incomes are heavily supported from the Budget, both directly through the provision of age and Service pensions and indirectly through generous tax concessions for occupational superannuation. On the outlays side, some of the assistance is directed to high income earners because of the income test-free component for pensions of persons aged 70 and over. On the revenue side, the $2 billion or so of assistance for occupational superannuation goes mostly to people who are neither needy nor poor and largely fails to achieve one of its principal objectives-the promotion of more effective self-provision in retirement. This is because benefits are principally being taken in the form of lump sums rather than pensions. The present tax provisions also facilitate tax avoidance arrangements under which an employee's pay is deferred so as to be taken in a lump sum termination payment at the end of his or her employment in a particular job. Against this background, the Government has undertaken a comprehensive review of existing policies relating to retirement incomes and has decided to take three significant measures to rationalise the present system. These measures are designed to ensure that outlays on pensions are more effectively directed to those who need them, and tax concessions for occupational superannuation achieve their purpose of encouraging genuine provison for retirement incomes, and that retirement benefits provided in different forms are treated on a fairer basis than in the past. First, the Government has reviewed the taxation treatment of certain lump sum payments which are presently exempt from tax entirely or are subject to tax on only 5 per cent of the amounts received. In general, and subject to certain exceptions detailed in a paper I now table, lump sum payments received after tonight for services after tonight will be subject to taxation-in most cases at the standard rate of tax of 30 per cent-unless converted into a pension or annuity or rolled over into another superannuation fund within a short time. In order to encourage retirees to use lump sum benefits to secure an income in retirement, such payments will be exempt from tax entirely if converted into a continuing retirement income in the form of a pension or annuity. That part of a lump sum which comprises a person's own contribution which has not attracted a tax rebate or deduction will also be exempt from tax. I emphasise that the proposed fuller taxation of lump sum payments does not apply to payments in respect of services up to the present time. This means that lump sum payments in the years immediately ahead to people who have been contributing to a superannuation fund for some time will continue to be largely exempt from taxation. It also means, of course, that employees need not consider retiring before they would otherwise have done so in order to ensure that the lump sum benefits they have already earned are treated according to the present tax rules . Lump sum amounts in respect of services up to today, whenever in the future they are made, will enjoy taxation treatment no less favourable than they would have received if paid today. The changed taxation treatment of lump sum payments is estimated to yield only $15m in additional revenue in 1983-84, but thereafter gains to revenue will increase by approximately $50m a year to a peak of about $ 420m. Our second initiative in the area of retirement provision is that we have decided to take action to encourage people to convert assets, including lump sum retirement benefits, into regular incomes. To this end, we propose to amend the Life Insurance Act and the Income Tax Assessment Act along the general lines recommended by the National Superannuation Committee of Inquiry under Professor Hancock and the Taxation Review Committee, the Asprey Committee. This will make it possible for life offices and superannuation funds to sell annuities on more attractive terms than at present. We will also review present arrangements under which the return of capital component of an annuity is taken into account in the age pension income test. The changes we propose to the treatment of annuities, together with the proposed arrangements for exempting lump sum payments from taxation, if used to buy pensions or annuities, will assist retired people to obtain secure incomes during their retirement. The Government expects that these reforms will help to ensure that tax concessions for superannuation achieve their intended purpose, and reduce present incentives for people who have the capacity to provide their own retirement incomes to arrange their affairs so as to become eligible for benefits intended for the needy. Some technical aspects of the new arrangements in relation to the taxation of lump sum benefits, such as the precise method of determining the portion of lump sum entitlements relating to service before the date of announcement, and the action we propose to take to facilitate the sale of annuities, will be decided after consultation with interested parties, including the life offices and superannuation funds. The consultations will also canvass the possible introduction of new types of securities, including indexed bonds, which could assist the institutions concerned to meet the needs of retired people in ways that are consistent with the Government's objectives. The third major measure we have decided to take in relation to retirement incomes is to introduce an income test on the component of age and service pensions for persons aged 70 years and over which is presently paid free of any income test. Only persons with substantial private incomes will be affected. Single pensioners with non pension incomes up to $200 a week, and married pensioner couples with non pension incomes up to $333 a week, will continue to receive the same pension as at present. Above these amounts, the current income- test-free component will be reduced by $1 for every extra $2 of non pension income received. Entitlement to part pension will therefore continue for single persons aged 70 years or over with non pension income up to about $303 per week and for married couples with non pension income up to about $505 per week. The proposed new arrangements will come into effect from 1 November 1983 and are estimated to reduce Budget outlays by $167m in 1983-84. For decades successive governments have grappled with the problem of providing decent support for the aged. That problem has been almost totally bedevilled by the way in which the available resources has been sprayed around indiscriminately. The measure I have announced tonight provide a firm basis for the development of a secure system of retirement incomes that aged people deserve. Repatriation Pensions In addition, we propose some changes in the method of disbursement of repatriation pension payments. These are currently paid by cheque fortnightly in advance, or by direct credit to a nominated bank, building society or credit union account twelve weekly in arrears. The Government has decided that from 23 June 1983 all direct credits of repatriation pensions will be made fortnightly in advance. Letters outlining the conversion and explaining the arrangements will be sent to veterans. Health The Government's election health policy statement made it clear that the rebate for basic health insurance premiums would be abolished to help finance the Medicare arrangements. It will be abolished in respect of contributions for basic health insurance coverage after 30 June 1983. Premiums paid in 1982-83 to provide coverage up to 30 June 1983 will attract a rebate in assessments for the 1982-83 income year. The resultant savings in taxation revenue are estimated at $95m in 1983-84 and $550m in 1984-85. At present, the Commonwealth contributes to the Hospital Benefits Reinsurance Trust Fund to assist hospital insurance organisations to help meet the cost of the insured chronically ill. The Government's election health policy statement made it clear that on the introduction of Medicare the Commonwealth would reduce its contribution to the Fund. In view of the impending introduction of Medicare, and the budgetary situation, the Government is to reduce by $80m to $20m the intended contribution to the Hospital Benefits Reinsurance Trust Fund in 1983-84 . Under the Pharmaceutical benefits scheme there are a number of multi-branded pharmaceutical products which bear different rates of subsidy. The Government has decided that for such generally equivalent pharmaceutical products, the price differential between the highest and lowest price brands should be reduced as soon as possible to no more than 5c. Savings in 1983-84 are estimated at $6m. Education An income test is to be applied to the living allowance payable to full time adult migrant education program students. This will bring treatment of such payments into line with payments to part time students of the program and other equivalent allowances. Savings in 1983-84 and in subsequent years are estimated at around $3m. Industry-Transport The maximum cost differential payable by consumers for the freighting of certain petroleum products, at present a 1c litre, will in future be indexed in line with increases in the consumer price index. As an initial step, the differential will be increased to 1.1c per litre on 1 June 1983. This measure will save about $10m in 1983-84. In lieu of an increase in air navigation charges during 1983-84, the rate of excise on AVGAS and AVTUR will be increased by 2c a litre from 1 July 1983. This will ameliorate the sharp deterioration in the rate of recovery of costs incurred by the Government in the provision of aviation services. This increase will yield $15m in 1983-84. Proposed expenditure in 1983-84 on the redevelopment of the Brisbane Airport has been reviewed and estimates have been reduced for 1983-84 by $20m to an estimated $50m. The target date for completion, 1987, has not been affected by this revision. The Government has decided to suspend and defer certain projects under the aerodrome local ownership plan and to institute a thorough review of the costs and benefits of the plan. Savings in 1983-84 are estimated to be $8m. We shall provide $5m in 1983-84 to complete initial design and route identification works on the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. Commonwealth assistance to the Northern Territory is very generous. In 1982-83, total per capita payments to the Northern Territory will be about $5,600-about five times the average level of per capita payments to the six States. In the light of this , and the significance of the rail project to the Northern Territory, we believe the Northern Territory Government should share with us the cost of constructing the railway. We intend to proceed on the basis that the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory contribute 60 per cent and 40 per cent respectively to construction costs. Part of the Commonwealth's contribution would be funded by transferring about $60m currently allocated to upgrading the Stuart Highway in the Northern Territory. Should the Northern Territory not accept this approach, the Commonwealth would be prepared to provide, in place of the railway, a high standard road link from Alice Springs to Darwin by 1987 and additional rail facilities for Alice Springs to provide an efficient transport alternative. The Commonwealth is proceeding this way in light of the prevailing budgetary situation, and the fact that it is plainly uneconomic to proceed simultaneously with both the construction of the Alice Springs-Darwin railway and the major upgrading of the parallel road link. Communications The Government has taken an in principle decision to sell up to 49 per cent of its equity in Aussat Pty Ltd to allow private sector participation in the ownership of the national domestic satellite communications system. The sale will be subject to an appropriate spread of shareholding and to the development of satisfactory arrangements being in place to protect the public interest, which may include regulation of satellite services to ensure co-ordination with terrestrial services. The Government is to increase the interest rate pay- able on that part of the interest bearing capital of Telecom Australia which is still subject to a 10 per cent per annum rate. The increase will provide $100m in 1983 -84. Telecom will determine-with the consent of the Minister for Communications -how to fund this additional payment and the need for an expanded capital program in 1983-84. As an illustration, in a full year the additional interest charge could be met by a one cent increase in the cost of local calls, a commensurate increase in short and medium distance subscriber trunk dialling charges and a $10 increase in annual telephone rental fees. As noted in the paper prepared for the Summit on price surveillance by the Government: Public utility prices need, of course, to be high enough to cover operating costs, to provide an adequate return on capital, and to produce sufficient internal funds to finance new investment without undue reliance on loan markets: But the community would not expect prices to be raised to accommodate unauthorised wage demands or as an expedient to raise revenue for other Government purposes. Moreover, when introducing the paper I said that the Government was: Not seeking to encourage uneconomic pricing arrangements: Public utilities, like private corporations, must earn their keep. Other Industry Measures The Government has decided to terminate the special depreciation arrangements for storage facilities for petroleum fuel and the taxation concessions available in respect of conversions or replacements of oil-fired and liquefied petroleum gas-fired plant. These incentives were introduced to provide a short term boost to investment in these areas following the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war in 1979 . That purpose has been achieved and the concessions will now be terminated. Since the 1977-78 income year the primary producer averaging provisions have had the effect that tax is calculated at the rate on average income only in years when current income exceeds average income. Ordinary rates are applied in other years. Those arrangements-sometimes described as automatic in-out averaging-attracted criticism for several reasons. The most obvious objection is that they went beyond the objective of removing tax effects of fluctuations in incomes, and gave taxpayers with access to averaging a clear tax advantage over others. As well it became advantageous for those with access to averaging to have their taxable incomes fluctuate and disadvantageous to do anything to stabilise them. That made it impossible for the income equalisation deposit scheme to operate as intended; the in-out averaging threw the system out of gear . Commencing with the 1983-84 income year the rate on average income will be applied every year. The present arrangement limiting the amount of non-primary production income which is subject to averaging will remain. It is estimated that this measure will yield about $15m in 1983-84 and $20m in subsequent years. There are some unsatisfactory features of the income equalisation deposit scheme other than those caused by the present averaging arrangements. The Government is developing a new IED scheme to provide an incentive for farmers to set aside in good years money for use in poor years. Approval of the Loan Council will be sought for its introduction, with its first application to deposits after 31 August 1983. Some features of the scheme will be outlined in a separate statement which I now table. The measure is expected to cost less than $1m in 1983-84; the budgetary effect in later years will depend on the response to the new scheme. Under the depreciation measures announced by the former Government on 19 July 1982, depreciation over either 5 years or 3 years was to be allowed under the general depreciation provisions. As part of that package, the period of depreciation of certain primary production plant, including improvements for the storage of hay, grain or fodder, was reduced from 5 to 3 years. The Government this week introduced legislation to honour the previous Government's announcement last year that these provisions would apply from 19 July 1982. However, the Government considers that the reduction to 3 years goes beyond what is reasonable. It is clearly anomalous when compared to the deductions for capital expenditure allowed to other industries. Accordingly, the deduction period for those plant items is to revert to 5 years, with effect for plant acquired under a contract entered into after today or commenced to be constructed by the taxpayer after today. The Government is mindful of the cash flow problems of many farmers this calendar year in the aftermath of the drought. The extension of the period of depreciation for primary production plant affected by this measure will not have a large effect until the 1984-85 financial year, mainly the first half of 1985. Revenue from this measure is estimated to be $9m in 1983-84, rising to $44m in 1984-85, $89m in 1985-86 and $128m in 1986-87. Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —Judging from the loud screams from cockies corner, quite obviously some of their money will be in those savings. Following a comprehensive review of the previous Government's water programs, we have decided not to proceed with the supplementary program of the previous Government's proposed Bicentennial Water Resources Program. However, in its preparation of the 1983-84 Budget, the Government will be considering a continuation of the previous Government's National Water Resources Program which has been in operation since 1978-79. We have also decided to allocate funds under our employment generation initiative for the establishment of a Country Towns' Water Supply Improvement Program, and we will be discussing guidelines for this important program with the States in the near future. The Government is seeking Loan Council approval to allow the Australian Wheat Board to borrow overseas to help finance its advance payments to growers. This will allow the Board to reduce hedging costs on overseas sales and to take advantage of any lower overseas interest rates. Subject to Loan Council approval , the Board will be able to borrow overseas up to an annual limit of not less than 50 per cent of its prospective net borrowing requirements. Approval will also be sought if borrowings beyond that level are judged to be appropriat in any year in the light of the prospective monetary situation, the prospective borrowing requirement and borrowing costs. Thus, there is no further need for the interest subsidy which has previously been provided to the Australian Wheat Board's borrowing. Accordingly no subsidy will be paid after 30 June 1983. Savings are estimated to be $19.8m in 1983-84 and about $30m in subsequent years . Housing Following discussions at the Summit, the Government has moved quickly and positively to ensure that housing will play a major role in economic recovery. We have been encouraged in this task by the strong co-operation from State governments, the housing industry and the financial institutions. Our plan is responsible. Assistance will be directed only to those in need. We will avoid the risk of overheating in the industry. After very careful consideration the Government has decided to seek to achieve house commencements at an annual rate of 130,000 to 135,000 in the second half of 1983-84. The housing industry, including the building unions, have clearly indicated to us that this rate should be achievable without significant resource constraints and wage or other inflationary pressures. This will be sought by measures designed to lift both public and private dwelling activity. We will retain the option for the States to nominate part of their Loan Council funds for use in public housing under concessional terms and conditions. So long as we are confident that this does not lead to any diminution of effort by the States in this area of acute need, direct Commonwealth funding for public housing will be increased from $333m in 1982-83 to $500m in 1983-84, an increase of 50 per cent. We will implement our election promise and introduce the First Home Ownership Assistance Scheme from 1 October 1983. This will provide, on an income tested basis, assistance of up to $7,000 for a family with two or more children, $6,500 for a family with one child and $5,000 for other eligible first home buyers. This subsidy will enable lower income home buyers to borrow more, thus reducing the deposit gap, or to reduce the repayment burden, or both. The new scheme will be subject to the same income test as that applying under the existing Home Deposit Assistance Scheme. The maximum grants will be available to home purchasers with a family income of up to 135 per cent of average weekly earnings with assistance tapering to zero at 155 per cent of average weekly earnings. The test applies to taxable income in the year before purchase. For those purchasing in 1983-84 the limits applying to taxable income in 1982-83 are $24,300 for a full grant tapering to zero at $27,900. In deciding upon this new scheme, the Government has reviewed the operation of the existing schemes of assistance for home buyers and concluded that they are neither efficient nor effective in targeting assistance to those in most need and in providing a stimulus to the housing industry. In addition, because of the multiplicity of arrangements and their complexity of operation, the existing measures have proved so confusing to home buyers that, in many instances, benefits are not being taken up. The Government has decided therefore,with one important qualification, to terminate or phase out the operation of existing schemes. The existing Home Deposit Assistance Scheme will be terminated from the date of commencement of the new First Home Ownership Assistance Scheme. Eligible first home buyers who purchase between today and the introduction of the new First Home Ownership Assistance Scheme will be able to apply for assistance under the Home Deposit Assistance Scheme. Total outlays on the Home Deposit Assistance Scheme, until its termination, and the new First Home Ownership Assistance Scheme will be $120m in 1983-84, increasing to $165m in 1984-85. Consistent with our policy of directing Government assistance to those most in need, we will be terminating from 30 June 1983 the housing interest rebate introduced last August by the Fraser Government. This was a highly inequitable scheme, the great bulk of assistance going to high income earners able to take out large loans. The losers were the prospective home buyers on a modest income who received little assistance if they were able to buy a home and none at all if they could not. They will gain from tonight's measures, which will have the effect of putting home ownership within the reach of many more Australians. In order to meet our social commitments and obligations, we will continue the special home loan interest tax rebate introduced in March 1982 for low income first home buyers who enter the scheme on or before 30 September 1983. The scheme will continue on an income tested basis with the income limits set at the same level as the new First Home Ownership Assistance Scheme. This will ensure that the lower income first home buyers, who have entered home ownership at a time of high interest rates, will continue to receive assistance to the end of their fifth year of first home ownership. No new entrants to that scheme will be accepted after introduction of the new First Home Ownership Assistance Scheme. The full or partial abolition of the previous Government's schemes will save $ 130m in 1983-84 and $420m in 1984-85. In addition to the steps taken to stimulate demand the Government is concerned to ensure that there is an adequate supply of housing funds at reasonable interest rates. We have received assurances from the banks and building societies that they will be able to increase their lending significantly in 1983-84 and against the background of our target rate of commencements, we will be consulting further with financial institutions regarding the availability of housing finance. Other Tax Expenditures and Concessions Under an anti-avoidance measure introduced by the former Government, unmarried minors currently pay tax rates of 46 per cent or higher on unearned income above $1,040 per annum. The original announcement indicated that the threshold would be $416, but it was later set at $1,040. The $1,040 threshold has come to be exploited in many tax minimisation schemes, and a reduction in it is necessary to control this. The threshold will be reduced to $416 from the beginning of the 1983-84 income year; the new shading-in range will be from $417 to $1,372. The measure will yield nothing in 1983-84 but $70m in the first full year. A concessional rebate at the standard tax rate is available to taxpayers on the excess of expenditure over $1,590 on certain eligible items such as superannuation contributions, life insurance premiums, net medical expenses, education expenses and private rates. The rebate costs over $100 per annum but only about 10 per cent of taxpayers derive any benefit from it. It has been decided to increase the threshold amount of eligible expenditure for rebate purposes to $2,000 with effect from the 1983-84 income year. This is expected to result in a gain to revenue of $11m in 1983-84 and $70m in 1984-85. It has been decided to abolish, as from 1 July 1983, the rebate available on up to $1,000 of dividend income of individual taxpayers which was introduced in the last Budget. While some features in the taxation treatment of dividends, resulting from the interaction of the personal income and company income tax systems, have been criticised in recent studies, such as the Asprey and Campbell reports, the Government does not believe that the dividend rebate introduced by the previous Government was an appropriate or equitable response. In some circumstances the rebate would aggravate rather than reduce inequities. Indeed, it has much in common with a measure which the Asprey report described as an ' unacceptable alternative to the present system'. Abolition of the rebate is expected to increase revenue by $75m in 1983-84 and $105m in 1984-85. Friendly societies do not currently bear tax on investment income from their life insurance and disability and accident insurance business. This has placed friendly societies at a distinct advantage over life insurance companies and has been a growing cause for concern. With the assistance of tax exemption their business has grown rapidly in recent years, and has involved policies of a kind which are of concern from a tax avoidance viewpoint. The Government has decided that the exemption for friendly societies on life, disability and accident insurance business will be terminated in respect of 1983-84 and later income years. Measures will be introduced to impose tax at a level comparable to that on the non-superannuation business of life insurance companies. Further details will be announced at a later date. This measure will not affect revenue in 1983- 84, but will add to it in 1984-85 and later years, and preserve revenue which would otherwise be foregone. Generally, interest payable to non-residents from Australian sources is taxable under withholding arrangements at the rate of 10 per cent of the gross amount. There are some exceptions to this rule, two of which were criticised in the Campbell report as having discriminatory and distorting effects. Those two are the 'Australian Entity' exemption and the exemption for interest on borrowing by the Australian Industry Development Corporation. The Government has decided that interest arising on moneys borrowed under contractual obligations entered into after tonight by 'Australian entities' as defined in the present legislation and by the Australian Industry Development Corporation will be subject to interest withholding tax. Interest on existing loans will continue to be exempt. Exemption will continue to apply to interest on widely held overseas loans of a 'bearer bond' nature, borrowings by the Commonwealth and State governments, and borrowings by Commonwealth and State authorities where the Treasurer is satisfied that the authorities are not in direct competition with private sector enterprises. It is estimated that this measure will yield $12m in 1983-84 and $ 26m in 1984-85. Under section 77 of the Income Tax Assessment Act losses from exempt activities such as gold mining may be deducted against the taxpayer's income from other sources. From the commencement of the 1983-84 income year those losses will not be deductible. The Government is concerned at the potential that this provision has for tax avoidance uses, of which there are already indications. This measure does not change the current exemption of gold mining income from taxation. Labour and Employment The Government is to introduce legislation in the current session of Parliament to establish for a period of three years a Community Employment Program. In 1983 -84 $300m will be provided for this program. It has also been decided to introduce a Private Sector Assistance Program to replace the Special Youth Employment Training Program and to increase funding for other manpower and training schemes. Overall, some $733m will be allocated in 1983-84 for these activities, an increase of $383m or about 110 per cent over 1982-83. The $300m provided for the Community Employment Program, together with $100m for continuation of the wages pause program in 1983-84, will be allocated to projects which have the capacity to provide new jobs, particularly for those most disadvantaged in the labour market. The objective will be to generate a level of activity in 1983-84 consistent with supporting in a full year 70,000 full time jobs for an average duration of six months. It is intended that the projects supported will lead to improved local community facilities and services, including improved roads and country water supplies. All levels of government and community organisations will participate in the Program, and projects will be selected through joint Commonwealth-State consideration. Special arrangements will apply to projects in the Australian Capital Territory and projects to be conducted by Commonwealth departments and authorities. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) will be making a detailed statement on the job creation initiatives by way of a second reading speech on the introduction of the relevant legislation. Overview of fiscal measures The new expenditure initiatives I have just announced will add an estimated $ 557m to outlays in 1983-84. The savings I have just announced on the expenditure and tax expenditure programs of the previous Government are estimated to total $ 985m in 1983-84. These decisions take into account the fact that we have a longer term structural Budget problem arising from the policies of the previous Government. We shall have to deal-and we shall-with that problem and, in this connection, I direct the attention of honourable members to the longer term savings involved in many of the measures announced tonight. In total the figures indicate that, on the basis of present estimates, gross savings on the policies of the previous Government will increase to- Mr Lusher —Don't complain about the level of the deficit. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hume has been conducting a continual chain of interjections. I warn him. The honourable member for Hume tries my patience. When he has been warned by the Speaker he should not try to respond. Mr KEATING —I will repeat the figures for the benefit of honourable members. Gross savings on the policies of the previous Government will increase to an estimated $2,036m in 1984-85 and to $2,190m in the following year. Those are significant savings and represent an important initial contribution to the task of implementing the Government's priorities within the context of responsible fiscal policies. I stress again that we view the implementation of our policies, and the review of those of the previous Government, as a continuing process in which the decisions announced tonight should be seen as the initial steps. That process will be furthered in many ways, including in discussion with State governments in the Premiers Conference and Loan Council meeting at the end of June. In that context, we will be looking to increase the State authorities' domestic or overseas borrowing programs for 1983-84 to ensure that, in conjunction with other measures, there will be scope for real growth in those authorities' capital expenditures next year. Concluding remarks Mr Speaker, I wish to underline the importance which our Government places upon the success of the prices and incomes accord and the monetary policies necessary to support it. By reducing the Budget deficit for 1983-84 below that implied by the policies of the previous Government we will be reducing the financing task and hence the burden upon monetary policy. But that financing task, and that burden, will still be considerable-and will be coming on top of a monetary situation which our predecessors had for some time allowed to drift and which, as a consequence, is already most unsatisfactory. To take only the current financial year, the previous Government set itself a target for growth in the money supply, M3, of 9-11 per cent for 1982-83, but by March this year that target was already virtually out of reach. In the 12 months to March, M3 increased by 12.4 per cent and the average increase for the year to date was already at the top of the previous Government's target range. Yet the monetary expansion effects of the last Budget are heavily concentrated in the current half year. That is to say, with the real push in monetary expansion from the Budget only just recently coming through, the monetary target had already been allowed to drift out of reach. Monetary growth as rapid as the current level of 12 per cent or so is not consistent with this Government's objectives and prompt action is necessary to bring it down. Accordingly, and in keeping with the previously foreshadowed timetable, the Treasury is announcing this evening the details of a bond tender considerably larger than had previously been thought likely to be necessary. The tender will be for an amount of $1,500m , which is $400m larger than any previous tender. I trust that this will indicate to all concerned our determination to pursue appropriate monetary policies-not merely, as was the case with the previous Government, by rhetoric, but by action. We are determined, as I have said, to achieve a monetary environment in which our prices and incomes accord will succeed and non-inflationary growth can be sustained. I would like to dwell for a moment on that latter point-the requirements for success of the prices and incomes accord. In particular, I want to deal with the criticisms which have been levelled at the Government from some quarters because it did not, in the course of the Summit, give more support to the type of wage outcomes contained in scenario C rather than those in scenario A. To refresh our memories, I note that Scenario A assumed a national wage case in the second half of this calendar year leading to a general wage increase of about 3 per cent, to be followed by a return to indexation of wages in the first half of 1984; scenario C, on the other hand, assumed that the wages pause would be continued to the end of 1983, with only partial indexation to follow thereafter. Accepting all the qualifications which must be placed on such exercises- qualifications which I went out of my way to stress in my own address to the Summit Conference-it is true that scenario C indicated both lower inflation and lower unemployment than did scenario A. The Government does not question that conclusion. We have promoted the need for wage restraint and that approach found acceptance by all participants in the Summit. But it is necessary to look not just at immediate requirements but also at the institution of a prices and incomes policy which can be sustainable over the longer term. Many of Australia's economic problems in recent years were created by the deliberate tactics of the previous Government around the time of the 1980 election in generating unrealistic expectations regarding the magnitude of the wage increases which industry could afford. It would be equally dishonest and equally disastrous-because it simply would not be sustainable-if we went to the other extreme and sought to deny any wage increases at all this year. That would indeed be, to quote Samuel Johnson, a triumph of hope over experience. It is true that the degree of understanding of these issues has been enhanced by the Summit and subsequent discussions. It is equally true that there is still a long way to go and much more to be done to foster that understanding. It is the Government's view, therefore, that in this as in other matters, there must be a sense of proportion, a sense of balance. The Government, for its part, has pursued that balance-in its approach to the budgetary decisions I have announced tonight and, as I have just indicated, in its approach to the prices and incomes accord. Unless the same balanced approach is pursued by all, however, the consensus reached by the Summit will not endure. In concluding, therefore, may I refer again to the notion of equality of sacrifice which is implicit in the prices and incomes accord and which, as I have already noted, has been a guiding principle in the budgetary decisions I have now announced. I cannot stress too strongly the fundamental importance of that principle in the current economic circumstances. Some of the changes we have made to the previous Government's programs were overdue and would have been desirable in any circumstances. Some, however, will result in the removal of benefits which might perhaps have been justified in better times. It is the Government's belief that the Australian ethic of a fair go provides the will to share the burden. This was the message that the Government received at the Summit. There is no practical alternative to a fairer sharing of restraint if we are to return to a healthier economy in which living standards can rise and jobs can become available to all Australians. The Government believes that the measures announced tonight provide for a reallocation of incomes and opportunities which is both fair and conducive to economic recovery. With the consistent application of the principles underlying tonight's measures to our further Budget deliberations and monetary policy decisions, we believe that Australia is now well positioned for national reconciliation, reconstruction and recovery. I commend the measures to honourable members. I present the following paper: Economy-Ministerial Statement, 19 May 1983. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned. Ministerial Statement Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) —by leave-The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has set out clearly this Government's approach to the economic and social problems facing the country. Our approach is one of responsibility. It is directed at boosting confidence and restoring growth. It is directed at achieving economic conditions that would enable sustainable reductions in interest rates. Let me make it clear from the beginning that there is nothing that would more guarantee the recovery of the housing industry than a reduction in interest rates. We will move forward in a way designed to achieve this goal. The Treasurer outlined the many hard decisions the Government has had to take. It is because we have faced up to those decisions that I am now in a position to announce the new housing intiatives in this area which the Government sees as so important. I am announcing these in greater detail than did the Treasurer. From the start Labor has been determined to ensure that housing plays a key part in our action to get this country moving again. In February this year, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in his economic policy speech, described increased housing activity as a crucial element in Labor's national economic recovery strategy. What a marked contrast this was-and is-to the attitude and actions of our political opponents of the Liberal Party and National Party. They disbanded the Department of Housing and Construction and cast its elements in many directions. We of the Hawke Labor Government have brought it back together again . We are focusing on the aspirations of the Australian people who want good housing. Thanks to Labor, we now again have a Department to achieve that purpose . The re-creation of the Department has also been widely welcomed by the housing and construction industries. Now, only two months after coming to government, we are beginning the process of recovery in this area to meet pressing social needs and to get the industry moving. We have moved quickly in recent months, but with great care. Our initial plan of action for housing was developed under the watchful eye of my colleague the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) over a period of months leading up to its announcement in November last year. However, we have inherited a situation far worse than was envisaged at that time. Until tonight, the current housing industry situation was bleak to say the very least. Only 106,000 new dwellings will be commenced in the current financial year. This will be the lowest annual level since 1962-63-20 years ago-and compares with 132,300 in 1981 -82 and nearly 150,000 in 1980-81. I am proud to be the Housing and Construction Minister of the Hawke Labor Government which is now moving quickly and responsibly to get recovery under way. In further developing our plan of action we have consulted with the States and a wide range of housing industry and finance representatives. There were preliminary discussions at the National Economic Summit Conference. On 28 April the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) and I met with top level industry and finance representatives to discuss the Government's objectives and the ways in which these could be met. I continued this consultation process when I met with State and Territory housing Ministers last week. We have listened carefully to their views and, as far as possible, have taken these into account in developing our plans. Against this background, the Government has acted to ensure that housing plays its role as a stimulus to economic recovery. We are putting in place a package of measures designed to boost house commencements from the abysmally low figure of 106,000 mentioned earlier for 1982-83 to an annual target rate of 130,000 to 135,000 in the second half of the coming financial year 1983-84. This progressive lift in activity will mean about 128, 000 dwellings will be commenced in 1983-84-an increase of 22,000 over the miserable 1982-83 figure. The additional commencements will generate an expected extra 25,000 jobs on building sites and in immediate associated industries. The housing industry has one of the highest direct employment multipliers of any major industry. For every job that is created by our economic and housing policies on a building site, one full job is created in other industries in say, the production of building materials or fittings for homes. It also means more jobs in other areas involved in the housing market-for example, the finance industry and real estate. Of course, there are then flow-on effects in the furniture and whitegoods industries. The housing industry and State Ministers have clearly indicated that our target rate for housing commencements can be achieved without running into labour or material bottlenecks or cost pressures. Our target level of commencements is a responsible one. We are aware of the time lags that can occur between increased demand and new construction. We want a stable housing industry and we are not introducing measures that would run the risk of over-heating the industry. Our package of measures will provide the housing industry with the balanced stimulus it desperately needs. It makes a start on the enormous task we have set ourselves to ensure that all Australians have decent housing. The Government is taking a firm and responsible action to help the home buyer to overcome the deposit gap and to offset the impact of high interest rates and restore confidence in this vitally important industry. There is strong support for the approach we have adopted. We will continue to work closely with all areas of the industry to ensure that the measures are effective and, most importantly, to make people who are in need aware of the assistance that is available to them. The package will provide a significant boost to public housing. So long as we are confident that this does not lead to any diminution of effort by the States in this area of acute need, direct funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement as the Treasurer announced will be increased to $500m in 1983-84. This will be an increase of 50 per cent on the $333m provided in 1982-83 by the previous Government. We will retain the option for the States to nominate part of their Loan Council funds for public housing. These funds are available, as we know, on highly concessional terms and conditions. In addition, the remaining $ 50m of the savings from the wages pause allocated for public housing will be provided in 1983-84. In total, from these sources, we would expect funding for public housing in 1983-84 to be in the vicinity of $700m compared with $530m in 1982-83. This should enable a significant increase in the level of commencements in the public sector. At the same time, it begins the joint Commonwealth-State task of overcoming the years of neglect of public housing in Australia, particularly those years under the Fraser Government. Ninety per cent of Australians meet their housing needs in the private market. We will be looking to the success of our general economic policies, our specific measures to boost first home buyer confidence and initiatives in the housing finance area to get the market moving again. To assist the low to moderate income first home buyer, the Hawke Government is introducing the First Home Owners Assistance Scheme. Legislation for the new Scheme will be introduced in the Budget session with a target commencement date of 1 October 1983. The Scheme , which provides assistance on a means tested basis-but does not require qualifying savings-will allow people a choice. A home buyer will be able to take the entire grant as an interest subsidy, or part of the assistance as a lump sum in the first year and the rest as an interest subsidy over the five years. For many people the most favourable option will provide a non-repayable tax-free grant of up to $7,000 over five years for a family with two or more children; $6 ,500 over five years for a family with one child; and $5,000 over five years for home purchasers without children. Another choice will allow the first home buyer to take advantage of the provisions for a lump sum of $3,500 and interest subsidy of $2,750 over five years for families with two children; a lump sum of $3,000 and interest subsidy of $2,750 over five years for a family with one child; a lump sum of $2,500 and interest subsidy of $1,750 over five years for home purchasers without children. These subsidies will be paid to the lending institutions to enable eligible low to moderate income first home buyers to borrow more to reduce the deposit gap, and/or to reduce their repayments in the first five years of home ownership. The maximum grant will be available to home purchasers with a family income of up to 135 per cent of average weekly earnings with assistance tapering to zero at 155 per cent of average weekly earnings. The test applies to taxable income in the year prior to purchase. For those building or purchasing a home in 1983- 84 the limits applying to taxable income in 1982-83 are $24,300 for a full grant -about $470 per week, tapering to zero at $27,900-about $540 per week. The Scheme will be sufficiently flexible to provide realistic assistance to eligible home buyers right across Australia. The ability to use the subsidy to increase borrowing capacity should be of particular help in high cost areas like Sydney where the interest subsidy of $7,000 could be used by a family with two children to borrow say, an additional $10,000 to $16,000 to help overcome the deposit gap. Others may wish to use part of the assistance to meet establishment costs and the balance to reduce repayments in the early years. I am also aware that some of my State colleagues are considering additional assistance to very low income earners which will further stimulate the home building industry in their States. The existing Home Deposit Assistance Scheme will be terminated from the date of commencement of the new First Home Owners Assistance Scheme. However, those purchasing prior to this date will continue to be able to apply for assistance under the Home Deposit Assistance Scheme. Estimated total outlays on the Home Deposit Assistance Scheme and the new First Home Owners Assistance Scheme will be $120m in 1983-84, increasing to $165m in 1984-85. As the Treasurer has announced, consistent with our policy of directing scarce government resources to the more needy, we will be terminating from 30 June 1983 the general tax rebate introduced last August by the Fraser Government. However, the government has decided to retain the March 1982 Home Loan Interest Tax Rebate Scheme for lower income home buyers currently receiving assistance. There will be no new entrants to that scheme after 30 September 1983 but those people currently receiving benefits and satisfying the income tests will continue to receive the benefits. This provision will also apply to people in the first five years of home ownership who were not previously aware of their entitlement in the confusion of the Fraser Government schemes. These measures will ensure that the low to moderate income first home buyer who entered home ownership at a time of high interest rates will continue to receive assistance for the first five years of home ownership. I turn now to the subject of housing finance. A crucial element in the successful implementation of our housing package is an adequate supply of housing funds at affordable interest rates. During our consultations with the financial institutions we received assurances from the banks and building societies that they will be able to increase significantly their lending in 1983 -84. If we are to stimulate demand from low to moderate income earners and achieve the desirable social object of home ownership then adequate finance must be available at affordable rates. The Government is determined to ensure that sufficient funds are available to meet our target rate of 130,000 to 135,000 commencements. The Treasurer and I are developing measures, in consultation with the financial institutions, to increase the availability of funds from both the traditional and non-traditional lenders of housing finance. As part of this process we will be giving consideration to a number of options including the proposed Australian housing bonds, the possible development of a secondary mortgage market and some innovative approaches to housing finance. In summary, we have cut away the confusing, ineffective jumble of schemes put in place by the Fraser Government. We have replaced them with one simple scheme offering the low to moderate income home buyer effective direct assistance at the time it is needed most. Home buyers can choose the mix of deposit assistance and interest subsidy that best meets their needs and the housing market in their areas. But we have also protected the benefits currently going to lower income earners under the first home buyer tax rebate. In doing this, we have developed our programs in close consultation with the housing industry, housing finance institutions and housing consumer representatives before announcing them here tonight. This stands in stark contrast to the Fraser Government's approach of announcing its programs then summoning the industry and demanding their support. It called that consultation. We do not. Ours is real dialogue. Any assessment of this package of measures outlined tonight leads to the conclusion that they will be of major assistance first, to low to moderate income first home buyers; secondly, to the public housing sector; thirdly, to the housing industry, particularly in terms of stimulating new dwelling commencements and thus employment; and last but not least, to sustained economic recovery. I commend these policies and this statement to the House and to the Australian people. I present the following paper: Housing-Ministerial statement, 19 May 1983. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(9.54) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. By introducing this Bill the Government is honouring an undertaking given during the recent election campaign to review the provisions of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme. The changes to the scheme contained in the Bill were foreshadowed by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his statement of 28 March. The Bill provides for three changes in the scheme. The first change relates to commutation. In future, a retiring member will be permitted to convert no more than one-half of his or her retiring allowance to a lump sum benefit. This contrasts with the present arrangements under which a retiring member may convert the whole of the retiring allowance to a lump sum. The Government believes commutation of the whole retiring allowance conflicts with the basic purpose of the scheme which is to ensure income maintenance in retirement. Of course, members who elect to commute in future will be affected by the changes to the income tax arrangements announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) earlier tonight. The second change relates to spouse's benefits. Under the law as it stands, commutation of the member's retiring allowance does not affect the amount of the annuity payable to the surviving spouse because the spouse's annuity is calculated as if the former member had not commuted his or her retiring allowance. The Government considers that it is more appropriate to relate the spouse's annuity to the member's residual pension and not the pension that would have been payable had the member not commuted. Consequently, the Bill provides that, for members retiring after the date on which the amendments come into operation, the surviving spouse will receive five-sixths of the residual retiring allowance that would have been payable to the former member. Special provisions have been included in the Bill to ensure that the spouse of a member who commuted under the existing provisions will not be disadvantaged by the new arrangements. The third change contained in the Bill will impose restrictions on the payment of a parliamentary retiring allowance or annuity to a person who is in receipt of a salary as the holder of an office of profit under the Crown or a pension arising from the holding of such an office. Where the former member or the spouse of a former member receives such a salary or pension, the parliamentary retiring allowance or annuity will be reduced by the lesser of the amount of that salary or pension, or one-half of the parliamentary retiring allowance or annuity disregarding any commutation. For the purpose of this provision, former members and their spouses will be required to give notice of taking up an office of profit under the Crown and provide information about any salary or pension they derive from such an office. The restrictions will only apply to a member who retires from the Parliament after the date on which these amendments come into force, and the spouse of such a member. The existing provisions will continue to apply to those members who have already retired from the Parliament and the spouses of such members. The Australian Government Actuary has advised that he expects the net effect of these three changes will be a reduction in the overall cost of the scheme. The Bill also contains a number of consequential and other technical amendments. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(9.59) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill, as outlined earlier tonight by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his economic statement, is the initial step in giving effect to our election commitment to take immediate action to create worthwhile employment opportunities, especially for the record number of Australians now unemployed. The Bill establishes the Community Employment Program with the intention of generating a level of activity in 1983-84 consistent with our objective to provide in a full year, through this program, up to 70,000 full time jobs for an average duration of six months. In particular, the Community Employment Program will be aimed at those most disadvantaged among the ranks of the unemployed who will be least likely to be assisted by employment growth generated by the general economic recovery which will result from this Government's policies. The Treasurer's economic statement made very clear that Australia's current economic problems are without recent precedent and that the seriousness of the economic situation imposes very real constraints on the Government. Notwithstanding these difficulties, we were elected with a commitment to create jobs and we are determined to fulfil that commitment. The need for such action is desirable at a time when Australia has the worst unemployment since the Great Depression. Seven years of the policies of the previous Government have led to an increase in unemployment of almost half a million with the rate of unemployment in April standing at 10.2 per cent or almost three quarters of a million people. Over this period the average duration of unemployment has risen from around three months to more than seven months at the current time. The social and economic consequences of this explosion in unemployment have been immense and need no elaboration to any concerned member of this House. These consequences, however, were virtually ignored by the previous Government. The Fraser Government was elected on a promise to provide jobs for all those wanting work. After more than seven years its abysmal failure to fulfil this promise is painfully evident. As the dimensions of its failure become more apparent, the Fraser Government steadfastly refused to accept responsibility for the jobs crisis, but instead sought to shift the blame. Its two most popular scapegoats were wages growth and the international recession. This Government recognises the crucial importance of wage restraint in current economic circumstances, but it is the responsibility of the national Government to provide the environment and the leadership to attain appropriate wage outcomes, as this Government has done. The Fraser Government failed utterly in this regard . The Hawke Government recognises the difficulties posed for domestic economic management by current international circumstances, but it is the responsibility of the national Government to meet the international challenge head-on, to implement domestic policies which will foster growth in activity and employment, notwithstanding adverse external influences. We are adopting positive policies to overcome the legacies left by the previous Government. Part of these policies is our commitment to job creation measures directly aimed at increasing employment opportunities in both the public and private sectors of the economy. Such policies were steadfastly rejected particularly in regard to the public sector by those occupying the other side of the House except for the one-year program to sugar coat the wage pause. But the need and justification for such policies in the current circumstances cannot be disputed. Most Western governments operate specific employment creation schemes as an integral ingredient of policies to reduce or contain unemployment. Even such a conservative government as the Thatcher Government in the United Kingdom has seen the need to operate specific job programs. Similarly in Australia political conservatives have at times recognised the value and impact of such programs, as is illustrated by the following quotation: In summary I would like to emphasise that by remaining aloof and closing our eyes to job creation schemes, Australia is at variance with accepted practice in most other Western countries. Certainly overseas experience appears to indicate that such programs are worth while. Further more their merit is even more underlined by the likely continuation of high levels of unemployment in Australia. Most likely there is room for some mixture of private sector wage subsidy schemes and public sector project employment. It would seem that detailed planning, a slow build-up and a large measure of local involvement would ensure a good chance of successful implementation. This ringing endorsement of job creation programs came from none other than the Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, in a letter to the former Prime Minister in June last year. Certainly this Government agrees with the Queensland Premier on this issue. Our commitment to job generation has also been endorsed strongly by all groups at the recent National Economic Summit Conference. This Government will adopt a two-fold approach to directly assisting the unemployed through action, first to create jobs and second to provide the unemployed with the training needed to fill the jobs which will be created through a sustained economic recovery. The Community Employment Program, along with our housing package outlined earlier tonight are first steps in the process . This program will involve the Commonwealth Government in constructive partnership with the States, local government and community groups to provide worthwhile and productive jobs in both the public and private sector, on projects of social and economic benefit to the community, for those unemployed Australians hardest hit by the recession in the labour market. It should be painfully evident to honourable members that there is a vast amount of such worthwhile and productive work, of social and economic benefit, which needs to be done in Australia at the State, local and community levels and that there are record numbers of unemployed Australians, men and women, who can, and want to, do that work. Our program will provide the framework and financing to bring forward from all areas within the community projects which will provide such work. As I have already said, our objective is to generate a level of activity under this program in 1983-84 consistent with supporting in a full year up to 70,000 full time jobs for an average duration of six months. Up to twice the number of jobs can be expected to be created indirectly by the increased demand for goods and services and the higher incomes resulting from implementing the program. As a basis for achieving this objective, the Commonwealth Government intends to allocate $300m to the Community Employment Program in 1983-84. Of that amount $ 50m will be set aside for job creation programs through Commonwealth departments and authorities. The remainder, including the Jobs on Local Roads initiative, under which it is proposed to allocate $70m to enable local governments to construct and maintain local roads, will be allocated to projects sponsored by State and local governments and community organisations. A sum of $20m of this amount will be for project activity involving water supply improvement programs in country towns. In addition to the allocation to the Community Employment Program the Government will continue to meet commitments under the wage pause program set up by the previous Government. This will add a further $100m to job creation measures in 1983-84. Despite reservations about the adequacy of this program in fully meeting our job creation objectives, it is our view that pre-existing agreements under this wage pause program should be honoured. Consistent with our election commitment, the Commonwealth under the Community Employment Program will provide the bulk of funds to worthwhile projects to pay for wages and other costs. The Commonwealth will, however, be seeking on a State basis, a contribution of 30 per cent of total costs from project sponsors. This will allow all sectors to make a contribution towards overcoming our employment legacy and will mean the creation of a greater number of jobs. The Commonwealth, though, will remain flexible on this matter. We will be prepared to accept greater contributions towards meeting up to 49 per cent of the cost of projects where such funds are available. On the other hand, we will be prepared to provide up to full funding where a desirable project is in danger of not being able to proceed without such Commonwealth funding. Funds appropriated under this program will be allocated among the States and Territories on the basis of population, with the exception of funds allocated to Commonwealth departments and authorities and 40 per cent of the funds allocated to road programs. This 40 per cent portion of road funds will be distributed on the basis of a formula under the Commonwealth Roads Grants Act. Apart from this allocation, priority will be given when approving projects to areas experiencing especially severe unemployment problems. The Commonwealth will direct and oversight the program, through the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations but the States and the Northern Territory will be responsible for the administration of the program within their boundaries, although not of course for those projects conducted by Commonwealth departments and instrumentalities. I will be having early discussions with the States to reach agreement on these administrative arrangements so that the program can be implemented from July 1983. I am confident that the States will approach these discussions with the urgency and commitment to help the unemployed which this Government has demonstrated by initiating this program. Committees comprising Commonwealth and State officials, local government, community organisations and interested groups will be established in each State and Territory to consider projects for approval. They will consult widely in the community as to what type of projects are needed and they will give assistance where necessary, to interested groups in developing projects. Final project approval will remain with me or my nominee. To be eligible for approval projects would have to conform to the following guidelines: Projects must be labour intensive, offering work for at least three months and a maximum of one year in the first instance at appropriate minimum award rates; projects must involve high Australian content, non-Australian content would be limited to 20 per cent of all projects in a State or Territory; projects will need to involve activities leading to productive output and permanent jobs, or provide services of permanent public and community value; projects will have to provide worthwhile work experience and/or training opportunities to enable participants to enter the normal work force; and projects must also be additional to those planned and would not otherwise have been funded under normal budgetary conditions. Those eligible for participation must be Commonwealth Employment Service registrants who have been out of work for at least three months, with priority then being given to those who have been unemployed for at least nine months, those who have never worked-particularly the very disadvantaged of the labour market, such as Aborigines-and those for other reasons in need of immediate employment. Equal access should be provided for females under the program, which in some instances may necessitate special measures to ensure that women receive an equal share of the jobs created. Finally, vacancies for projects funded under the program must be lodged with the Commonwealth Employment Service. To ensure that the program makes the most efficient use of resources to meet our objectives, there will, after an initial period of operation, be a joint Commonwealth and State evaluation conducted by the Bureau of Labour Market Research in conjunction with the States concerned. These guidelines will be the basis of a more effective and equitable job creation package than that provided by the wage pause program. Like the wage pause program, the Community Employment Program will contain provision for equal access to work by men and women alike and ensure that Aboriginal Australians and other particularly disadvantaged groups are catered for. However, the Community Employment Program, through its giving of priority to those out of work for long periods, and its insistence on adherence to the guidelines, in contrast to what has been happening under the wage pause program, will be more tightly targeted to those most disadvantaged in the labour market. In addition, the program's administration will be streamlined and more effective and greater provision will be made for direct involvement of local government and community groups. The Community Employment Program does not represent the end of our job creation activities. Our election program forshadowed the introduction of a Private Sector Assistance Program to provide training and employment opportunities in the private sector. We intend to proceed with this program during 1983-84. As part of the process of introduction of the scheme we will be conducting a broad review of all existing training and assistance programs to ensure that they fully meet the Hawke Government's objectives in this area. The overall result will be, however, a substantial increase in the Government's commitments to employment and training activities. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has already indicated, total expenditure in 1983-84 in this area will be $733m-an increase of 110 per cent on the funds provided on these crucial programs during 1982-83. This figure is clear evidence of the Governments' commitment to provide greater job opportunities for all Australians. The Community Employment Program is the first step towards fulfilling that commitment. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Steele Hall) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(10.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill to amend the income tax law will give effect to some of the taxation proposals announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) tonight. The Government's reasons for making those and other changes are set out in the statement and it seems unnecessary for me to go over the same ground again in this introductory speech. The measures included in the Bill affect taxpayers in the 1982-83 year and, for administrative reasons, need to be given immediate legislative effect. A further Bill covering the balance of the taxation initiatives announced tonight will be introduced in the Budget sittings. Among concessions being terminated by this Bill are the two year write-off for the cost of converting oil-fired plant to an alternative energy source and the 40 per cent conversion allowance for the cost of non-oil-fired plant installed to replace oil-fired plant. As indicated in tonight's statement, neither of these deductions will be available where the expenditure is incurred under contracts entered into after today or the conversion work is commenced after today. The special 100 per cent depreciation allowance for petroleum fuel storage facilities will also cease in respect of facilities acquired under a contract entered into after today and facilities that the taxpayer starts to construct after today. In a case where fuel storage facilities continue to qualify for the special write-off, an additional eligibility requirement will be that they be in use for the purpose of producing assessable income or installed ready for use for that purpose before 1 July 1984. Amendments proposed by the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1983 that is already before the House will give effect to certain concessions for primary producers announced by the previous Government. By that Bill the special rate of depreciation on a range of primary production plant, including structural improvements for the storage of grain, hay or fodder, is to be increased from 20 per cent to 33 1/3 per cent, broadly with effect from 19 July 1982. As announced earlier this evening, this overgenerous 33 1/3 per cent rate is to be discontinued and the 20 per cent rate reinstated. The 20 per cent rate will, however, apply only to eligible plant and improvements acquired under a contract entered into after today or which the taxpayer commenced to construct after today. To clear the way for implementation of the Government's Medicare policy, the rebate for basic health insurance contributions is by this Bill to be discontinued in respect of premiums paid to secure cover after 30 June 1983. The Bill also makes provision, as part of an overall package of measures to apply in the housing area, for the termination from 30 June 1983 of the income tax rebate introduced by the former Government in last year's Budget. That rebate, which applied to the portion of interest payments that exceeded 10 per cent per annum on loans of up to $60,000, was quite inequitable in the way it directed assistance away from those most in need. The earlier-that is, the March 1982- home loan interest rebate will, of course, remain in the law and legislation to modify it as proposed by the Treasurer this evening will be introduced in the Budget sittings. As regards interest withholding tax, this Bill also gives effect to the proposal to withdraw the general exemptions from withholding tax in respect of interest on the overseas borrowings of so-called 'Australian entities' and the Australian Industry Development Corporation. The exemption now available in respect of interest on overseas borrowings of Australian resident companies by way of widely distributed bearer debentures issued overseas will not be disturbed and, as I will explain later, new provisions will maintain exemptions for government and government authority borrowings affected by the withdrawal of existing exemptions. Withdrawal of the two exemptions will apply to interest on loans raised in pursuance of contractural obligations entered into after today. Interest on existing loans will not be affected. In addition, interest on any loans which are raised in pursuance of contractural obligations entered into after today, and which meet the requirements of the existing law, may continue to be exempt, but only where the interest is paid on or before the date on which the legislation is enacted and is attributable to that interim period. Exemption of interest on the overseas borrowings of the States, and of Commonwealth and State authorities, which are raised in pursuance of contractural obligations entered into after today will be maintained by the new provision. Exemption from withholding tax for interest on external Commonwealth loans at present operates where there is a determination by the Treasurer that exemption should apply in relation to the loan. The Bill provides for this procedure to apply also to borrowings of the States, and of Commonwealth and State authorities. The Bill provides, however, that a certificate will not be given if the funds from a particular borrowing will be used by an authority in direct competition with private sector enterprises. A memorandum explaining the technical features of the Bill will be made available to the House and I think that I need to say no more at this stage about the details. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(10.19) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. There was general agreement at the National Economic Summit that an Economic Planning Advisory Council-known as EPAC-should be established to continue the process of co-operation and consultation begun at the Summit Conference. The purpose of this Bill is to put this commitment to co-operation and consultation into effect. Through EPAC the Government will have available to it, on a continuing basis, independent advice from State Governments, industry, unions and community groups which will be invaluable to the process of economic policy formulation. However, this information flow will not be just one way. The public release of a large volume of Government information prior to the National Economic Summit is evidence of the fact that the Government is firmly committed to knowledge sharing. The Government is convinced that such knowledge sharing plays an integral part in establishing a common perception among various community groups regarding the causes of, and possible solutions to, Australia's economic difficulties. The Bill before the House defines the functions of the Council and invests it with sufficiently wide powers to enable it to execute its functions. Provisions are made for the Council to express its views freely and to have its own independent secretariat. It is important that EPAC be constituted as a statutory body in order to provide the Council with the status, permanence and stability it needs to do its job effectively. It is also important to ensure that EPAC is as independent as possible of any department of government, and statutory status is necessary to achieve this. The functions of the Council are defined in clause 6 of the Bill. In essence, the Council's role will be to act as a vehicle for community participation in the development of Government economic policy. In particular, it is intended that the Council will: Draw together the views of community representatives on prospective economic conditions and appropriate economic policies; indentify feasible and desirable goals and targets for the economy as a whole; provide perspectives on the medium and longer term economic outlook; and develop policies to help realise the maximum growth potentialities of the economy and assist in the achievement of sustained economic growth. These functions will allow the Council a very wide charter. In addition to acting as a vehicle for knowledge sharing and policy consultation, EPAC will enlarge our knowledge base. In part, this will be through its basic research activities, which will be directed at fundamental problems facing the economy. As well, it is intended that EPAC will, after it has found its feet, undertake what we have called indicative planning, that is, it will advise on feasible and desirable economic goals and on policies to realise the economy's maximum growth potentialities. The Government considers that it is of considerable value for the nation to try to assess the longer term trends and to seek to influence those trends in a desirable direction. The Council will have seventeen members, including three Commonwealth Ministers and three State Government representatives. For this purpose the Northern Territory will be treated on similar terms as the State Governments. In addition, one member will be selected in consultation with local government organisations, three in consultation with business, one in consultation with rural industry, four in consultation with trade unions, one in consultation with welfare organisations, and one in consultation with consumer and community groups. The State Government representatives will be nominated by their respective governments. The representation of the States will be arranged on a rotating basis, with rotations every two years. For non-government members, it is the Government's intention that they will, after an initial phasing-in arrangement, serve for four years. The latter will be appointed by the Government after consultation with relevant organisations as set out in the Bill. Non-government members will be selected on the basis of those who are best able to contribute to the work of the Council rather than as nominees of organisations. To discharge its important functions, the Council is to be provided with appropriate powers, listed in clauses 7, 8 and 19 and 22 to 24 of the Bill. The Council will be able to conduct inquiries and collect information on any aspect of its functions. Clause 7 contains provisions in regard to the publishing of reports. While the clause provides that the minister may refrain from publishing a report or may publish a report with deletions if he considers that to do so is necessary to protect the public interest, it is the Government's intention that this power be exercised only if there are overwhelming reasons in the national interest for so doing. The Government remains committed to knowledge sharing with all members of the community. The Council will be able to consult widely with Commonwealth and State bodies and with commercial, industrial, consumer, welfare and other organisations. The Council will have powers to engage consultants to conduct studies for it and to arrange with the Commonwealth and State authorities for officers of those authorities to be available to assist the Council. The Council will also be able to form committees of Council members and others, who will conduct investigations on behalf of the Council and will report their findings and recommendations to the Council. These powers should enable the Council to meet its responsibilities adequately. The legislation gives the Council the necessary degree of independence so that its advice can be provided to Government freely and without unwarranted influence. Clause 6 of the Bill provides that the Council, in deciding which matters it should consider, shall consult with, but shall not be bound by the views of, the Commonwealth Government. The Bill also provides that the Commonwealth members will not vote when the Council is deciding on the advice to be given to the Commonwealth Government in a policy report. These provisions will make sure that EPAC's advice is truly at arms length from government. Provision is also made for the recording of minority opinions although it is the Government's expectation that, as far as possible the Council will endeavour to find a consensus in its opinions. Another important area where independence is ensured is in the staffing of EPAC . It is intended that EPAC will be served by professional staff in an independent secretariat. The staffing requirements will be a matter for negotiation with the Council when it has been established. The staff are to be employed under the Public Service Act, but clause 22 of the Bill provides specifically that staff members shall perform their functions and duties in accordance with the directions of the Council. The budgetary costs associated with the establishment and running of EPAC, which will mainly reflect the costs of staffing and maintainng the secretariat, will be met in full by the Commonwealth Government. The foregoing represent the more important purposes of the Bill. There are, in addition, the usual provisions of a Bill of this nature concerning the appointment, terms of office, payment of expenses of Council members, and acting members and related matters. The Council will meet as necessary to perform its functions. A Council member will be required to disclose any interest he may have in any matter under consideration by the Council where such an interest would conflict with the proper performance of his functions. Unless the Council determines otherwise, such an interest will debar the Council member involved from taking part in any decision on the matter in question and from being present at any discussions on that matter. I would like to thank the members of the representative working party that was set up following the National Economic Summit for their assistance in mapping out the most appropriate form for EPAC. It is by efforts such as this that the spirit of consultation and co-operation established by the National Economic Summit will be maintained. The Government believes that there is an overwhelming case for establishing an effective economic policy advisory body in Australia as an independent and permanent statutory authority. Nothing less will properly safeguard the status, permanence and stability of EPAC. This Bill provides the necessary safeguards. I commend the bill to the house. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Petrol Pricing-Drought Assistance-Proposed Senior Citizens Centre, Willetton-Job Creation Programs-Economic Statement-Fraser Government-'Youth Work' Employment Program-Chilean Refugees Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(10.29) —In my electorate of Petrie there are 73 service stations. These include lessees or licensees of major oil companies, owner dealers and commission agents. They all have one thing in common. Their lives are controlled by the major oil companies. I received a delegation of these men at my electorate office last week and the story they had to tell me was absolutely astonishing. They, of course, are the people the public blame for the price of petrol. The public does not generally realise the power that the multinational oil companies have over the people who put petrol into their cars. The first problem of the petrol retailers in my electorate concerns the price at which petrol companies sell their petrol to distributors. Just to take a notional case of what might be and what undoubtedly has been happening at some time or other, let us say the petrol company was selling petrol to retailers at 39.9c per litre. This would be the maximum wholesale price set by the Petrol Products Pricing Authority. Retailers might, in those circumstances, have wanted to sell at 42.9c per litre in order to give themselves a margin to pay costs. However, because of circumstances in the industry at the time, the sale price to the public might have been 37.9c per litre. That would mean, of course, if that were the end of the story, that when the retailers sold their petrol to the public they would sell at a loss. This is because when there is a petrol price war the major oil companies do not tend to lower their wholesale price. Instead, they pay a subsidy to the retailers. In the hypothetical case we are considering, the oil companies might subsequently reimburse service station proprietors 4c a litre. This means that in the long run the petrol retailers make a profit from the sale of their petrol . However, it is less than they would have got in an open market situation. Moreover, they have lost their cash flow and they are out of pocket for the time being. This obviously leaves a great deal of scope for manipulation by the petrol companies. They have the petrol retailers in their power by virtue of the subsidies which they pay, so petrol retailers are not in fact free to engage in healthy competition to provide a service to the public. They are forever looking over their shoulders at the policies of the major oil suppliers who control them . A further difficulty arises from the fact that the price at which the major oil companies choose to sell their petrol to retailers is subject to variation by petrol companies. There are instances in my electorate where the same major oil supplier sells petrol at different prices to different retailers whose service stations are situated very close to one another. This power is used to compel service stations to go into self-service. Obviously then the major oil suppliers have tremendous power over ordinary service station proprietors. For example, I have been told of one case of a service station proprietor who did not wish to go into self-service but, rather, wished to continue a full service operation, partly in order to help subsidise the job of one of his employees engaged in pumping petrol. He intended to charge an extra one cent for the full service, a service which motorists were able to choose whether they wanted. The petrol company, however, insisted that if he charged an extra one cent for the full service he would have to lose one cent of the rebate. This, of course, meant that he would be providing full service at no profit whatever. Even those proponents of the free enterprise system sitting opposite would have to agree that this is not exactly an open market situation. Surely, if there were members of the public who were prepared to pay an extra one cent per litre for the benefits of the full service they should have been allowed to do so. However, in this case the oil suppliers would not allow them that choice, a choice which, incidentally, would have kept a man in a job. There is another dimension yet of the plight of service station proprietors in my electorate and elsewhere. There are people in the trade called jobbers. These are people who buy petrol from the major oil suppliers and sell it inter alia to service stations. However, these people are the tools of a particularly invidious form of competition between the major oil suppliers. The major oil companies sell fuel to these jobbers at a price less than that at which they sell to ordinary service station operations. However, they sell fuel to the jobbers on the understanding that the jobbers will not sell it to the leased sites of the oil company selling them the oil. In other words, oil company A sells fuel to jobbers with an agreement that they will not sell fuel to sites leased from oil company A. So the jobbers are expected to go out, having bought petrol from a particular petrol company, to try to sell this petrol to the leased sites of other major oil suppliers. However, at the same time, the major oil suppliers make it perfectly clear to their own lessees that if they are caught buying petrol from a jobber rather than from the oil company from which they are leasing, their lease will be terminated. In other words, the dealings of the major oil companies with the jobbers are based on a strange double standard. They are prepared to allow their own petrol to go to sites leased from other major oil companies but they are not prepared to allow the petrol of other companies to go to the leased sites which they themselves have. The only person that takes any risk in this form of competition is the service station proprietor who loses his lease if he gets caught buying petrol from a jobber rather than from his own petrol company. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HICKS(Riverina)(10.34) —I take this opportunity to register my extreme concern at the Government's virtual silence on the drought. It was significant tonight in the mini-Budget announcement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that no assistance measures were mentioned. Despite election promises we have heard nothing substantial from the Government on new drought aid measures or on post- drought assistance. We have had a few limp reassurances like that given recently by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the National Farmers Federation. But assurances are not detailed explanations of election promises to which farmers are entitled. Let us look at the Government's election promises and, in so doing, remember that they were made in February-March at a time when the drought situation throughout the nation was extremely grave. We were promised additional drought aid measures and the utilisation of a range of tax rebates to encourage producers to protect themselves against drought. We have not heard one word about those since the election. The silence demonstrates a gross abrogation of responsibility on the part of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). All he has done is announce that pumpkins and citrus pulp are eligible for the fodder subsidy. The Prime Minister has shown himself to be equally irresponsible . While the Minister was overseas, the Prime Minister, in answer to a question in the House, announced that a review of drought relief arrangements was being undertaken for consideration by the Government. Frankly, that is not good enough . Promises were made without any accompanying details. Australia's primary producers should have been given the details immediately the Government assumed office. They have heard nothing of substance. The Prime Minister, in his rural policy speech, promised that a Labor Government would provide drought measures to ensure that all types of farmers receive equitable treatment. Again, we have heard no more about that. In his prepared address to the National Farmers Federation, the Minister for Primary Industry devoted a massive one paragraph out of a 12-page statement to the subject of drought. All he said was that the Prime Minister had reaffirmed that the Government would continue to provide assistance to drought affected farmers. The Government does not seem to realise that, following recent good falls of rain in eastern Australia, many farmers are urgently asking whether the Commonwealth fodder and interest payment subsidies will be continued after drought declarations are lifted. The previous Government made a firm undertaking to continue the interest payment subsidy for one year beyond the lifting of drought declarations. We made that abundantly clear so that farmers knew where they stood. This Government has said absolutely nothing. The truth is that the Government has not got a clue about what it is doing. Its Ministers are contradicting each other every day. The Minister for Primary Industry has performed some of the greatest contradictions on record with regard to drought aid. He accused the previous Minister of implementing bandaid assistance when the fodder and interest payment subsidies were introduced. He criticised the complexity of the necessary application form. But then he must have realised that he would not win any votes because farmers welcomed the drought initiatives. The National Farmers Federation in its 1982-83 annual report stated that the Commonwealth drought aid measures, together with improvements and extensions to the core measures, comprised the most comprehensive package of drought relief in Australia's history. So Labor went to the election not only supporting the drought measures and undertaking to maintain them but also promising to extend them. Nothing has been said since and farmers have every right to view the Government's promises with utter cynicism and contempt. Tonight's announcement that the Bicentennial Water Resources Program is to be scrapped is the last straw to the man on the land and to those people who are faced with drought. Mr GEAR(Tangney)(10.37) —I rise to urge favourable consideration of a funding application to the Department of Health for assistance to build an autumn or senior citizens centre in Willetton in my electorate of Tangney. The need for this centre to be stage one of a three stage project has been well documented. There will be a significant boost to local employment as a result of the construction. The project has been planned by the Canning City Council which already owns land on Herald Avenue suitable for the entire complex, including well-aged and frail-aged accommodation. The first stage for which funding is now being sought involves a meeting place where aged people still living in their own homes can socialise and enjoy indoor activities. Attached will be a dining room and kitchen. The kitchen will initially serve 100 meals a day within the centre and prepare 200 meals on wheels a day. Indications are that this will very quickly grow to a total of 400 meals a day. The cost of this stage of the project, including site costs and furnishing, is estimated at close to $1.2m. The Council has applied for a Commonwealth grant of $770,000, a State grant of $20,000 and will provide $420,000 itself. The catchment area will be all of the city of Canning south of the Canning River, an area with a present population of 35,000 to 40,000. The area is a mix of older housing and a new housing area experiencing rapid growth. A demographic study conducted by the Council has revealed a high proportion of well-aged people living in their own homes, substantially in the older area. Overall, 12.5 per cent are aged 55 and over. This indicates an immediate population of 4,385 who would benefit from the centre. Population predictions are for a total catchment of over 45,000 by the year 2000, while demographic trends indicate a rising proportion of aged residents. By the year 2000 the proportion of people aged 55 and over is expected to be 16 per cent giving a total population of users of over 6,500. The well- aged people in the existing population will provide the users for stage one of the complex for which funding is now sought. As these people grow older they will add to the demand for specialised aged people's accommodation and especially frail-aged accommodation which will be provided by the subsequent stages of the project. People moving into the planned accommodation will continue to use the stage one autumn centre facilities which will also come to be used by the population of the newer housing area as it ages. I have already commended Canning Council to this House for its concern with facilities for the aged and its foresight in planning them. The current project is another fine example of that. The Council has used demographic research to isolate present needs which in the future will be much more urgent. 'Planning for tomorrow must begin today' has become a trite expression, not least among politicians. But here we are presented with a ready made opportunity to put the maxim into practice. I hope we can face up to the challenge so that future generations will be thankful to us. Unfortunately it seems that an amount of red tape is threatening to engulf the project, along with some unfortunate circumstances. After being acknowledged by the Department in October of last year, it seems the file on the Council's funding application was lost. There were further delays when an officer appointed to examine the proposed site was first taken ill and later transferred . Further hold-ups seem to revolve around the size of the grant applied for, which is more than the normal, although I suggest that the scope and imagination of the project is more than normal, and the inclusion of escalation allowances, which will necessarily be incurred in construction, in the grant cost estimates. As I have explained, the need for this centre has been carefully documented. It forms an element in an overall plan for care of its aged by the City of Canning. It will bring great pleasure to many thousands of elderly people as well as daily hot meals, and ultimately specialised accommodation. The need for the centre will only become more critical if we delay and the costs will escalate. Citizens who have worked throughout their lives contributing to society should be able to expect some facilities for use in their old age, just as we provide facilities for sports people and for youth. Earlier, I mentioned the boost to local employment which this project will provide and I will conclude on that note. Construction would take about eight months, employing more than 150 people on site and another 300 off site on tasks such as prefabrication. Of course, there would also be a substantial spin-off throughout the business community. On completion, the first stage of the project will employ a permanent staff of about eleven. Again, I commend this most worth while and urgently necessary project to the House. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.42) —I have been most impressed by the job creation scheme proposed by the city of Knox, one of the municipalities in my electorate of La Trobe. Knox was quick off the mark in providing a program of work projects with a high labour component which can be funded from the Federal Government's Community Works Job Creation Program. Indications had been given that 75 per cent of the funds would be made available for local government and the Knox Council must be congratulated for producing a scheme with alacrity and which contains a labour component comprising 78 per cent of the total cost of $870,000 . The stated objectives of the Council have been firstly, to complement the objectives of both the Federal and State governments to generate job creation, work experience and training due to high unemployment and the economic downturn; secondly, to use the funds made available as a result of the wage freeze; and, thirdly, to maximise the availability of Federal, State and local government resources to provide employment opportunities for the citizens of Knox. The city of Knox has a high proportion of young people between the ages of 15 and 19 years and over 6,000 people between the ages of 20 and 24 years. It is an area which has been one of the hardest hit by the economic downturn because of its high level of manufacturing industry. Although the unemployment level for the city of Knox is slightly below the Victorian average, there are 3,000 people registered as unemployed. The projects submitted by the Knox Council have taken into account the following factors: Firstly, the availability of personnel from the Commonwealth Employment Service, together with training and employment grants; secondly, guidelines under the State Government employment initiatives program; thirdly, actions which will provide a meaningful contribution for the Knox citizens through services, information, future savings and improved decision making; and fourthly, the objective to maximise manpower resources to gain maximum job opportunities. The Knox submission details 23 projects which have been developed providing 1, 871 man weeks of employment valued at $677,069 within 23 trade, labour or professional fields, or 77.8 per cent of the total cost of $870,694. The intention is to allocate job demands under various positions to provide each person employed with at least six months work and/or job experience and training . The projects are considered suitable for council funds and eligible for financial assistance from the State Government's employment and training schemes . In addition, many could be eligible for financial assistance from the Commonwealth's Community Works Job Creation Program. In the short time I have available I would like to give an indication of the kinds of projects which have been created by the Knox City Council. First of all , there is a playground for disabled children. The aim is to develop a sub- regional playground with the specific needs of disabled people in mind. the playground will provide innovative and challenging experiences for disabled children. The intention is to build this playground at a suitable location in Knox, thereby providing an environment where disabled children and those more fortunate can mix freely. The work that will be provided will be for carpenters and labourers. Another project which has been created is landscaping for the Basin triangle. This project will provide a community focus for the Basin township in the form of landscaped gardens within the Basin triangle. Here again, there will be work for carpenters and for labourers. Another proposal is the Boronia flood mitigation scheme. This is a scheme to upgrade the drainage system in the vicinity of Boronia township to accord with current design criteria. Commercial and multi-unit residential development and additional associated road works have increased the storm water run-off to a point where storms of intensity well below normally accepted design standards cause flooding. In this case, work is provided for professional and civil engineers, project supervisors, survey assistants, concreters, drainers and machine operators. Another scheme is the bicycle path overpass. The aim is to establish an A grade separated crossing at Forest Road which would allow the extension to the cycle way development that presently utilises railway land to the north. Again, this will provide work for carpenters and labourers. The Collier reserve scheme relates to the development of a pleasant park and rest area for travellers through the city of Knox on this important site on the north-west corner of Stud Road and Burwood Highway. This will provide work for a number of labourers. I wish that I had more time to detail the rest of these most creative projects. I commend the Knox Council for its initiatives and I trust that its submission will receive the support of the Federal Government. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(10.47) —I would be failing in my duty as a representative of rural Australia if I did not protest in the strongest possible terms against tonight's economic statement. We are yet to get the August statement which will no doubt hit rural industry even harder. It is interesting to note that rural industry is dealt with on five pages of the statement. Five pages give details of increases in taxation. More print is given to rural industry than any other industry in Australia. In fact, most other industries are not mentioned. This is an indictment of the Labor Government. Mr Cunningham —What a lot of rot. Mr IAN CAMERON —It is not rot. Hawke and Kerin went to the National Farmers Federation conference yesterday and told the farmers of Australia what great fellows they are. But what has happened here tonight? The Government has increased taxes on rural Australia by $1 billion. At Question Time Bob Hawke tried to tell us what a great mate John Kerin is. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa is not entitled to debate tonight's economic statement. Mr IAN CAMERON —Why not? Mr SPEAKER —That matter is before the House for debate and should be referred to only in extended debate. Mr Uren —A point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —I call the Minister for Territories and Local Government on a point of order. Mr Uren —The forms of the House state that certain procedures should be followed . On several occasions the honourable member has referred to people by their surnames instead of by their electorates. Mr SPEAKER —I accept the Minister's gentle rebuke. The honourable member for Maranoa should also refer to members by their electorates. Mr IAN CAMERON —I wish to mention that the tax on superannuation has been increased to 30 per cent. All people work through their lives to save and to have something on which to retire. What do we see? We see that this great Australian Labor Party, which is supposed to support the worker, is to tax him to the tune of 30 per cent-an increase of 25 per cent. Government members interjecting- Mr IAN CAMERON —Listen to them howling! Pensions for over 70 years of age will be means tested. Mr Cunningham —A point of order, Mr Speaker. The honourable member for Maranoa is definitely breaching the Standing Orders by debating the statement tonight. Mr IAN CAMERON —I am not debating the statement; I am just stating facts. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Chair is the judge of whether the honourable member is out of order. There is no point of order. Mr IAN CAMERON —Fuel equalisation will be increased by 0.1 per cent. I would have thought that the Australian Labor Party would be interested in keeping the wholesale price of fuel equal throughout Australia and in encouraging decentralisation. What did we see? We saw an increase in the subsidy to rural Australia. So it will cost more for people to live in inland Australia. It will cost more for people to send their children to school. The price of avgas has gone up. Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Maranoa persists in debating the statement I will order him to take his seat. Mr IAN CAMERON —The price of avgas has gone up by 2c a litre. The subsidy on local aerodromes has been abolished. Telephone charges are going up and annual rents will rise. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Henty. Mr Tuckey —I raise a point of order. Mr Speaker, we are one short on this side tonight. We have had two speakers only. Mr SPEAKER —If honourable members are not in the House when the call is given, they should understand that it is their responsibility to be here. Mrs CHILD(Henty)(10.51) —Since the House has been in session for the past three weeks all we have heard about from the Opposition is the broken promises of a 10 -week-old government. I think it might not be a bad idea if I reminded the House about the long line of promises made and broken during seven successive years of Liberal Government. I could not cover them all in five minutes but I will give honourable members a sample. In 1975 the then Leader of the Liberal Party said: We will maintain present levels of assistance to Aborigines. Mr Tuckey —Are you a school teacher? Mrs CHILD —I ask the honourable member to listen. The cumulative real loss to Aborigines in progressive Liberal Budgets amounts to $416.5m. Involved in these real losses have been: Aboriginal health spending, currently 23 per cent less than in 1975; Aboriginal education funding, down 37 per cent on 1975; Aboriginal housing funds, down an estimated 54 per cent on 1975; and community management and services funds have accumulated a real loss of $185m since 1975. So much for the promise to maintain the levels of assistance to Aborigines. in 1975 the then Leader of the Liberal Party went on to say: We will ensure that where children are in greater need because of educational disadvantage, they will receive extra financial support. Following this promise the disadvantaged schools programs funds actually fell during the seven years of Liberal Government. In 1978 the Liberals announced that an annual rate of inflation of 5 per cent was within our grasp by mid-1979 and that it would go on falling under its policies. By mid-1979 the inflation rate was 10.7 per cent-more than double the rate promised. In 1977 the Liberal Government said that a 2 per cent reduction in interest rates in the next 12 months was a target that could and would be achieved. By the end of 1977 new housing loan mortgages from savings banks were at an interest rate of 9.25 per cent to 10.5 per cent. They fell to 8.75 per cent in mid-1979 but then climbed back to 13.5 per cent in 1981. Nevertheless, successive statements from the Government kept telling us that interest rates would continue to fall. As we know, they did not. They have not and they will not except under this Government . In 1977 Mr Malcolm Fraser, in his elction speech, said: We have reduced taxes-revived incentive and restored fair reward for achievement. Those were very hollow words. The Fraser Government was the highest taxer in Australia's history. It was responsible for increases in health insurance costs, higher home mortgage repayments, record income taxes and higher indirect taxes. Incidentally, without the Senate it would have introduced a whole lot more areas of indirect taxes on a whole new range of goods. In 1975 the Liberal Government said that it would fully index personal income tax for inflation over three years. In 1981 indexation was abandoned altogether. Again, in 1975, the Liberals said: Our reforms will give back to people money they earn by their own hard work. In reality total tax has claimed an increasing proportion of national income from 1975 to 1983. The burden has, as usual, fallen on the pay-as-you-earn taxpayer. In 1977 the Liberals said: Unemployment will fall from February and will keep falling. In 1975 approximately 180,000 people were unemployed. The figure is now well over 700,000. It will be up to the Labor Government to keep faith with the army of unemployed. It is worth noting that 4 per cent of the 15 to 19 year-olds were unemployed in 1974. We now have 20 per cent unemployed in that age group. So much for the promises of the previous Government. Mr Fraser said that Medibank would be retained. It was abolished. Since that promise was made Medibank has become muddlebank. It was refurbished, remodelled, restructured, rehashed and reheated time and time again and always against the community interest. The Australian Assistance Plan, which was abolished, will be reintroduced. The Australian electorate grew tired of promises from the Liberals . The election on 5 March confirmed this. The people elected us because they knew we have the will to try to undo seven years of careless government. They elected us because they know we will concentrate on the two things which are most important to Australia today-economic growth and jobs. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.56) —The newly elected Labor Government likes to present itself to the Australian electorate as having a monopoly over compassion and concern. In regard to the situation of unemployment it has made significant noises at this stage at least about the concept of community based employment programs. I wish to place on record the history and the success of a community based employment program in my electorate with which I was very intimately associated known as Youth Work. A group of us established Youth Work back in 1979 when we perceived there was a very real problem of finding adequate employment and training opportunities in the future for a range of young people, many of whom, for no reasons related to themselves, were obviously going to have difficulties in fitting into the realities of a difficult employment situation. We found in our electorate and elsewhere in Sydney, especially in parts of the western suburbs, that a large number of young people had not received adequate education. Because of this their opportunities, when it came to a competitive situation, were obviously limited. We worked on the principle that the first thing we had to do was give these young people the opportunity to re-establish a sense of self-esteem, of self-value, of achievement, of belonging to the community and of giving through that three-part operation. We had to give those people the opportunity of feeling that they had a contribution to make to society as a whole. We believed that we had to create within the community, firstly, a sense of accepting that there was a problem-I have to say that was not always an easy thing to achieve-and, secondly, that no government of any colour could possibly overcome the fundamental problems of unemployment alone; that it was simply not adequate to say to the Australian people: 'Trust in us and we will do everything for you. You merely have to wait back and take the benefits of our policies'. The fact of the matter is, that as we established the success of this program during those four to five years, and as subsequent events in Australia and overseas have shown, no Federal or State government which is unable to convince the electorate as a whole of the need to work together on these sorts of problems will be able to find adequate answers to them. The program which we established with the full financial support of the Commonwealth Government at the time, known as Youth Work, worked on the principle of giving young unemployed people who had been out of employment for a period of at least six months-they were referred to us principally by the Commonwealth Employment Service officers-the opportunity to enter into a 17-week work training program. The basis of Youth Work worked on the principle that we establish a charitable organisation which was in fact a limited liability company. The young people who joined Youth Work were brought in as part owners and managers of that company. Perhaps that was one of the reasons we were so successful. Since 1979 we have successfully trained about 130 young people. We have a success rate in placing them of over 70 per cent. Mr Uren —One hundred and thirty; what about the other tens of thousands? Mr CONNOLLY —I accept that. The point I am trying to make is this: Programs of that nature, if they were multiplied right across Australia in every community within the Australian work place, based on the principle that governments alone cannot solve the problems of unemployment without the full co-operation of the people, then I believe we will be getting to the crux of the problem. The fact of the matter is that the young people who have gone through this program have been given the opportunity to gain a range of skills. We have managed to get the full support of the private sector in the electorate. It has positions available for the young people. They have been given the opportunity of being in a work place type environment. From that, as I said, the principle objective to rebuild their sense of self-esteem has been achieved. In addition to the specific ongoing work opportunities, we also give the electorate as a whole the opportunity on an individual basis to make a contribution by giving these people work for which they are- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(11.0) —I rise tonight to draw the House's attention to the statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) yesterday in this place in which he referred to the intake of refugees from Central America under the previous Government. In the last year there were only 100 refugees from this region. The Minister was followed by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who stated: 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. On page 667 of Hansard the honourable member is reported as saying: I repeat, where the decision is good it will be approved- He was referring to Mr West's statement- but I caution the Minister in relation to South America. I do not need to say much more on that matter. To me that is an outrageous statement, for a person who claims in this place to be a humanitarian. I consider the statement to be racist in the extreme. On the eleventh of this month a general strike was called in Chile, and one of the most oppressive actions taken by the Chilean military leadership against the people of Chile occurred. There were demonstrations in the streets by school children, women and workers. The military shot dead a 15 year-old boy for daring to stand on the footpath to observe parents and workers marching down the street. The people who took part in the demonstrations committed such great crimes as marching down the streets, banging pots and pans together, honking their car horns and refusing to send their children to school! Red Harrison, in a segment of the AM program of 16 May called 'Dawn Raids in Chile', stated that more than 2,000 men were called from their beds just after 4 o'clock in the morning and taken to a football field for questioning. Warren Duncan, the Australian Broadcasting Commission journalist, reported that at least 120 of those people were in fact arrested. Police also arrested a further 350 people, according to an AAP-AP report. In another protest four lawyers were charged after 200 people demonstrated inside a court house. It is reported in the Press that the 200 people were beaten by the military justice guards. If these people are justice guards, I would hardly think their role is to go around beating up innocent citizens. According to the Santiago newspaper, Mercurio, a 22-year-old man was shot after uniformed police had fired on a group of demonstrators in a working class neighbourhood. The Minister for the Interior stated that because of the strike and demonstrations he would be taking legal action against the trade union leaders of that country. I commend the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for indicating in a statement in this place that he intends to allow more refugees from a place such as Chile into this country. I would like the Minister to instruct our representatives at our embassy in Chile to make the services of that embassy available to people who are being persecuted and to allow them to come to this country as refugees. The honourable member for Denison stands condemned. Once again he has performed badly here this week. I suggest that he has had a very bad week this week, and he probably will have a worse one next week. He stands condemned for his statements in the House yesterday, which were nothing more than racist. Those statements were aimed at a people who are being persecuted by a harsh and cruel government in Chile. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.5 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Young to move- That the sessional order of 4 May 1983 amending standing order 48A, relating to the adjournment of the House, be suspended for this sitting. Mr Wells to move- That this House condemns the tactics employed by the Queensland Government which are designed to lead the public into believing that Medicare will have dire consequences for health services in Queensland. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Wheat Marketing Act 1979, and for related purposes. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 19 May 1983: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals for collection of information-1983- No. 2-New (or expanded) topics to be included in the monthly population survey in June and September 1983. No. 3-Survey of employment and earnings. No. 4-Survey of shareholdings. No. 5-Survey of cash management trusts. Public Service Act-Public Service Board Determination-1983/4.