Tuesday, 24 May 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: 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 Covention 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 of 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 purpose for our nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann,Mr Braithwaite,Mr Cadman,Mr Carlton,Mr Cowan,Mr Free,Mr Groom,Mr Hicks,Mr Barry Jones,Mr Lusher and Mr McGauran. To 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 Cross,Mr Humphreys and Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully shows that your petitioners are gravely concerned at hydro-electric or similar development in the South-West Tasmania World Heritage area. This area has been recognised as of national and world importance and therefore is a National responsibility. Your petitioners therefore humbly call upon the Federal Parliament to ensure all within its power, including the blocking or non-allocation of funds, is done to ensure this area is preserved as wilderness and therefore no road or dam development is allowed. This is a national issue and therefore Tasmanians should not be required to bear severe financial burden if this occurs. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at proposed future hydro-electric developments in South West Tasmania. This area is on the Register of the National Estate and therefore is of national concern. Your petitioners humbly call upon the Federal Parliament not to allocate funds or allow funds to be raised for development of roads or dams in the South West of Tasmania but rather to provide such funds as would enable the preservation of this area. This is a national issue and therefore Tasmanians should not be made to bear any financial burden resulting from its preservation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. 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 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 Fife and Ms McHugh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are gravely concerned at the lack of podiatry service 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 Hunt and Ms McHugh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That citizens of Western Australia view with great alarm the removal of Director of the Office of Child Care and fear for the future of that office and the children's services programme which it administers. We believe the Office of Child Care to be inappropriately placed within the Department of Social Security, where children's services are in competition with welfare services for the aged, disabled, and other such groups. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should take every step as necessary to obtain immediate withdrawal of the Office of Child Care from the Department of Social Security and the establishment of a Children's Commission. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. 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 petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth submits: That off-shore oil exploration within the Great Barrier Reef Region constitutes a serious threat to the richest and most varied living system on earth. Your petitioners request that your Honourable House will: (1) Prohibit oil exploration within the Great Barrier Reef Region, (2) Declare the entire Great Barrier Reef Region a Marine Park under the Federal Government's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, (3) Provide the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority with the staff and resources for effective management of the Region. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members in the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned that the taxes of all Australians will be used to finance a dam that would flood the Lower Gordon and Franklin Rivers in South-West Tasmania. Your petitioners declare that the intrinsic values of this area, and the provision of funds from the taxes of all Australians, for the destruction of this area of the National Estate and of world heritage value, does make this a national issue. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government take all possible steps, including financial and legal steps and fulfil its responsibilities under the Australian Heritage Act to prevent the destruction of this area of the National Estate. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Since the Australian Whaling Protection Act, 1980, provides for the banning of importation into Australia of all whale by-products, and 2. The Prime Minister has stated that he and his Government support the International Banning of Whaling, 3. Then consistent with (1) and (2), this Government should immediately legislate to ban the importation of all marine mammal by-products, including the harp seal of Canada, and 4. Through the Australian delegate in the United Nations General Assembly, the Prime Minister should state his Government's support for an International ban on the slaughter of any marine mammal for commercial reasons. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: Consistent with Legislation on whaling, this Government should ban the importation of marine mammal by-products, and support an international ban on the slaughter of any marine mammal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That sand mining on Moreton Island poses a threat to the natural ecology and environment of the Island. 2. That Moreton Island is included on the Register of the Australian Heritage Commission, and the Federal Government is urged and indeed it must, under the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 take into consideration the protection of the island. 3. That the Queensland Government has given approval to the sand mining of Moreton Island despite the advice of conservationists and despite the opposition of the majority of electors in the Moreton region. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will request the Government to refuse export permits covering mineral sands mined on Moreton Island. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That continued use of animal ingredients in cosmetic products, and the inhumane use of animals in scientific research for cosmetic products is abhorrent and barbaric. That the Industries Assistance Commission, because of the Commission's terms of reference, seems unable to impose any regulation or recommend any regulation which might restrict the activities of cosmetic companies which produce cosmetics in which animal ingredients have been used, or for which animals were subjected to research. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will: Legislate to require comprehensive labelling of perfumes, cosmetics and toilet preparations to indicate: (1) Whether a product contains any animal derivative. If so, the ingredient and source should be indicated. (2) Whether the research and development of that product or any of its ingredients involved experimentation on animals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that Australia Council funding for the Popular Theatre Troupe of Queensland has been entirely cut for 1983. The Popular Theatre Troupe of Queensland has made an important contribution to the cultural and artistic life of the Australian community for the past eight years taking innovative and original theatre to sections of the community who would not normally attend live theatre performances. The Popular Theatre Troupe of Queensland is the only theatre company in Australia which consistently presents theatre of social comment and tours nationally every year. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament will resolve to ask the Australia Council to reverse its decision in respect to the Popular Theatre Troupe of Queensland. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That (a) the export of live animals for slaughter overseas and (b) the shipment of live horses to Japan sentences such animals to cruel and inhumane treatment in the export process and at the hands of foreign importers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to ban the export of live animals for food and allow only carcass trade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) that the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia (UEGA) has suggested sites in the heavily populated region of South-East Queensland for the development of a uranium enrichment plant; (2) that the Commonwealth Government has approved, in principle, UEGA's suggestions, without consultation with the residents of the area; and (3) that UEGA and the Commonwealth Government will conduct feasability studies into the plant, but no confirmation has been made of a study into the safety of the plant. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives condemns the Government for approving, in principle, UEGA's suggestions to establish a uranium enrichment plant in the heavily populated area of South-East Queensland and requires that the Government (1) conducts a poll of all South- East Queensland residents to determine whether they give assent to the plant and (2) conducts a comprehensive and independent study of the safety of the uranium enrichment plant. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That Moreton Island has been listed on the Register of the National Estate because of its exceptional scientific, ecological, heritage and recreational values; and (2) That any sand mining of Moreton Island will result in the destruction of the exceptional scientific, ecological, heritage and recreational values of the Island; and (3) That Moreton Island has been the subject of detailed investigation resulting in the adoption of a Management Plan by the Brisbane City Council the main aims of which are to conserve in its natural state the quality of its scenery and natural environment and to enhance public enjoyment of it for recreation purposes; and (4) That Moreton Island represents the last significant area of wilderness close to Brisbane; and (5) That there is an acute deficiency of National Parks within a 150 kilometre radius of Brisbane; and (6) That Moreton Island contains Aboriginal Relics of immense scientific and cultural importance; and (7) That the Island represents a major potential tourist resource specifically because of its unspoiled natural scenic attractions; and (8) That public opinion actively demonstrated over a number of years clearly indicates that most citizens of Brisbane are strongly opposed to any sand mining on the Island, and desire that the whole of Moreton Island with the exception only of existing Townships, Tourist Resort, Airstrips and Lighthouse Reserve should be declared a National Park. Your Petitioners, therefore, Humbly Pray that the Parliament of Australia will: (a) accept the wishes of the Petitioners and the citizens of Brisbane generally and take whatever action is necessary and available to it to prevent sand mining of any description taking place on Moreton Island; and (b) request the Government of the State of Queensland to take immediate action to declare the whole of Moreton Island to be a National Park with the exception only of existing Townships, Tourist Resort, Airstrips and Lighthouse Reserve. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600. We, your petitioners, humbly showeth: That permitting kangaroos to be commercially exploited when permissible cropping rates are unknown and the means of enforcing controls or protective laws are completely ineffective in this land, is allowing this unique animal to follow the path to rarity or extinction along which all wild animals have gone when subjected to exploitation in similar circumstances. We Australians, have the right to see kangaroos in reasonable numbers on the landscape: we find the commercial slaughter of the kangaroo to be abhorrent and unjustified. Commercialization of wildlife should be stopped, particularly as exemplified by the kangaroo industry. We your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will: 1. Ban the export of products made from kangaroos. 2. Take action to see that State Governments prohibit the commercial killing of kangaroos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That Australia as a sparsely populated continent requires the maintenance of a high quality postal service as a vital means of communication. 2. That the Australian Postal Service truly meets the needs of all Australians. 3. That any proposal that Australia Post's monopoly power to carry letters for reward be diminished will destroy the concept of the national postal service. Your petitioners therefore pray: that the powers of the Postal Commission to carry letters for reward should be strengthened to ensure that the national postal service is retained in the interests of all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Katter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned 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 assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a 'first strike' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important US military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other US bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the railway crossing situated approximately 5 kilometres east of Port Augusta on highway one (the main highway between Adelaide and all northern and western centres of South Australia and continuing through to Western Australia) has once again been the sight of an horrendous accident. This accident has caused two, possibly three fatalities. Previous requests have been made by the city council of Port Augusta for the construction of an overpass, so that this section of the highway no longer presents a danger to the motoring public and those involved in driving trains over this crossing. Permission for construction of this overpass has previously been refused and the situation has now become critical. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reconsider their previous decision and approve construction of an overpass at this fatally dangerous highway crossing to avoid further loss of life. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Mackay respectfully showeth: That the intention of Telecom Australia to close the Mackay Directory Assistance Centre will: downgrade telephone services to Mackay and district. deprive customers of a personalised reliable telephone service. reduce job opportunities in the area. increase the likelihood of the eventual closure of the exchange. We the undersigned believe that Telecom Australia has a social responsibility to provide a sound, reliable, personalised telephone system. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will call on the Government to intervene to stop Telecom's proposed closure of the Mackay Directory Assistance Centre. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite and Mr Cross. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows-your petitioners are concerned that Queensland will not benefit from a decision by the Commonwealth Government to make money available for the Australian Broadcasting Commission to develop programs captioned for the deaf. Your petitioners petition that the large numbers of deaf people resident in Queensland should be included in considerations concerning captioned television and in this regard call on the Government to ensure that the Australian Broadcasting Commission's captioned programs are broadcast in this state as well as in Victoria and New South Wales. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the citizens of the City of Woodville and supported by the citizens of South Australia, being deeply concerned over the threat of closure of the Woodville Plant of General Motors-Holden's, respectfully show: (1) That the management of General Motors-Holdens has failed over a period of more than two (2) years to give any assurances that the Woodville Plant would continue in operation. (2) That a recent statement attributed to the GMH Managing Director, quote:- 'The overall objective of our South Australian rationalisation plan has been to eliminate all productive activities on the Woodville site' end of quote. This statement has not been refuted. (3) That the elimination of the Woodville Plant will cause enormous social dislocation, hardship and misery to the citizens of Woodville and South Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament of Australia will condemn this callous disregard for the citizens of Woodville and South Australia, and do all in its power to force General Motors-Holden's to retain its operations at the Woodville Plant. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. Petitions received. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from the Philippines, led by the Honourable R. M. Sarmiento, Minister of State for Transport and Communications. Also present in the gallery is the Honourable J. J. Harman, M.L.A., Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Western Australia. On behalf of the House I extend to the visitors a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) deplores the Government's decision to tax lump-sum payments from the retirement benefits of Defence servicemen and women, and (2) expresses its admiration and support for all present and past serving members by voting against superannuation provisions affecting service personnel. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House is of the opinion that the words hypocrisy and hypocritical, defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as simulation of virtue or goodness, are not unparliamentary. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern at the decision of Esso Exploration and Production of Australia to remit a dividend of $166m to the Exxon Corporation of the United States of America, in the wake of a decline in profit to 31 December 1982 from $ 187m to $176m, and (2) recognises that profits retained in Australia will do much to hasten economic recovery under this Government. Mr FIFE —I ask the Minister for Housing and Construction whether he will indicate how many mortgage payers will have their effective mortgage interest rates increased by up to 2 per cent as a result of the decision announced last week to scrap the general home mortgage interest tax rebate and the special rebate for some first home buyers? Mr HURFORD —It is, unfortunately, impossible for me to answer that question accurately because the statistics are not available. What I can tell the House is that that particular general rebate referred to by the honourable member, which was introduced in the August Budget, has not been taken advantage of by most pay-as-you-earn wage earners. No adjustment has been made in the pay-as-you -earn scheme. Indeed, any benefits that there will be will still be payable in the coming financial year in the deductions in the amount of benefits that will be available through taxation refunds to taxpayers. So, as the honourable member should have known it will not be possible, until the particular tax returns have been lodged, to say how many there would have been. The package which was introduced last Thursday was such a responsible one that I believe it will have a downward thrust on interest rates. A one per cent reduction in interest rates will have far greater effect for the vast majority of Australians than will any general tax rebate. I turn the question back on all those sitting on Opposition benches, particularly on the front bench of the Opposition, the guilty men who are responsible for the $9.6 billion deficit. What would they have done in any economic package that was coming forth at this time? Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. The Minister can answer without assistance from either side of the House. Mr HURFORD —I turn to the second part of the question, which was in relation to the special rebate. That special rebate will continue for all moderate and lower income earners who have qualified for it and will qualify for it to 30 September . There are hundreds who will qualify for it, because the means test is a generous one. Full advantage will be taken by those who receive up to $470 per week. I am proud of the housing package that was introduced last Thursday. It will devote attention to increasing the number of dwelling commencements from the appallingly low figure of 106,000, to which that group of guilty men have brought it, to a reasonable level which will get the economy moving again. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —I would be grateful if the Minister for Communications would inform me of the activities being undertaken in Australia in 1983 to commemorate World Communications Year. Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for his question. A considerable number of activities have been arranged in Australia this year to commemorate 1983 as World Communications Year. A number of those activities have been accredited by the Department of Communications, which is the lead agency in Australia for the activities this year, as warranting official recognition for World Communications Year. The honourable member asked for an outline of the activities. In March this year the Satellite Users Association of Australia conducted a conference, workshop and exhibition around the theme 'Using New Communications Technology'. In the last half of April, the Australian Telecommunications Commission and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission hosted a series of working parties in Australia for the International Telecommunications Union Study Group. That Study Group was dealing with telephone switching and signalling. During May there were numerous activities- the issue of a World Communications Year commemorative stamp; public broadcasting week, which I had the pleasure of opening in Melbourne; and the announcement of the winners of a letter writing competition which was conducted by the Australian Postal Commission. On 17 May, World Telecommunications Day, there was the announcement of the winning entries in the Australian section of an international art competition for young people entitled 'Youth in the Electronic Age'. I should like to add that in presenting the prizes in that competition I found that the art contributions by the young people of Australia were outstanding. Aussat will be conducting a science contest on the development of experiments in space which might accompany the launching of Australia's telecommunications satellite in 1985. In June, the Australian Amateur Radio Teleprinter Society will conduct a World Communications Year radio telecommunications contest. From June to July the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology will conduct an international conference around the theme 'Tertiary Education in the Age of Communications'. From the middle of June through to the beginning of September, the Australian-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I trust that the Minister can round off his answer fairly quickly and keep it in line with his usual succinct answers. Mr DUFFY —In addition to this list of activities-there are many more, but I shall conclude on this basis-the Department of Communications has been involved in communications projects of significance in the Asia-Pacific region generally and is studying ways in which Australia might become involved in further communications projects of benefit to countries of the South Pacific region. It is also publishing the bi-monthly World Communications Bulletin. Mr ANTHONY —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. He will recall that in this House last Tuesday he was asked whether Mr Richard Farmer was briefed on the David Combe affair on or about 23 April and he refused to answer on the ground that the whole matter was being considered by a royal commission. As the Prime Minister subsequently announced outside this House that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Everingham, had been briefed in April on Mr Combe' s involvement with the expelled Soviet diplomat, Mr Valeriy Ivanov, will he now inform the House: First, whether he or anyone instructed, authorised or employed by him briefed any other person in relation to this matter; and, secondly, specifically, whether following an approach by Mr Farmer's business partner, Mr Bill Butler, a member of the ministerial staff advisory panel, about a possible conflict of interest if Mr Farmer and Mr Butler entered into a business arrangement with Mr Combe, the Prime Minister personally briefed Mr Farmer about Mr Combe's relationship with Ivanov, on or about the weekend of 23 and 24 April? Mr HAWKE —I am pleased to answer the question that has been addressed to me by the right honourable member. The previous Government treated, and this Government is treating, Mr Everingham, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, as equivalent to a State Premier. I simply make the observation that that, I believe, put Mr Everingham in a special category. In respect of the other matter raised by the right honourable member, I simply say this: That question, and any other like it, will be considered by the royal commissioner. I am looking forward to the examination of all these matters. I hope that anything I or the Government has done will be examined in full by the Royal Commission on Security and Intelligence Agencies. I repeat that nothing will be done by the Government to prevent a total examination of anything that I have done or the Government has done. I hope that all members of this House will equally look forward to such an examination. Mr CROSS —I ask the Prime Minister: What is the Government's reaction to the South African bombing raid on the Mozambique capital, Maputo, which followed the bombing of the South African Air Force down-town headquarters in Pretoria by African nationalists? Mr HAWKE —In answering the question addressed to me by the honourable member for Brisbane I begin by expressing the view, which I believe will be shared by all honourable members of this House, that the Australian Government totally opposes the inhuman policy of apartheid which is practised and pursued by the Government of South Africa. This Government looks forward to the day when that system will be totally dismantled so that all citizens of South Africa will have equal rights irrespective of race. This Government is horrified by the loss of lives and the numerous injuries which occurred as a result both of the bombing of the South African Air Force headquarters at Pretoria and the subsequent raids by the South African Air Force on the Mozambique capital, Maputo. The Government condemns unequivocally the indiscriminate use of violence either as a means of seeking to change the political system in South Africa or, equally, as a means of preventing change in that unfortunate country. Nevertheless, I have to say-again I hope this is a view understood and accepted by all members of this House-that this Government understands the frustration that can result in the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa and its resort in that extreme of frustration to actions of an extreme kind. I say to this House and to this nation that as long as the South African Government continues to refuse to negotiate the achievement of a decent, equitable and honourable system which brings about a solution to the problems in that country, unfortunately it is likely that we will see continued resort to acts of violence. The Australian Government considers that the latest attack on Mozambique by the South African Air Force, like earlier attacks on neighbouring countries by the armed forces of South Africa, does nothing at all to resolve the root causes of the problems in South Africa. I conclude by saying that the Australian Government unequivocally condemns the latest use by South Africa of its Air Force to attack a sovereign neighbouring country. Mr PEACOCK —Does the Deputy Prime Minister envisage his Japan-Australia peacekeeping force in Kampuchea operating under the auspices of the United Nations? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think it ought to be noted that I have had a fair bit of publicity on this matter, and that I mentioned that perhaps Japan would be involved. Of course, any peacekeeping force that I or anybody else had in mind would be under the umbrella of the United Nations. As I said the other day, when I discussed this matter with Foreign Minister Sonoda in Japan on 9 July 1981 he welcomed any initiatives by Australia to establish a peacekeeping force. That is the reason that I was anxious to mention that perhaps Japan could give support to the whole concept. I am aware that sections of the Press feel that I am anxious to involve Japan in something which is unconstitutional and which cannot be done. Of course, I could not do that nor would such action be acquiesced in by Japan. I say to the honourable gentleman, who had the benefit of having discussions with Mr Son Sann on the same day as I did, that the initiative from Australia was welcomed by Mr Son Sann. It was in the course of the remarks which I made in Bathurst that I mentioned that the dreadful loss of life in Cambodia, to which Mr Son Sann referred, was due to the fact that no initiative had been taken over a long time to guarantee that the combatants would get to the table and perhaps discuss some settlement factors. I think that Japan could help in that. I think it is also worthy of note, as I mentioned last week, that I am the only Minister who has seen Mr Thach, the Vietnamese Foreign Minister. Mr Peacock —I saw him in New York at the United Nations. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —You saw him outside Vietnam. Mr Peacock —Yes, but I did see him. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Leader of the Opposition was not able to go to Vietnam; that was his difficulty. When I saw Foreign Minister Thach in 1980 he also welcomed any initiative. I think this is very important for the Australian nation. He said that he would withdraw his troops from Cambodia on condition that Pol Pot was disarmed. The Leader of the Opposition would know that at that time his Government-I appreciate that he dissociated himself from that policy- still recognised Pol Pot. Mr Peacock —You recognised him first. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know, but that was in 1975; we are now talking about five years later when there were three million dead as a result of his actions. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable gentleman will answer the question and ignore interjections. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I want to assist in the detail because it is of interest to Australia that there is no further war in the area. It is important that we take initiatives in areas in which we can create peacekeeping operations. I am mindful of the fact that it was suggested that India and other nations might be involved. But the significant point is that nobody has yet taken the initiative. I assure the honourable member that I think the Australian Government will take the initiative and it is about time that it did. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I direct my question to the Minister for Finance. I refer specifically to the decision not to legislate to override an administrative decision by the Commissioner of Taxation to the effect that the retreading of tyres constitutes manufacture and hence the final product may be subject to a sales tax of 20 per cent. Will the effect of this decision be to increase the cost of a retread tyre to a level comparable with that of a fully imported new tyre? Is it a fact that projected revenue will not be realised because imported new tyres will replace the current Australian retread market? Will this not simply represent a transfer of jobs overseas, creating a further loss of employment opportunities in Australia? Mr DAWKINS —It is true that last year the Commissioner of Taxation, as a result of a review of the retreading process, made a ruling that this was a process of manufacture and decided that a sales tax should apply. It is also true that the former Government announced that it would be acting legislatively to override the ruling of the Taxation Commissioner. Of course, that was to join 16 other announced measures which the former Government said it intended to take but had not got around to bringing into the Parliament. In some cases it had not even got around to drafting the legislation. It was one of the matters which confronted the new Government on taking office. When we were apprised of the full details concerning this matter we realised that the former Government had largely misled the people regarding this issue as well as many others during and just before the Federal election campaign. The point is that at the same time as the 20 per cent sales tax will apply there will be a removal of the sales tax relating to the ingredients used for retreading-that is, the sales tax which currently is payable in respect of the rubber will not now be payable. The sales tax payable in respect of the machinery which is used in the manufacture will not now be payable. That will mean that the imposition of the 20 per cent sales tax will have a very small effect on the price of retreaded tyres. There will still be a substantial margin between the cost of a retreaded tyre and the cost of a new tyre. The honourable member raised in his question the price comparability between a retreaded tyre and some imported new tyres. The only new imported tyres, the price of which would come anywhere near the price of retreaded tyres, would be those which are factory rejects and which are not suitable for anything other than off-road use. In that sense those tyres are not comparable with retreaded tyres. I make one other observation: There has been some suggestion that there will be important employment effects as a result of this decision and that those effects will impact particularly on regional areas. When the Government made its decision to abandon the procedure to override the Commissioner's ruling, it was made perfectly clear that the Government would keep under close attention the employment effects of the decision and that, if there were employment effects, which I do not believe will occur but which some people have alleged will occur, then the Government would be prepared to look at the matter again. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is supplementary to the question asked of the Deputy Prime Minister. Why does the Foreign Minister disagree with the Deputy Prime Minister? Mr HAYDEN —I am not quite sure what the Leader of the Opposition has in mind. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade is a devoted Catholic and I am an atheist so that is one ground on which we have some differences. He is largely a teetotaller and I enjoy imbibing, as does the honourable member for Moreton, and tonight I will do so, in good company I expect with him, before dinner. Somehow I have a sneaking suspicion that there is something more substantial to the question than that. All I can say is that I listened to the Deputy Prime Minister with considerable interest. Gauging by the discomfort caused for the Leader of the Opposition at one stage, I thought he handled his reply with entertaining attention. I will be in Hanoi on 1 July. I will be talking with the Government authorities there and Mr Thach, among other people. I guess I will be going to places such as Singapore, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Manila and Jakarta, and then back to Hanoi and back again to these other places. I expect this will be a rather long process. In fact, honourable members will be interested to know that I expect to be spending as much time in those places in the course of my career as Minister for Foreign Affairs as the Leader of the Opposition did, when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs, in Los Angeles and New York. In one sense the challenges for him may have been more stimulating and diverting, but then he is much younger than I am-by a year or two. I do not think I have anything further to add. Mrs DARLING —I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and preface it with a reminder that today women all over a war-weary world are demonstrating their urgent desire for peace and disarmament and an end to nuclear insanity. I ask: What initiatives will his Government take in the attainment of world peace? Mr HAYDEN —I am well aware of the concern of women on this issue and particularly the 13 women who are members of the parliamentary Labor Party caucus. This morning they made clear their genuine and praiseworthy concern on this issue-a concern shared not just by women but by all people in the community. We have in mind a number of issues. Shortly, after further consultation with the Prime Minister, Cabinet and my party colleagues, I expect to make a substantial and considered statement on this subject. Of course, I will attend to a considered attitude about whether we will appoint an ambassador for disarmament and arms control matters. But there are a number of matters on which we have already taken action. We protested to the French about their nuclear testing in the Pacific. Only a week ago in Paris we quite firmly stated our opposition to all forms of nuclear testing by all states in all environments and our commitment to work for an early conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty. We have stated our intention to raise at the next meeting of the South Pacific Forum a proposal for a south-west Pacific nuclear free zone. We have indicated that we will not stand in the way of a consensus to hold an international conference on the Indian Ocean as a zone of peace. We have indicated our determination to maintain the safeguards regime established under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. We intend to establish a peace research and arms control institute and are currently considering the best methods of achieving this. We have embarked upon consultations with the Australian National University for that purpose. The Government also intends to upgrade its capacity for analysis and policy formulation in this highly complex and difficult area within my Department and in other relevant areas of the Government. I note for the record that, on assuming the position of Minister for Foreign Affairs, one of the first sections of my Department that I attended to was that which handles disarmament and nuclear safeguards. I was rather surprised that this key area of responsibility is staffed by two heads of section and seven staff members-scarcely sufficient to carry out the sort of detailed, complex and in many ways legalistically demanding work that is required in that area. There are other areas of disarmament and arms control in which the Government intends to play a much more active and independent role, such as the conclusion of a treaty for the prohibition of chemical warfare. We will publicly recognise that outer space is the coming area of arms competition between the super-powers and that limits must be set. We will announce our support for a ban on attacks on civilian nuclear facilities. We will review our record of signature and ratification of and reservations to existing disarmament treaties. We will support unequivocally moves in the Committee on Disarmament to set up a working group initially to identify issues for negotiation. We will, of course, participate actively on this issue, including at the United Nations General Assembly which will be coming up in a few months time. Honourable members will understand that in the short period in which we have been in government, and the relatively short period that I have been Minister for Foreign Affairs, we have displayed a concern and an industry about this issue which will not be remitted in any way. We intend to take a number of further initiatives additional to those I have outlined. I repeat that in the weeks ahead, after consultation with the Prime Minister, Cabinet and my parliamentary colleagues, I intend to make a substantial considered statement on this broad issue of great national concern. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I want to say that I enjoyed his answer, bearing in mind the debriefing that he gave me of his own recent visit to Paris. To revert to matters of far greater import, the fact is that the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing by his answer today and has proposed a particular peacekeeping force in Kampuchea. Will the Foreign Minister be discussing that type of peacekeeping force referred to by the Deputy Prime Minister in the many travels he has outlined that are ahead of him? Mr HAYDEN —The Paris debriefing to which the Leader of the Opposition referred consisted of my bursting into his office-second only after a visit to the Prime Minister; I have to have my priorities straight if I am to survive in a difficult environment-on Wednesday last week when I returned from overseas. I acknowledged to him, and anyone in his office who cared to listen, that the little black address book he gave me for Paris was listed full of duds. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Minister for Foreign Affairs that this is Question Time and not confession. Mr HAYDEN —I suppose, to take up the point observed by you, Mr Speaker, and my comments about the Leader of the Opposition, that I at least recognise my age and intend to have the title of my Department changed to External Relations. More seriously, the matters which will be discussed are ones which will evolve from contact with the people in Vietnam. One does not go there with preconceived notions, setting down a fairly rigid program. I rule out nothing and at this point I am prepared to include nothing. Mr MOUNTFORD —Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of reports of an alarming drop in apprenticeship intakes this year and a similarly disturbing increase in the number of retrenched apprentices? If such developments are occurring, what measures is the Government taking to overcome them? Mr WILLIS —Yes, I am aware of such reports, and the latest figures available to me show a very disturbing situation indeed. For the year to the end of March 1983 they show a 32 per cent decline in apprenticeship intake on the figures for the previous year. Over the same period the number of apprentices who had been retrenched and remained out of work increased by 50 per cent. These developments of course are of great concern to the Government. I suppose one can understand to some extent the attitude of employers who are faced with difficult times in many cases, with low profitability and declining demand for their goods. Nevertheless, it is extremely regrettable that this situation has developed. I think also that many employers have been rather short-sighted in reducing their apprenticeship intakes or in retrenching apprentices. I believe that they should be looking wherever possible at the longer term, recognising the extreme importance of ensuring that we continue to have training of apprentices in order to maintain a skilled work force so that when economic recovery comes we will have available the requisite number of skilled tradesmen to enable that recovery to continue. The Government, whilst calling on employers to take that longer view, has also seen fit to take some steps in the meantime to encourage employers to take that longer view. I am pleased to inform the House of a number of measures which we have implemented as a first step to overcoming these problems. Firstly, to encourage employers to increase significantly their re-employment of retrenched apprentices I have decided to extend the period of assistance provided under the special assistance program. This program presently provides a weekly wage subsidy of between $63.70 and $86.90 a week for up to 17 weeks to employers who hire out-of-trade apprentices. I have decided to increase the period of assistance from the present 17 weeks to 26 weeks to give greater incentive to take on and retain such apprentices. This will increase the maximum amount of that subsidy from $1,477 to $2,260. We have also agreed to allow employers who are in receipt of special assistance program assistance to receive also payments under the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprenticeship Full-time Training Scheme, which provides rebates to employers who release aprentices to undertake full time institutional training. This measure will result in an additional incentive of around $500 for each out-of-trade apprentice recruited. I have also asked the Public Service Board to allow an increase in staff levels this year in Public Service departments to allow the recruitment of a number of out-of-work private sector apprentices. That is for the year 1982-83; we will certainly be looking at the situation again for 1983-84. In addition, the Government remains committed to supplement apprenticeship intakes by assisting the States to create an extra 2,000 trade based pre-employment course places in tertiary and further education institutions in 1983. These measures indicate the Government's commitment to safeguard the future supply of tradesmen and to ensure that the necessary skills are available when economic recovery begins. I again implore employers to utilise these programs, to realise that the Government is providing every assistance it can provide in this area. I ask them wherever possible to retain their apprentices and to pick up apprentices who have been retrenched by other employers if they have the capacity in any way to do so. Mr MILLAR —Has the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment had occasion to assess the quality of rehabilitation of sand mined areas on Fraser Island? Can he envisage any circumstance which might result in the lifting of the ban on export licences in respect of such mining operations? Mr COHEN —I thank the honourable member for his question. I have not had a chance to have a look at the rehabilitation work in the last few years. However, I was there, I think in 1979 or 1980. Whilst some of that rehabilitation work is quite good, I think it would be fair to say that people in that area who are holding out hopes that one day sand mining will resume and export licences will be permitted are living with false hopes. The simple fact is that the Whitlam Government initiated the Fraser Island inquiry. The Fraser Government decided to stop permits for the export of mineral sands and that policy continued until the new Government came to office. I can assure the honourable member that that policy will continue. I think that, frankly, it would be far better if the people of the Maryborough area forgot about the possibility of mineral sand mining recurring. There are great opportunities for tourism in the whole Fraser Island region. My colleague the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, as did I when the shadow Minister, has constantly reiterated the fact that what is required is a proper plan of management for Fraser Island to encourage tourism and not something that could continue to spoil the ecological balance of the area. In my view and in the Government's view that is how future prosperity for the area will come about . I just wish that people would not continue to talk about sand mining there in view of the fact that two governments now have continued to state quite categorically that there will be no export of mineral sands from that area. I, for the life of me, do not see any government-Liberal, Labor, National Party or whatever-ever changing its mind on that issue. Mr FREE —I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the Minister's frequently expressed commitment to independence for New Caledonia , and in the light of the statement by Mr Lemoine, the French Secretary of State for Overseas Departments and Territories, in Noumea on 20 May, will the Minister inform the House of the Government's view of developments in New Caledonia? Mr HAYDEN —We are pleased that Mr Lemoine, the Secretary of State for Overseas Departments and Territories, was able to make a statement in Noumea on the 20th instant about future prospects in relation to New Caledonia. When I was in Paris recently at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development conference I took the opportunity of staying over to speak with Foreign Minister Cheysson and Secretary of State Lemoine of the French Government. We discussed a range of matters because both governments are affiliates of the Socialist Internationale. We were able to establish a mutually productive rapport even on issues where there were some differences, such as nuclear testing in the south- west Pacific. I appreciate the frankness and productiveness of the exchange which took place. For some time we have expressed a commitment to independence for New Caledonia, determined according to the wishes of the people of New Caledonia. However, we have acknowledged-I certainly acknowledged it privately and publicly in Paris- that the process is fraught with great difficulties. The socialist Mitterand Government of France has inherited a very complex and difficult situation in New Caledonia. First of all, what was once a Melanesian majority in the indigenous population of New Caledonia has, as a consequence of migration policies undertaken from the early to mid-1950s, been reduced to a minority, albeit a large one, of about 43 per cent to 45 per cent of the population of New Caledonia. This, in itself, creates a situation of some tension, when the future of New Caledonia is discussed, in terms of whether it will have an association with France, some form of self-determination, or independence. The area of New Caledonia itself has been badly polarised because of these tensions and differences. In that sense Mr Lemoine's statement was, I believe, a helpful contribution. He has proposed that processes for self-determination will be provided later and that among these processes the socialist Government of France is prepared to entertain all proposals, including that of independence. In the meantime, the Government will push ahead with land reform and the provision of full control by local government over local affairs. In the processes towards self-determination, whatever they might be, itinerants will not be allowed to participate in voting procedures. In the meantime there will be an early round-table meeting in Paris to discuss revision of the Territory's statutes. The socialist Government of France has outlined a number of initiatives which are important. Earlier I mentioned that the French Government has embarked upon a very complex and difficult exercise. Frankly, it has inherited an unfairly difficult situation from previous conservative administrations of France. I believe that nothing better exemplifies this than the fact that, among the Melanesian population, there is only one qualified school teacher, only one officer in the armed services, only one doctor, only one architect, only three engineers, no technicians and no middle class. So the previous conservative administrations of France scarcely made any provision for transition, in order to allow the Melanesians to play a more effective role in the administration of their country . The final point I want to make is that I have consistently said to the Melanesian independence movement representatives that it is our considered view that, whatever processes take place, and whatever the final determination is on the part of the people of New Caledonia as to its future form of administration, it should be achieved with the good will and support of France, that we will not be party to any violence or conflict and that we believe that the Francophone influence in this region of the world has been a valuable one. Mr BURR —I ask the Prime Minister: Did spokesmen for the present Government give an unequivocal undertaking during the election campaign to fund certain public works projects in Tasmania? Did those projects include the Warner Creek Dam, the Craigbourne Dam and the upgrading of the St Helens port facilities? Is it true, as has been reported, that the Government will not now proceed with those projects unless the Tasmanian Government agrees to stop work on the Gordon below Franklin scheme? Will the Government now give a no-strings undertaking to proceed with its election promises for Tasmania? If not, is the Government involved in a blatant form of political blackmail? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think probably the honourable member would withdraw the final statement in his question. Such an assertion would have to be the subject of a substantive motion, not an inference in the House. Mr BURR —I will withdraw the last part of the question. Mr HAWKE —The position of this Government in regard to its assistance to Tasmania generally and its attitude in regard to the dam in particular has been consistent. We said during the election campaign that when this Government came to office it would be unqualifiedly opposed to the continuation of the building of the dam. We said that we understood the attitudes of those who were adopting a contrary position in Tasmania-that is, that they had a concern not for the dam as a dam but because of two things: Firstly, the future power requirements of Tasmania, and, secondly, the employment possibilities of those who were and would otherwise continue to have been engaged on the building of that dam. I regarded those concerns as legitimate then, as I do now. What we said during the campaign is what we are saying now to the Premier of Tasmania. We have undertaken to examine, with the Government of Tasmania, its future needs. The current position clearly is that Tasmania has far more power than it needs and there is no immediate need to start on any alternative power projects. But it is sensible to talk about what its future requirements will be and my Government stands ready to do that. In regard to those people currently employed upon the building of the dam, we have made it clear that we would, in consultation with the Premier of Tasmania, examine other projects-a range of them that I mentioned before the election-as examples of what could be done. We have said that the important thing is that together the Tasmanian Government and ours sit down and work out what particular projects are most likely to provide employment as quickly as possible and in a way which will provide lasting benefits to the people of Tasmania. That was our position in the election campaign. It remains the position of this Government. I say to the House that I am very glad-I am not trying to score any points from this fact-that the Premier of Tasmania is coming here to talk with us later on this week. I welcome the attitude of the Premier of Tasmania in coming here with his officials. We will aim to have constructive talks with him so that, together , we will be able to assist in meeting those legitimate needs, that is, future power requirements and alternative undertakings and projects in Tasmania, without prejudice on our part. We say we will list those projects which look suitable and we will listen to what the Tasmanian Premier has to say. Together we will see what alternative projects we can undertake so that there will be no loss of employment and so that, in the end result, projects undertaken with the assistance of the Government will be economically sane and not involve, as I have said so many times before, the ecological obscenity involved in a continuation of the existing dam project. Mr BLANCHARD —I address my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Will the Minister give an undertaking to honour the commitments of the previous Government to Aboriginals in the fields of sport, recreation and culture which were announced by the former Minister just prior to the election? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. I am not quite cognisant with the extent of the commitments given by my predecessor in the field of culture because that was not particularly an area in which members of the Opposition excelled. In terms of sport and recreation, however, there were quite considerable-- Mr SPEAKER —I ask the Minister to face the House. It is really rather difficult for honourable members to hear. Mr HOLDING —I will speak slowly and clearly. I will spell it out and then honourable members opposite might be able to comprehend. Quite a number of specific promises were made by my predecessor in the field of sport and recreation. Although they did not represent our particular preferences or priorities, they did raise a reasonable level of expectation amongst the Aboriginal communities which were to be the recipients. In all cases I have indicated that those promises will be honoured. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement which was signed on 28 March 1983 and gives formal expression to the Heads of Agreement signed on 14 December 1982. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —Pursuant to section 16 (2) of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973, I present the tenth report of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority dealing with the general administration and working of that Act and the Defence Force Retirement Benefits Act 1948 for the year ended 30 June 1982. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 90 of the Wool Industry Act 1972, I present the Australian Wool Corporation 1981-82 annual report. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 16 of the Chicken Meat Research Act 1969, I present the Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee 1981-82 annual report. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members I present the resolutions of the twelfth meeting of the Australian Fisheries Council held in Hobart on 15 October 1982. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of honourable members I present the Commonwealth Department of Education annual report for 1982. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Pursuant to section 35 of the Student Assistance Act 1973, I present the 1982 report on the operation of the Act. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —Pursuant to section 42 of the National Gallery Act 1975, I present the Australian National Gallery 1981-82 annual report, together with a booklet on the ceremonial opening of the Gallery. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —Pursuant to section 44 of the Australian Film Commission Act 1975, I present the Australian Film Commission 1981-82 annual report. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MACPHEE —I do, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr MACPHEE —The Sandringham-Brighton Advertiser of 4 May published a letter from Mr Bruce Ruxton, the Victorian President of the Returned Services League of Australia. In that letter, Mr Ruxton made one of his periodic attacks upon me with his customary misrepresentation of my words or actions. Mr Ruxton normally confines his attacks on me to his column in that scurrilous journal, the Toorak Times. There, his bigoted and racist ravings are only read by the fascist fringe -- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should proceed to where he has been misrepresented and his rebuttal of those misrepresentations. Mr MACPHEE —As usual, Mr Ruxton's comments were lengthy and contained much colourful language. I will deal, however, only with those passages which caused me particular concern and I will ask the newspaper to publish this statement in full. Mr Ruxton based his comments on a speech which I made to this House on 6 May 1982. On the basis of that speech he asserted, firstly, that I sought to 'remove the Queen from the oath of allegiance and let migrants keep their former nationalities'. I have never advocated the removal of the Queen from the oath or affirmation. Queen Elizabeth is our Head of State and oaths and affirmations of allegiance are made to her as such. The only change I suggested was to reverse the order of the two concepts covered by the oath and affirmation, as the wording then stood. New citizens were required to 'renounce all other allegiances' before pledging loyalty to Australia through our sovereign. Over one million persons in Australia were entitled to become citizens but declined to do so because they thought they were being asked to renounce their entire heritage. After careful study and advice, I suggested that the positive act of pledging loyalty to our sovereign precede a specific renunciation of all other loyalties to countries, but worded so as to make it clear that no one was being asked to reject their cultural heritage. My suggestion was finally adopted by the Government and I expect more eligible people to become citizens now that the emotional barrier has been removed. Secondly, Mr Ruxton asserted that I wanted to: . . . let migrants keep their former nationality-that would be the greatest absurdity ever to come from the mouth of a Minister. Imagine: Migrants would be citizens of this country as well as citizens of their country of origin. What other country on earth would put up with that? A great many countries of the world would put up with that. The United Kingdom is an example. Perhaps the greatest absurdity belongs to Mr Ruxton, especially as I have always advocated the direct opposite of what he alleges. Australia has never sanctioned dual nationality, and I have always been adamant that we should not follow the plentiful examples of European and other countries in that regard . Thirdly, Mr Ruxton also asserted that: a recommendation by Mr Macphee meant that English would be downgraded as the national lauguage and that Australia would become a multi-lingual society. My exact words in that speech were: English is Australia's national language and therefore the essential language of communication in our multicultural society. I have never advocated that English should be downgraded as the national language, and I defy anyone to scan all of my speeches to find any such proposition. English is not only our national language but, thanks to the influence of the United States of America-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is rather lengthening his explanation. He is granted indulgence to say where he has been misrepresented, not to point out the virtues of his attitudes. Mr MACPHEE —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall go on to the fourth misrepresentation . Mr Ruxton stated: It was Mr Macphee who tabled the proposed changes to the Citizenship Act that would affect the life of every Australian and their children and their children' s children forever. He does not say how they would be affected but the implication is certainly gravely detrimental, because the previous paragraph accuses me of: telling 'Old Australians' that they had to change their way of life for a small percentage of leftist migrants who had infiltrated his own Department's 'think tank'. I have never expressed sentiments of that sort, nor has there been any infiltration of leftists into the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs- even under its new Minister, I doubt whether that will be so. I should add that the statement of 6 May upon which Mr Ruxton bases his remarks was a discussion paper on possible changes to the Australian Citizenship Act. The Act had not been overhauled since its enactment in 1949. The statement was largely designed to update the Act and to put to society a number of options. As such, it therefore did not do anything to change the lives of Australians or their children or their children's children. Finally, in that same letter, Mr Ruxton again criticised the personnel of the Immigration Review Panel, which I appointed. I can only say again that each of them has excelled in his or her chosen field and understands Australians and our place in the world. They represent a broad cross-section of opinion. They have done a splendid job for Australia. While not commenting on the individuals to whom Mr Ruxton referred, I would say that the 'Chinese' to whom he referred is one of the most respected ethnic leaders in Australia and is a several generation Australian-and quite probably his antecedents as an Australian are older than those of Mr Ruxton himself. I believe that Mr Ruxton and the newspaper should apologise for that gross misrepresentation. Mr FRY(Fraser) —I seek leave, Mr Speaker, to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr FRY —I do, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr FRY —In the Canberra Times at the weekend Theresa Mannix reported that my colleague the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) had stated that the Defence Signals Directorate had never tapped telephones or intercepted conversations. She then went on to say that I had confirmed that my telephone had been tapped. I have never had such confirmation, unfortunately. Miss Mannix did not consult me about the matter. Had she done so, I would have told her. I have had several allegations that my telephone has been tapped, I have asked for confirmation, but I have never received it. However, the implication of the article was that there was some disagreement between my colleague the Minister for Defence and me . I assure the House that there is no disagreement whatever. The Minister claimed that the Defence Signals Directorate did not indulge in this practice, and I have no reason whatever to believe that it did. I would appreciate it if Miss Mannix would check these matters with me before she makes such interpretations of what I say. In the circumstances, I think that the newspaper should make an apology for that error. Ministerial Statement Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —by leave-The Government has made the following decisions in respect of Medicare. Medicare will commence on 1 February 1984. The payment of medical benefits will be administered by the Health Insurance Commission, which currently runs Medibank Private. Medibank Private will be able to offer the same range of additional private cover as the other private health funds will be offering. This is to cover private treatment in public hospitals, private hospital treatment and ancillary cover for items such as treatment by dentists, physiotherapists and chiropodists. The Department of Health will retain overall responsibility for detection and investigation of doctor fraud and overservicing, using information supplied by Medicare, and overall policy direction. The establishment and running costs of these operational arrangements in the first five months will be $81.2m. Full year recurrent costs will be $66.2m. Medicare is a major social program of this Government. It will ensure basic medical and hospital cover for all Australians and will not leave two million Australians without any health cover, as the current inadequate private insurance system does. The Government has chosen the Health Insurance Commission to run Medicare because it is the only health fund with a nation- wide network of cash payment centres that will provide quick and efficient service to the public. By using the Health Insurance Commission we will avoid the waste and duplication involved in having 70 different private funds making Medicare payments. The Health Insurance Commission has a proven record in health insurance, including the successful implementation of Medibank in 1975. By having one paying agency Medicare can ensure confidentiality of patient records and can provide better controls to prevent fraudulent payments and better information for the detection of medifraud. The Government is concerned at the potential employment consequences of this decision and is adopting several measures to ensure that no current health fund staff are disadvantaged. The Health Insurance Commission has been requested to offer preference in clerical employment to current fund staff. Discussions have already commenced between my Department and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations on the matter of employment preference. We will be discussing the changeover to Medicare with the trade unions involved in the private health insurance industry. I have begun discussions also with the State Health Ministers on their offering employment preference in the clerical areas of the State health systems. These measures, combined with the 20 per cent annual turnover in fund staff, will minimise the net employment effect of Medicare. We welcome the commitment of the private funds to Medicare, as exemplified by their bid to run it. Though it has not been possible to accept their offer we believe that co-operation between the funds and government will ensure an improved, cheaper health insurance cover and will guarantee the interests of their employees. Staff currently employed in direct billing activities within the Department of Health will all be offered continuity of employment in the Health Insurance Commission. There will be no geographical relocation of staff employed in the regional processing centres of the Health Department. I am also aware that there are local health funds in some regions which are significant local employers. I have requested the Health Insurance Commission to enter into discussions with these regional funds to ensure that the service provided to local communities is continued. This is the first step in the restoration of a simple, equitable and cost efficient health plan for all Australians. I present the following paper: Medicare-Ministerial Statement, 24 May 1983. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(3.23) —Two weeks ago in the House, on a matter of public importance, I raised the possibility of the Government making a decision to centralise the processing of health insurance claims under Medicare. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) claimed that I was merely rumour mongering. He heaped opprobrium on me for having had the temerity to raise such a matter. He also criticised me for raising in this House the threat to the employment of some 5,000 people working in the private health insurance funds. Today this Minister and this Government have signed the sack notices for those 5,000 people . Everything I said in this House two weeks ago has come to pass. The Minister has come up with no arguments which deny any of the propositions I put at that time. He suggested that his action in centralising all the activities of paying the medical benefits under Medicare will not have a major disemploying effect, although he admits there will be a disemploying effect. He has given reasons for this mad act of socialist centralisation, which is totally unnecessary. The reasons are wholly spurious. I will go through the reasons in turn. He said that the business had to be given to Medibank and taken away from the people who already do this job perfectly satisfactorily. He said it had to be put with Medibank because it is the only health fund with a nation-wide network of cash payment centres. The fact is that the private funds between them, with Medibank Private, have a much wider network than Medibank can possibly offer. Indeed, the Minister's proposal will require the doubling up of Medibank outlets. So, the private funds already have a better network of cash payment centres for the public. Secondly, the Minister said that the proposal will avoid the waste and duplication of 70 different private funds. This waste and duplication, if it is to be called that, currently provides insurance at a lower management cost than is provided by Medibank Private. I ought to know because I was responsible for running Medibank Private as Minister for Health. Waste and duplication to this Government is what we call competition between private operators. Competition reduces costs; government monopoly increases costs. There is no suggestion at all that this idea of waste and duplication has any merit. The third reason given is that Medibank has a record of successful implementation-of Medibank-in 1975. One ought to listen to and talk to some of the branch managers of Medibank Private and find out how difficult it is for them to build up their business in some areas because of the difficulty which customers had in earlier introductions of systems by Medibank. So, that excuse does not hold any water either. The Minister said that there will be one paying agency. This is nonsense because, under Medicare, instead of people going to the one fund for their basic and supplementary cover, they will have to go to two points. They will have to go to the government fund, which we now know will be an expanded Medibank, for their ordinary and basic insurance and, if they want private hospital cover or choice of doctor in a public hospital, they will have to go to a second stop. There will not be one paying agency. For most people who want to insure for choice of doctor or private hospital there will be two stops. The Minister said this one paying agency would ensure confidentiality, presumably over and above the confidentiality one gets with private funds. Not even the security committee of this Government's Cabinet can ensure confidentiality. Therefore, I wonder how on earth Medibank Private will ensure confidentiality any better than those private operators who have been doing this kind of business for scores of years. He said that there will be better controls to prevent fraudulent payments. What evidence is there of that? Is there any evidence that government-run enterprises are any better at preventing fraudulent payments than private enterprise? I really challenge that. There is no evidence whatsoever. The Minister said that there will be better information for the detection of medifraud. This information can be equally required of the private funds under a contract to do the business as subcontractor which they are perfectly prepared to enter into. A condition of that contract could be that the necessary information is provided to counter medifraud. In admitting that people will have to be sacked under this proposal, the Minister said that steps will be taken to ensure that no current health fund staff will be disadvantaged. That is a physical impossibility. I have seen the submission that Medibank Private made to the Minister after he became Minister-I point out that it was not given to me by Medibank Private. It stated that there will be a substantial net loss of jobs. It is just not possible for the Minister to come into this House and say that no current health fund staff will be disadvantaged when thousands of them, not tens or hundreds, will lose their jobs . They will be sacked. He said that the Health Insurance Commission, that is, Medibank Private, will give preference to employing current health funds' staff. That may well be but the Health Insurance Commission will be recruiting new staff while the funds are still in full operation. I note he said that Medicare will now start on 1 February and not 1 January. One side issue relating to this matter is that the additional cost of $4 a week for insurance, which was announced in the statement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating ) the other night, will continue for another month. In other words, not for a short period but for an extra month-right up to 1 February 1984-under this Government the costs of health care for Australians will rise by $4 a week. This goes against the claim in the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that nine out of 10 Australians would pay less for health care, and against the things that were said at the National Economic Summit Conference, and also included in the communique, about the commitment of this Government to reducing these kinds of costs in the interests of trying to moderate wage demands. On this count also members of the Government have shown themselves to be a pack of turncoats. They have turned their back on the very people they claim to represent. In so doing they have also threatened their accord, their Summit and their application before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. On the most optimistic figures there will still be a net loss of 3,200 jobs. There will be 5,000-odd jobs at risk because of location problems. Not all of the jobs offered by Medibank Private will be available anywhere near the locations of those people currently working in the wide network of private health insurance funds. Under the signature of this Minister, under this Labor Government which was elected with a promise of improving employment opportunities, at this moment 5,000 people are under threat of the sack and there is not the slightest hope that for 3,200 of them a job will be provided within Medibank Private. That is the fact of the matter and it is an absolute disgrace. The Minister said that the State Health Ministers will be asked to give preference in clerical employment to current funds' staff. What on earth is this worth? This Minister, the former Opposition shadow Minister for health, spent the last two or three years bemoaning the tight situation of State Health Ministers and State Health departments. He criticised the previous Goverment for financial stringency which, he said, had caused the State Health Ministers to reduce their budgets and staff. Since he came to office he has not given them any more money. Now he is suggesting that they should give preferential treatment to those being thrown out of work in the private health funds. Where on earth will this preferential treatment lead these people? I presume it will lead them from one dole queue to another. The Minister's statement about the private health funds welcoming Medicare, by the very fact that they put in an offer to run it on a sub-contract basis, is absolute cant. It is unbelievable that he should include something like that in his statement. What use are the costings? In the short time that I have known of the costs I have not had an opportunity to examine them against the offers made by the private funds, but I do know that offers made by private funds under some form of offer or tender system and subject to contract on a fixed price basis are worth 10 times or 100 times an offer made by a government instrumentality. Once the purchasers of the service, that is the Australian people, have signed up they will have no fixed price contract and no certainty whatsoever that the prices will be kept within what were stated. When one is in the hands of a government monopoly one has absolutely no control whatever over the future direction of those costs. One is not in a position to sack that monopoly when the cost estimates are not maintained. Anything that the Minister might say about the cost implications of this in this House are not worth a crumpet. In Australia 8,500 people work for private health insurance funds. Over 5,000 of these jobs are at risk at this instant by the statement of the Minister, who is a member of this disemploying Government. In Victoria, which will have an opportunity to pass judgment on this situation on Saturday, 2,350 people are employed in private health insurance funds. There are 1,400 of these jobs currently at risk. In the Melbourne metropolitan area alone about 2,000 people are employed, of which 1,200 are at risk this week following the actions of this Government. The people in the electorate of Bruce will pass judgment on this situation on Saturday because they will have an early opportunity to do so. We in the Opposition will do everything within our power to bring this matter to their attention. I pointed out during discussion of a matter of public importance two weeks ago that there was no possible reason, beyond some blind socialist objective, to centralise and to squeeze out private enterprise. There was no conceivable reason to enter into this act of madness. There was no reason to threaten the jobs of 5,000 people in this industry. There was no reason to ensure that over 3 ,000 of them would absolutely lose their jobs even if the location problems were solved. There was no conceivable reason, beyond a determination which is now surfacing within this Government to proceed with socialist ideology against any practical considerations. I find it frankly unbelievable that this is being done in the present employment climate and that the Labor Government, with the ideals that it professes to hold, would put forward measures like this to extend the dole queues by 5,000 people. The Opposition will not let this matter rest. We will do everything we can to try to save the jobs of these people. We will do everything we can when the legislation comes in to try to ensure that the matter is subcontracted to private enterprise and to the private funds. We will speak to senators who are independent to enlist their support for these people who are threatened with losing their jobs. We will not let this matter rest. This decision must certainly dog this new Minister for Health throughout the whole of his ministerial career. It is a matter of the utmost seriousness of a most practical kind. It is not something on which one can sit back in a ministerial office and make a decision with one's colleagues. It is not something which involves only the movement of paper. If one goes into any metropolitan area or country town in Australia and walks around the streets, one sees the offices of these funds. Ordinary Australians work in them. They do not work under Public Service awards with security of tenure but under ordinary conditions of service in the service of the community and certainly over many years to the good of the community. They do the job more cheaply and, I believe, more effectively than it could be done by the Government. They have had their jobs placed at risk. Five thousand of them are under threat and at least 3,200 will actually be committed to the dole queues. Debate (on motion by Mr Mountford) adjourned. Assent reported. Suspension of Sessional Order Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(3.38) —I 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. I have given notice to the Opposition that the time set aside for this evening's sitting after dinner, between 8.30 and 10.30 p.m., will be for a continuation of the debate, which both sides of the House want to have, on the economic statement. It is not proposed that other matters will be introduced for finality but rather that the Parliament have a full debate on the matters which were raised in the Parliament last Thursday. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(3.40) — While the Opposition does not object to this motion submitted by the Leader of the House (Mr Young) everybody needs to recognise that its purpose is not to facilitate debate on the four Bills about to come before the House; rather it is to ensure that the Parliament gets up at the end of this week. This Government has committed so many blunders in the short time that the Parliament has been sitting that, quite demonstrably, it is taking this course in order that it may run away from the Parliament, where its actions are open to the scrutiny of the people of Australia. It is an indictment of the Government that at such an early stage it finds it necessary to extend the sitting hours of the Parliament, not for the purpose that the Leader of the House has suggested but so that it can facilitate the running away of Ministers from the public scrutiny that this place provides. We have the evasion that appeared in the answer of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) today, the quite apparent conflict between the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), and the degree to which other Ministers are finding themselves totally embarrassed, for example, as my colleague the shadow Minister for Health just portrayed in relation to the statement brought down by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). Mr Young —You didn't ask him a question about it. Mr SINCLAIR —No, but I asked one of the Prime Minister which seemed to bring home the point. It is absolutely imperative that the people of Australia recognise that this Government is not really interested in open government, that this Government is not interested in the Parliament and that this Government is not concerned with providing adequate opportunities for the elected representatives of the people to scrutinise the actions of Ministers. Rather, it is concerned to have Ministers scurry off to their burrows, to run overseas and to engage in indulgences that little reflect on the real needs of this community . At the moment a large number of significant and sensitive issues should be raised in this Parliament. We would like to examine them and question Ministers on them at length. It is an absolute disgrace. We have the Leader of the House coming before us and pretending that the only reason we are sitting later tonight is that he wants to extend the time for debate on these Bills. We would be delighted to to have limitless debate on the matters that are about to come before us; they are measures of prime importance to everyday Australians. They affect every one of the electors of Bruce. They affect all those people in the mortgage belt who have been betrayed by this Labor Government. That betrayal can be best exposed by sittings of this Parliament. We are delighted that the Parliament is sitting longer today and we trust that, at the end of this week, the Leader of the House will move that we return to our sittings next Tuesday so that we can again examine in depth all these abuses that this Government has already committed and those breaches of promises which, day by day, are regrettably becoming more apparent. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(3.43) —in reply-Mr Speaker, I wish to close off the debate. Because this was an agreed arrangement I did not know the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) would speak on the matter in the way in which he did. I should have expected what has happened. The Opposition says it wants to stay here and question the Government about its actions. Last Thursday night the Government made a major economic statement. Today we had the first Question Time since that statement but there was not one question from the Opposition to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or to the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). For God's sake, it was given its opportunity today to ask questions of the Ministers involved in the statement so that they could explain what was involved. However, honourable members opposite sat there like dummies. They could not think up, between last Thursday night and 2.15 this afternoon, one question that they would like to ask the two major contributors to that economic statement. They cannot tell us, on the basis of that performance, that they need more time in the Parliament. Let me say this: This will be the second debate, after the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill, in which this Parliament will have had more time to debate an issue than was ever given to the Australian Labor Party in the last seven years on any issue under the farmer from Nareen. Not one debate was allowed to go as long as the debate on the heritage Bill or the debate on the economic statement. These are both in our first month of sitting. This Parliament will be more of a parliament under this Government that it ever was in the last 7 1/2 years. Members of the Opposition will get plenty of opportunity to speak and plenty of opportunity to question Ministers-more than we ever had under the previous Government. They will have plenty of opportunity to grizzle, though for no solid reason. They will have no constructive criticism to make of this Government on the way it is conducting its affairs and its use of the Parliament. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(3.45) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides for an amendment to the Wheat Marketing Act 1979 to give effect to decisions taken by the Government in the context of its expenditure review. The effect of the amendment will be to terminate from 1 July 1983 the scheme whereby the Australian Wheat Board is reimbursed for the additional costs involved in borrowing from the domestic capital market compared with the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank of Australia. The scheme was introduced to compensate the Board for the Government's decision to compel it to borrow from the higher cost domestic market. The Bill therefore provides that from 1 July 1983 there will be no liability for the Commonwealth to make any payments under the scheme. In consideration of the termination of the scheme, the Government will seek the approval of Loan Council to permit the Board to borrow overseas in 1983-84 and subsequent years subject to the following conditions. The Board would be free to borrow 50 per cent of its prospective net borrowing requirements overseas but would require the agreement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and me to borrow more than 50 per cent from overseas sources. The criteria for our approval in the latter case will take into account both the prospective monetary situation on the one hand and the prospective borrowing requirements and borrowing costs of the Wheat Board on the other. Within the annual limit the Board would be free to determine the currencies, timing, size and term of individual borrowings, subject to its giving the Government prior notification of the size and timing of borrowings. The Bill, therefore, also provides for the Board's powers in relation to borrowing and the issue of securities, to be exercisable both within and outside Australia. These new arrangements should enable the Board to borrow from lower cost markets such that there should be no increase in the cost of borrowing to the Board from the termination of the interest subsidy. Not only are current interest rates generally lower overseas but also, as wheat is often traded in foreign currencies, the Board would be able to hedge the risks of currency fluctuations by borrowing in the same currencies as those in which it makes sales. I am sure that the Board and wheat growers would welcome the increase in commercial freedom of the Board. Time will be limited in this debate; however, I would like to make just a few other comments that may be of assistance to the Opposition. The legislation is extremely simple. One sentence is inserted so that the Australian Wheat Board may exercise its powers within and outside Australia. Another sentence is inserted to remove the interest rate subsidy. The Opposition should fully understand this because it was the former Government that cut the interest rate subsidy by one per cent in the Committee of Review of Government Functions-that is, the so-called razor gang-exercise. At that time the reaction of the wheat industry was understandably hostile. This action was a blatant breach of the 1979 Wheat Marketing Act. Also, growers had been guaranteed that the Treasury would pick up the difference between the commercial rate of interest and the rate charged by the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank of Australia. That decision was justified by the then Government, and the National Party in particular, and no trade-off was offered. The situation regarding the margin between the rural credit interest rate and commercial interest rates in 1981 was 2.4 per cent. Today it is 0.5 per cent. In taking this action we are offering a trade-off that will have the potential to benefit the wheat industry by tens of millions of dollars. The Australian Wheatgrowers Federation has been calling for this reform for 18 months. The National Farmers Federation does not oppose it. In fact, in a statement released last week it praised the move. I have a telex from the Australian Wheat Board which again welcomes the move that it be allowed to borrow overseas. Maybe I should read that telex. It states: The flexibility of marketing Australia's wheat will be improved following last night's statement by the Commonwealth Treasurer that the Government is seeking Loan Council approval for the Australian Wheat Board to borrow up to 50 per cent of its financial requirements off- shore. He also indicated that the Wheat Board may be empowered to borrow beyond the 50 per cent level if circumstances are appropriate. In past years the AWB has been permitted to raise up to 2 billion dollars from Australian financial sources to fund the initial payment to growers of the guaranteed minimum price for wheat. The Acting General Manager of the Board, Mr M. Connell, said that the offshore borrowing facility will be a major step forward in improving the Board's commercial independence and flexibility. He stressed that any efficiencies gained for the wheat industry will be passed on to growers. Mr Connell indicated that the AWB is well prepared to take advantage of the power to borrow offshore. And, as honourable members will recognise: A previously approved pilot borrowing program for 200 million dollars is currently being put in place by an Australian Wheat Board team which is overseas . The Treasurer's announcements are in line with submissions advanced by the Australian wheat industry over a period of time. Last year the AWB made reference to the issue in a submission to the Industries Assistance Commission inquiry into the Australian wheat industry. Mr Connell said that the AWB welcomed the initiatives which have been announced. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Debate resumed from 19 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(3.51) —The Opposition has considered the proposals brought forward by the Government and will not oppose the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins) read a third time. Ministerial Statement Debate resumed from 19 May, on the following paper presented by Mr Keating: Economy-Ministerial Statement, 19 May 1983 and on motion by Mr Young: That the House take note of the papers. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this matter? Before the debate is resumed on the economic statement, I suggest that it might suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this motion, the motion to take note of the ministerial statement on housing policy initiatives, the Economic Planning Advisory Council Bill 1983 and the Community Employment Bill 1983. I suggest, therefore, that you permit the subject matter of the four orders of the day to be discussed in this debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the four matters? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition speaking for a period not exceeding 60 minutes, and the Prime Minister and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition each speaking for a period not exceeding 30 minutes on the Economic Statement. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.55) —In regard to the economic statement that has been put down by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the associated ministerial papers and the motion to take note of the papers, I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: the House is of the opinion that the Treasurer's statement places an unfair burden on the vast majority of Australian families while failing to address Australia's fundamental economic problems. The Bills and the economic statement before the House do nothing to reassure Australians that this Government has any clear perception of a program for recovery and reconstruction. The mini-Budget solves nothing, it only raises questions. It is not just an anti-climax, it is bitterly disappointing. It is, sadly, just another example of the increasingly notorious Hawkespeak. The Government was elected on a promise to build community confidence and hope. It promised so much. It has unfortunately given so little. It promised a blueprint for recovery. It promised jobs for the unemployed. It promised that its prices and incomes policy would lead to responsible wage demands, better industrial relations and lower inflation. It promised a better deal for all sections of the community, not just narrow interest groups. It promised that the diversionary crises that were so prominent in the Whitlam era would never return. The Australian people took a gamble. They put their trust in the Australian Labor Party. In particular, middle Australia put its trust in Labor. In return for that trust, what has this Government done? It has introduced a mini-Budget which takes $8 a week from the average Australian family and which is a direct assault on middle class families. In return for their votes Labor has slugged them. It has taken away the home loan rebate. It has taken away the medical insurance rebate. It has means tested pensions for the over-70s. It has raised the floor for concessional tax rebates. Labor seduced middle Australia with promises of 'immediate . . . tax cuts'. There are to be no tax cuts. Instead, $8 a week has been snatched away. Labor promised middle Australia that it would not take away the home loan interest rebate. It said that it would retain the tax rebate for home loan payments. That was what Labor said in its housing program, but now, two and a half months later, that rebate has gone. So many families, struggling to pay off a home loan, have been suddenly presented with what amounts to an unexpected bill. Everyone on the Government benches must know someone who is in that situation. Why do they not care? Why should families suddenly lose the health insurance rebate? Why should it go at a time when they are struggling? While families have been hit, the weakest sector of the community, the elderly, has also suffered. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised in his policy speech that he would not take money out of the weekly pay packet or the pensioner's cheque yet that is exactly what he has done. Old people have planned their lives around their pensions. They trusted Labor, believing that pensions would not be means tested. Many of them voted Labor thinking that Labor would help, not hurt, but on Friday morning they learnt that they had been cheated. Everyone on the Government benches will know pensioners such as these. How will the Government explain this cruel, cheap trick to them? Middle Australia helped put Labor into power. It has paid a very high price. The unemployed also looked to Labor for help. What have they received? The Government has done a deal with the unions which will throw another 100,000 Australians onto the dole queue. This is a government which set itself high objectives and built up high hopes. It is already falling short of its objectives and it has shattered those hopes. The excuse of the Treasurer is that the Government has not yet had time to look at the options. Can this be because it has bungled almost every other aspect of governing Australia, or is the economy just too hard? Whatever the reasons may be, Labor's social values and priorities are now perfectly clear. They are not directed to providing permanent, secure jobs. As I have said before, one of the merits of the so-called Economic Summit was the clear acceptance by all participants of the causes of our economic problems. The Summit did not condemn the policies of the previous Government with the irrational hysteria that we often hear from the other side of the House. It did not descend to the party political debate which has for too long characterised economic discussion in Australia. Indeed, its analysis was largely consistent with the perceptions of the previous Government. There is in the community an acceptance of three major factors. First, Australia has inevitably been seriously affected by the protracted downturn in the international economy. Second, Australia has endured one of the worst droughts in its history. The 14 per cent decline in gross farm product for the December quarter of 1982 shows quite clearly the devastating impact of the tragedy. Third, real wage rates in Australia have risen dramatically at a time when real wages in other countries have risen only modestly and have in some cases declined. In the calendar year 1982 average weekly earnings rose by nearly 15 per cent. According to the Treasurer, average weekly ordinary time earnings for full time adult workers were still 2 per cent higher in real terms in the March quarter of 1983 than they were a year earlier. As a result, Australia's cost structure is considerably higher than is the cost structure elsewhere. That has made our industries less competitive. It has made them less profitable and in many cases unprofitable. It has meant that to survive industries have had to shed labour at an alarming rate. Devaluation is the external acceptance of the problem. Massive wage increases have boosted Australia's inflation rate at a time when inflation rates in most other industrialised countries have been falling. It is against that background, one understood and recognised by almost all Australians, that the Government has taken its economic decisions. The Government's measures must be judged against a number of yardsticks. They must bring down inflation. They must bring down interest rates. They must encourage investment. They must make our industries more competitive and profitable. They must generate economic growth. They must, at the end of the day, generate many more permanent and secure jobs. They must give Australia and Australians a sense of confidence in their future, a belief that they can each continue the task of building this nation. These are lofty goals. No industrialised nation has found them easy to achieve, but some are indeed succeeding. The reality is that Australia needs an annual 5 per cent growth in gross domestic product over the next three years if unemployment is to be significantly reduced. This is to be compared with an average non-farm GDP growth of 2.8 per cent in the last decade. So we do not underestimate the task. Difficult and unpopular decisions have to be taken and, because they are unpopular, persistence and political fortitude are needed to ensure that decisions taken in the interests of the whole community are not cast aside because of the opposition of narrow and selfish interest groups. So the broad strategy needed to achieve these goals is clear. First, the Government must ensure that wage levels reflect the capacity of the economy to pay. If wages are too high businesses will be unable to compete. Their costs will rise, their order books will decline and their profits will shrink. They will stop investing . They will stop employing. That equation is simple enough, yet the union leadership and the Government of this nation refuse to recognise it. Secondly, the Government's monetary and fiscal policies must ensure that the private sector, the engine of economic growth, has access to funds for investment; that it is not crowded out of any financial markets by big spending governments. There is absolutely no doubt that business will need these funds at the lowest possible interest rates for this is the only way to create the new investment, the only way to generate new jobs. Positive signs exist which give us some hope for a recovery. Good rains in the last two months over much of Australia have brought relief to many farmers. The prospects for a rural recovery are now much better. To maximise the opportunities, farmers must have access to funds so that they can invest quickly . What is more, there are at last some signs of economic recovery in the United States and, to some extent, in Europe and Japan. Industrial production increased by 2.1 per cent in the United States in April, the highest increase in almost eight years. Industrial production has also grown by varying degrees in many of the major European countries. Over recent months, the inflation rates of most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have come down, in some cases quite dramatically. Nominal interest rates have also fallen. I am not making any predictions about future international trends for such predictions are hazardous in the extreme. Some concern is still felt about the size of the United States deficit. There is some concern that interest rates in the United States will not reduce further. Threats of trade wars still hang over the world. But while there have been signs, since the election, that the Government recognises much of what is said, its mini-Budget and its wages policy fail to meet the economic and social challenges before Australia. The Government was, to its credit, going some way down the road to Damascus. It has now turned back and headed instead towards Babel, towards an edifice sure to collapse in a surfeit of rhetoric. The Treasurer's statement of last Thursday is convincing evidence that it has no idea how to address Australia's problems. I quote from the editorial of the Australian Financial Review last Friday, which states: Rather than being a deeply considered statement, the Keating speech has to be considered only a ragbag of bits and pieces which reflect no coherent policy except a desire to be seen to be doing something about cutting back on the Budget deficit, while not actually doing very much. The statement has done nothing for the economy. It does nothing to address the problem of the Budget deficit. The Treasurer assured us that a Budget deficit approaching $10 billion is 'not on'. Let me remind the House that such a deficit would have been abhorrent to the Opposition. We would not have let that happen. The Government, the Treasurer and the Opposition all know that the estimate of a $9.6 billion deficit for 1983-84 is one of the most fraudulent and one of the most politically inspired estimates in Australia's economic history. The Prime Minister has reacted to the so-called $9.6 billion fraud by throwing his hands in the air in fake moral outrage and by throwing his promises out of the window in economic outrage. What Australia wants is not drama. It does not want drama at all. It wants decisions and deeds. In discussing the deficit the Treasurer rightly pointed out that if fiscal policy is too expansionary, particularly at a time when recovery is in sight, it will place increased pressure on interest rates and, of course, on the balance of payments. He went on to say that any direct increases in employment from excessive government stimulus: . . . would be offset-perhaps more than offset-by indirect falls in employment as private sector decisions were curtailed. That is the Treasurer, evidently on the road to Damascus. But let us look at the figures and we will find that he has turned back. The net outcome of the mini- Budget is savings of only $27m to $28m. What the Treasurer did not shout to the nation was that his Medicare scheme will cost the Budget an additional $400m next year. That is not a figure dreamed up by the Opposition. That is the Treasurer's own estimate. If we make the charitable assumptions that Medicare will cost no more than that, an assumption which all but the most avid Labor supporter must doubt, then the Government's razor has saved just $27m or $28m. The Government cannot have it both ways. Either its $10 billion deficit overstates the true situation, in which case its passionate condemnation of the previous Government's alleged deficit is groundless and fraudulent, or its pruning exercise is hopelessly and dangerously inadequate. This is yet another example of so-called Hawkespeak. There are people on the Government benches who know the dangers of excessive economic stimulation but equally there are a large number of Ministers and Government back benchers who favour a strongly expansionary policy. The greater danger to Australia is that the expansionists will win the day. Labor's election program stated: The principal thrust of Labor's economic strategy will be to . . . embrace the policies of expansion. The fact is that a massive deficit would do irretrievable damage to the Australian economy. It would destroy the prospects for recovery. It would exacerbate inflation. It could drive up interest rates and the Government would snatch resources from a private sector hungry to invest-and it would open floodgates to massive wage increases. Obviously the Treasurer realises these realities. Why does the mini-Budget not reflect them? The mini-Budget gives us a clear indication that this is in fact a big spending government. But it shows a great deal more. It underlines the folly of the Government's wages policy. The Government now tells us that an immediate return to full quarterly wage indexation and a 2.2 per cent catch-up is consistent with its prices and incomes policy; it is consistent with its deal with the unions. That is what the Australian Council of Trade Unions is now demanding; that is what the Government will accept. We now know what the prices and incomes policy really is. To quote the business editor of the Age, it is: A callous fraud on the unemployed. I wholeheartedly agree with the Prime Minister's statement last December when he said: There is nothing intrinsically important in a prices and incomes policy. There certainly is not. It seems largely irrelevant-irrelevant above all to the interests of the unemployed. It is simply a document which says that the Government will agree to the demands of the ACTU executive. At first we were led to believe that it was a document which would guarantee wage restraint. The new Government and the unions said that during the election campaign. They said it at the National Economic Summit Conference. Then we learned that it unequivocally meant a return to full wage indexation next year but that catch-up would not take place until the economy could afford it. Next we heard that the Government would agree to a 3 per cent to 4 per cent wage increase this year. That concession was immediately grasped by the ACTU. It said that what the Government really meant was that there would be a return to full quarterly wage indexation this year. That is not where it ends, not by a long way. Suddenly, the ACTU says the economy has the capacitiy to pay for a catch-up. It wants a 2. 2 per cent increase for the March quarter this year. Is that consistent with wage restraint? Is that what employers want in order to compete internationally, in order to restore profitability, in order to create more jobs? The Prime Minister and the Treasurer say that this is consistent with the prices and incomes policy. I do not deny that. Any increase is consistent with that meaningless document. We must not forget to mention the special cases. With them, payments are allowed beyond the demands of the ACTU executive. The prices and incomes policy says that there will be 'no extra claims except where special and extraordinary circumstances exist'. These special circumstances existed recently in the building industry. Building unions were granted increased allowances, which will push up cost in the industry and threaten jobs. I ask the House what was so special about those demands. The answer is simply that the union was taking industrial action in support of them. Therefore, every time unions take industrial action their demands will be a special case. Every time the Government will capitulate. Mr Dolan's recent statement that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission would put itself out of business if it did not grant the unions' demands was fully consistent with the so-called prices and incomes accord because if the unions took action, having lost their case before the Commission, the Government could buy peace by saying it was a special case. At the Summit the ACTU restated 'its unequivocal commitment to a centralised system of wage fixation'. That all seems a long time ago, for there is no special case for the unemployed. There is no so-called special case for their families or their futures. They foot the bill for the prices and incomes policy and they know it. The Prime Minister, the Government and the ACTU also know it. But clearly, they do not care. By abandoning the wage pause, the Government has done a deal with the unions rather than with the unemployed and it knows its deal will throw more out of work-100,000 more Australians will lose their jobs as a result of this Government's wages policy. There is no economic or social case for an immediate return to full indexation and the Government knows it. The Government's defence seems to be that this is the only industrially realistic approach. The excuse is just not supported by the facts. The latest opinion poll on the need for a wages pause shows that 70 per cent of all Australians support its extension. Those people are not all members of the Liberal or National parties. They are not all employers or professional people. This opinion poll confirms that Australian people recognise the reality that continued wage restraint now is the only way to protect their living standards in the future; that we cannot distribute wealth before it is created. The poll confirms the view that all Australians realise that one person 's wage increase is the job of another Australian man or women; that Australians are willing to make sacrifices to give a fellow Australian the dignity of a job; and that the true measure of so-called consensus is the degree to which those in jobs are willing to make sacrifices for the unemployed. Does the Labor Party not have this kind of faith in the average Australian worker? Does it disagree with Sir Arvi Parbo who, at the Summit, said: I believe that the Australian people would understand the problem and be willing to endure longer if the reason were properly explained to them. Does the Labor Party not believe that it is the responsibility of the Government to protect the rights of all Australians, including the vulnerable and unorganised groups? The Treasurer said that to expect continued sacrifice from the employed to help the unemployed would be, to quote Samuel Johnson, 'a triumph of hope over experience'. We need not remind him that that is taken out of context. I would prefer to quote a much more relevant expert on the Australian economy, the late Sir Keith Campbell. At the Summit, he said: If we genuinely care about the jobless and genuinely wish to incur discipline and sacrifice, we need to put together a scenario D. That is, he advocated greater wage restraint than that advocated in all the scenarios considered by the Government. Even the New South Wales Premier, if we can still refer to him by that title-let us call him the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, for he has not yet stood down from that position- said at the Summit that the Arbitration Commission needs 'to take account of the economy's capacity to pay'. Why is it then that the Government has abandoned these virtual truisms? It clearly does not care. It does not care about the unemployed, or about our industries. In essence, it does not care about Australia. The least the Australian people expect from governments is leadership . What has this Government done? It has allowed the ACTU to take the initiative in submissions to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Government and the Australian people are now on the defensive. We are in the position of responding to a sectional claim. Bluntly put, that is just ineptness. By encouraging excessive wages, the Government is doing nothing to ease the squeeze on business profits. This is in spite of the fact that the share of profits in gross domestic product has fallen to historically low levels. Yet the Government is doing nothing to encourage the resurgence in the private sector. It is the private sector which is vital to the provision of sustainable jobs. The Government has forgotten that the private sector directly employs 75 per cent of the Australian work force. It is the private sector which will provide 75 to 80 per cent of permanent new jobs. The private sector generates the economic growth which supports permanent employment in the public sector. It is the private sector which generates the economic growth to provide welfare payments. Dr Theophanous —What evidence have you got for that? Mr PEACOCK —It is the private sector which the honourable member for Burke is dedicated to destroy. He seeks the destruction of the engine of economic growth in this country. Let us never forget that the level of public welfare which he espouses is directly dependent on private sector growth. Yet the honourable member for Burke would not only forget it, he would work by dint of dishonest intellectual argument to show the very antithesis. It is the private sector which must generate the export revenue necessary to sustain and improve our standard of living. Yet what has the Government done to encourage private enterprise? Mr Ian Robinson —Nothing! Mr PEACOCK —Precisely. It has done absolutely nothing. Why has it done nothing? The answer is that it does not care; it does not care because it does not understand the needs of the private sector. If it cannot understand its needs, it cannot understand the needs of the economy. Let us take the example of small business, which employs around 70 per cent of the private sector work force. Clearly, there cannot be a recovery in Australia if there is no recovery in the small business sector. Yet what has this Government done? It promises to withdraw the investment allowance. In a time of high real interest rates this investment allowance is a key factor in generating investment and jobs. It breaks its promise to lower the tax burden on small business. It accedes to wage demands which it knows small business cannot absorb. It knows that wages are 50 per cent to 70 per cent of the total costs of small business. Therefore, it is not just the unemployed who will be victims of this Government's lack of compassion and understanding. It will also be all the bankrupt businesses. Let us take the further example of manufacting, large or small. Manufacturing is most vulnerable to the chill winds of international competition. In 1982 the cost of employing a worker in the motor industry rose by over 25 per cent, including higher wages, shorter working hours and things such as workers compensation. Manufacturing just cannot afford a catch-up; neither can it afford an immediate return to full wage indexation. When will this Government and militant union leaders face these facts? From an industry policy point of view, the only measures which can work are those which make us cost-competitive with the rest of the world. That is axiomatic. The Government's determination to destroy the wages pause and another 100,000 jobs has made its job creation scheme necessary. Gone will be the financially responsible jobs created by savings from the wages pause. Gone will be the jobs created by wage restraint. What has already been put in its place? Seventy thousand jobs of only six months duration; jobs without any security, jobs without any durability, jobs without hope. So the price of abandoning permanent jobs in favour of temporary jobs is extraordinarily high indeed. The typical Australian family, according to the Australian Taxpayers Association, will lose $8 a week. The Victorian Taxpayers Association puts the figure at $9 a week. Yet by simply maintaining the wages pause, more jobs would have been created than will be created by this mini- Budget, and middle Australia would have been spared this hardship. Families would not have lost their home loan interest rebates. Families would not have lost their health insurance tax rebates. Farmers would not have been hit by harder depreciation provisions at a time when nearly all of them are struggling to overcome the devastation of the drought. The elderly, the weakest sector in our community, would not have had their lives plunged into uncertainty by new means test provisions for pensions. The people of the Northern Territory and South Australia would not have to watch helplessly as the Alice Springs-Darwin railway is, in effect, abandoned. Even the Labor Premier of South Australia has condemned this decision. So it comes down to this: This Government is just plain unreliable. If it had taken the permanent job route, the Government would not have had to abandon its mandate from the people, to abandon its election promises. It promised immediate tax cuts. Now it is taking at least eight bucks a week away from families. It promised to maintain the housing loan interest rebate, and now that has gone. It promised to cut taxes immediately. That has not happened. It promised that it would not means test pensions. Now it has done that. It promised to keep the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. Now it has destroyed any chance of its completion. It promised that the burden of hard economic decisions would be shared by all the community. Now the farmers are being told to pay for one-third of the savings of the mini-Budget. It is an absolute shame, and it is vintage Hawkespeak, as I have mentioned previously-say one thing and do another. The Prime Minister says that he never tells a lie. What he does is tell half the truth. The Prime Minister hardly needs to be reminded, I suppose, in that context again that he promised-I shall read it-'no fistful of dollars to be snatched back after the election'. Now, he has done it, and the Australian people must be wondering who will be next for the chopping block. Compassion for those in need has been debased by a government making a desperate bid for power. People over the age of 70 must be wondering why they have been singled out to suffer. The Treasurer says that it is because the Government has not had time to look at other options. What kind of a reason is that for imposing this unfair share of the burden on the elderly? This mini-Budget has a number of other features which will also do great harm to this country. First, by taking money away from families, it is encouraging further wage demands. The previous Government, in its last Budget, gave a typical family benefits worth $17 to $18 a week. One of the objectives of that Budget was to encourage wage restraint. Families had more in their pockets; they would demand less from the work place. These measures were introduced partly at the behest of the ACTU. The success of the wages pause was evidence of the success of that strategy. But this mini-Budget does the reverse; it reduces the living standards of most families. Many will be looking for compensation, obviously, in the form of wage increases. That will encourage still more unemployment. But we have long since given up looking to the Labor Party as the party which cares about the jobless. The Labor Party does not want to know about the need for the private sector to make profits. It will throw aside the nexus between profits and jobs. It does not want to know the harsh economic reality in our economy: That if one is not making profits, one cannot keep people in work; and if one does not create the climate for those profits to be made, one is exacerbating the unemployment situation. Dr Theophanous —Why don't you go on to something new? Mr PEACOCK —The honourable member will come out with the same old tired line. He will give us the socialist dogma that was out of date before it was even written into his party's platform. What about the dividend rebate? That is something that the honourable member would not want to know about because it relates to the private sector, again, and to Australians having a direct stake in their future. The mini-Budget has abolished the tax rebate on dividend income. That tax rebate, introduced in the last Budget, was designed to encourage Australians to take a greater share of their own economic development, to encourage them, as I have said, to buy a stake in the future of Australia. It was also a measure directed against the double taxation of company profits. But now the Government has abolished that concession. Here we go again, 'Let's hit them'. It is some accountant's form of leprosy to the other side, not something that will generate jobs. By abolishing this concession, profits will be taxed twice. Company tax must be paid; and then tax on dividends. But more importantly, the opportunity to involve more and more Australians in the development of their own country will be lost. What about housing? The mini-Budget redirects and misdirects housing resources. It takes away the assistance to meet interest payments. As the Housing Industry Association said at the Summit: For home buyers, the bottom line is interest rates. It reduces the Government's flexibility to phase out assistance to home buyers if the need diminishes. It takes money away from the private housing sector to transfer it to public housing. It does nothing to help those in greatest need. What does the Government do? It abolishes a housing package which was warmly welcomed, not merely by the housing industry. But it decides to bring in some new measures and, apart from the relief that it alleges that this will give to first home buyers, this is allegedly going to stimulate the economy by people immediately placing orders and making contracts for new homes. What the Government overlooked was that this new scheme is not going to start until 1 October, so what happens to the economic stimulus? Does everyone have to wait until 1 October? Not thinking through the consequences of its actions seems to be symptomatic of so many decisions taken by this Government. Mr Howard —It is temporarily inoperative. Mr PEACOCK —Temporarily inoperative; that sounds to be the case with what is alleged to be the truth from time to time on the other side. Mr Anthony —A houses pause. Mr PEACOCK —As the Leader of the National Party said, it is a houses pause. If that is the case, I would say: 'Take your filthy pause off most Australians'. Many people have bought homes on the basis that they will benefit from the home loan interest rate rebate scheme. Remember, during the election campaign Labor promised to retain the scheme. Many people must have thought Labor would be true to its word, but again it has broken its promises and again families will suffer . It will be a great hardship on families particularly-more vintage Hawkespeak. Many weeks ago, when I became the Leader of the Opposition, I said that I would praise and support the Government when it acted wisely and with common sense. There have not been too many opportunities to do that and little in this mini- Budget falls into that category, but one decision does, and that is the decision to sell 49 per cent of Aussat Pty Ltd. I welcome the Treasurer's decision to transfer resources from the public to the private sector and more fully to use the money to help those in need. I hope this is only a first step. I look forward to future decisions of this kind, although I fear we will be waiting a long time for similar decisions. I began my address by listing a number of fundamental economic objectives. In conclusion I return to them and measure this Government's policies against those yardsticks. The Government must endeavour to bring down inflation. Its wages policy and its policy speech commitment to expansionary monetary and fiscal policies give little hope it will succeed. The Government must endeavour to bring down interest rates. Its policies could well drive real interest rates up. The Government must encourage investment. Its wages policy, its commitment to expansionary monetary and fiscal policies and its hostility to foreign investment will not do that. The Government must endeavour to make our industries more competitive and more profitable. Again, its subservience to the wage demands of the union leadership will have the reverse effect. What is required of this Government, what is required for the Australian people, are national solutions, not the promotion of sectional interests or subservience to those sectional interests that are so often put before the Government with the purchase and leverage that quite clearly they have on it. At the end of the day the actions of this Government must encourage the creation of more permanent jobs. While this Government's job creation schemes will create temporary jobs, its deal with the unions, so much preferred to a deal with the unemployed, will throw 100,000 more Australians out of full time work. Mr Ruddock —Disgraceful. Mr PEACOCK —Absolutely. The Government's economic strategy, for all its rhetoric , for all its promises of recovery and reconstruction, does not address the fundamental challenges before Australia. What is more, it was given the trust of Australians and, in particular, the trust of middle Australia. At a stroke that trust has been destroyed. Promises have been cynically tossed aside. Middle Australia has not been helped, it has been sent a bill-$8 a week for an average family and very much more for some. So this, in the third month of this Government, is already a record of shame. Mr Howard —Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(4.40) —It is a positive pleasure to have the opportunity of following the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in speaking in this debate. I think his period in that office may prove to be quite transitory. He was given by the Government an hour to reply-mercifully he took only 45 minutes. He might have been better served if he had confined his remarks to 20 minutes because at least then the speech could have had the appearance of coherence and tight structure. His speech failed to note that this Government has been in office only since 11 March this year. We were elected on 5 March. We have been in office for only a period of nine weeks. How absurd and how hypocritical it is for the Leader of the Opposition to talk about unemployment and blame us for doing little about it. We have between 700, 000 and 800,000 unemployed-a figure which grew steadily under the seven miserable years of the Fraser Government. Two of its luminaries are now on the Opposition front bench-the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the most hapless Treasurer this Commonwealth ever had. How hypocritical too for the Leader of the Opposition to claim that the mini- Budget was an affront against the private sector of the economy. I remind him that the spirit of consensus that developed during the National Economic Summit Conference has remained with us. The mini-Budget has been endorsed by such disparate elements of the economy as the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Confederation of Australian Industry. Let me quote what the Confederation of Australian Industry-the spokespeople for the private sector of the economy-said about the mini-Budget. Opposition members interjecting- Mr BARRY JONES —In the circumstances it is more representative than this discredited Opposition. On 19 May, under the heading 'Government's Economic Statement', it said-- Mr Howard —We don't want to hear it. Mr BARRY JONES —Yes, members of the Opposition do not want to hear it, but they are going to have to listen. These are the words of the Confederation of Australian Industry, not mine: Although it imposes additional sacrifices on some sections of the private sector, the Confederation of Australian Industry believes that, in broad terms, the Government's Economic Statement is responsible. An initial assessment suggests that the Economic Statement is a constructive and genuine attempt to simultaneously fight the twin evils of inflation and unemployment, and contain the increase in the Budget deficit, while also providing some stimulus to economic recovery. It is clear that this strategy can work only if there is a strong and sustained commitment to moderation in claims for higher incomes, particularly wage increases. The Government's reiteration of its view that there must be a recovery in profits from their present historically low levels to ensure restoration of prosperity is welcome. I interpolate that these are not our words, these are the words of the CAI leadership: Introduction of the means-test in principle for social welfare payments is in line with CAI recommendations, although CAI believes that this approach should be extended beyond old-age pensioners and assistance for acquisition of family dwellingss. CAI is concerned, however, of outside implications of the major changes in taxation of retirement benefits. This could adversely affect not only individuals who entered existing retirement schemes in good faith, but also discourage the contribution to private investment capital formulation by an important segment of the private sector. That is being looked at at the moment by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). I expect additional information very soon. I thought it was so extraordinary to find the Leader of the Opposition saying, as part of his gimcrack rhetoric, that 'the Government was making a desperate bid for power'. I had the illusion that we were in power, that we had actually won. We have been treated to some extraordinary examples of wit today, but with more of an aldermanic than a Voltairean quality. The spirit of the Summit is still with us. I simply remind honourable members of how significant that Summit Conference was. The primary aim of it really was to bind up the wounds-- Mr Peacock —Tell us about the mini-Budget. Mr BARRY JONES —The Leader of the Opposition barely referred to the mini-Budget. His speech was a general and very ill-informed ramble about government policy. He did not refer to the other elements in the cognate debate. He did not mention the Economic Planning Advisory Council Bill, which is a very important result of the Summit. EPAC will perpetuate many of the things which the Summit is-- Mr Porter —Stick around; there will be some more. Mr BARRY JONES —Well, I am glad to hear that somebody else is going to draw attention to it because EPAC is a very important element of ensuring that that consensus that was brought about at the Summit Conference continues over the next few years. We are going to have another mini-Summit in August on Australia' s technological future, just as there was one on the housing sector in late April. In August we will be holding a meeting at which a number of groups not represented at the Summit will have an opportunity to make a contribution to deciding how Australia can lift its economic game. Mr Tuckey —Are you going to invite me? Mr BARRY JONES —No, you lack the intellectual qualities. That excludes you straightaway. First, the universities, colleges of advanced education and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation will be represented . The professions will be broadly represented and also very significant areas in technology based industry. All these groups are, in the spirit of the Summit, anxious to ensure that the spirit of consensus which we have had since April continues. Honourable members will remember that the reason Australia is in this desperate economic position is the economic vandalism of honourable members sitting opposite over a very long period. There have been seven years of decline . When the Liberal Party came to office at the end of 1975, Australia ranked number 11 of member nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in terms of income. By the time it left office Australia ranked number 16. The Leader of the Opposition had the hide to keep talking about the need for Australian industry to become competitive. He spoke as though the non- competitive nature of Australian industry was entirely related to wage rates and nothing else. It is absolutely fraudulent to say that. The tragedy of Australian industry is that from a structural point of view it was never designed to be competitive. It was designed simply to provide for Australian domestic markets and nothing else. That is one of our tragedies. When we look at heavy industry, the commanding heights of the Australian economy, in coal, copper, aluminium uranium, motor manufacturing, food processing, computers, drugs, chemicals, plastics, petrol and advertising, what do they all have in common? They are all overwhelmingly under foreign control. Because they are overwhelmingly under foreign control it is absurd to think that it will be possible for Australian industry to compete internationally. It is not designed to do that. It takes a very fertile imagination to conceive of the Ford company in Australia or even the Mazda company in Australia competing with Ford in the United States of America or Mazda in Japan. They are not designed to do that. Liberal and National Party members have been in office for 30 of the last 33 years. They have to take the responsibility for our failure to develop an industry which can aim at international markets. One cannot imagine Hoechst Australia being intended to compete with Hoechst in West Germany or Philips in Australia competing with Philips in Holland. That is not what they are about. It is absolutely hypocritical of the Leader of the Opposition to insist that wage factors are the only consideration. High wage rates are destructive when linked with low productivity and high unit cost in areas which normally would have some potential exports. But the essential factor on the non-competitive nature of an industry is not wage levels alone, but the structural deficiencies of the industry that is, being inward looking, foreign owned and essentially defensive in its nature. We have heard again the tired old cliche which simply states that one man's wage rise is another man's job. This is a dangerous half truth, essentially based on the acceptance of the concept of a static economy. If there is a static economy and a factor on the wages side of the equation is added, something may have to be lopped off the employment side. But if we move in the direction of a dynamic economy those factors do not arise. Sweden, for example, has far higher wage rates than we do, with an industrial working week of 30.2 hours. But we cannot say, as a result of that: 'Oh well, Sweden has dealt itself out of the game. There is no way that Sweden can possibly make any contribution to the international economy'. Sweden, with its population of only 8.3 million-barely half of ours-with its limited raw materials, a short industrial working week of 30.2 hours and higher wages nevertheless has a gross domestic product which is 54.5 per cent higher per capita than Australia's. It has succeeded in penetrating world markets because it has used its skills to the highest level and because Swedish quality is traditional throughout the world. The previous Government, after seven years of industrial vandalism, simply turned Australia into a combination of an industrial hospital and an industrial museum. No wonder so few of our industries are designed to compete. That is another tragedy. Honourable members opposite have had the crust to criticise when they recognise that the nature of the mini-Budget is to try to overcome some of the fraudulent things that they put in the August 1982 Budget. I think it was impudent for the Leader of the Opposition to respond in the way he did. The Budget in August last year was brought down for one purpose only: To provide an easy shift to an early election. It was quite obvious when we came to office in March that all the important and difficult decisions had been delayed. After August last year and after the then Prime Minister's retirement from the field because of ill health the previous Government slept. It was flying on automatic pilot in its last few months. It is quite obvious that if it had been re-elected it would have introduced a mini-Budget perhaps even more severe than this one. There were obvious measures of redistribution in this mini-Budget. Mr Peacock —Will it be more severe in August? Mr BARRY JONES —Wait and see. This Government has a strong commitment to make all sectors of the economy healthier. We believe that the private sector has performed poorly in recent years. Although the previous Government claimed to speak on behalf of the private sector it has very little to be proud of. It has a very feeble record. I believe that the results next weekend in the Bruce by- election in the home city of the Leader of the Opposition will demonstrate that the people of Australia have accepted the mini-Budget in the spirit in which it is offered. There has been an amazing degree of support. Certainly, people have been hurt. The claim was made that average families will have to pay more each week. There is a general recognition of that, but there is also a recognition that the economic vandals who put our economy in its present state were members of the Government thrown out on 5 March. There is also a broad recognition that the community will have to make sacrifices. We want to make sure that those sacrifices are equitably based. We attempted to establish equity instead of slugging the poor, the defenceless and the people at the lowest end of the socio -economic pyramid. That is why I believe that the electors of Bruce will support the Government on Friday because they recognise-- Mr Hodgman —The election is on Saturday. Mr BARRY JONES —Next Friday is the last time we can talk about it; Saturday is polling day. It will be a dramatic endorsement of what has been done by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer. We have had seven lean years. I believe that the Hawke Government has begun a decade at least of very significant growth in Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(4.55) —I have much pleasure in seconding the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and having the opportunity to talk on the economic statement delivered by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last Thursday night. That statement is truly a document for all seasons. It both criticises the alleged fiscal irresponsibility of the former Government in the last Budget and, at the same time, talks approvingly of the fiscal stimulus contained in that Budget. It laments the size of the prospective deficit for next year; yet the net effects of the fiscal decisions announced last Thursday night do nothing to change that deficit. The statement asserts that the Government will not indulge in wholesale policy reversals; yet it achieves the greatest reversal of all by repudiating the very expansionary economic policy on which the Australian Labor Party was elected. It professes concern about the effect of a bigger Budget deficit on interest rates; yet it announces a major expansion of State and semi-government borrowings which will have precisely the same effect on those interest rates as a larger deficit. Finally, the statement was delivered against a background of the allegedly horrendous fiscal inheritance of the Government; yet it is silent both on the very growth and activity forecasts which underpin that charge against the former Government and on the key question of what the forecast deficit for 1983-84 has become following the statement. This is the first comprehensive statement of economic policy delivered to this Parliament on behalf of the new Government. It is, therefore, by any measure a statement of singular importance as a guide not only to the Government's thinking on economic policy but also as a guide to the type of economic debate and analysis which will take place both in this Parliament and throughout the Australian community over the next three years. It is one thing for the Government to call together a National Economic Summit Conference, to provide that meeting with a welter of material and analysis about the Australian economy and to produce a communique from that Conference which, as the events of recent weeks in the wages area have sharply illustrated, can be all things to all men, but it is entirely another thing for the Government to account to the Parliament both for its economic policies and economic behaviour. This statement has attracted, and deservedly so, a high degree of interest and scrutiny not only from the Opposition but also from the entire Australian community, not just in the sense that the statement is one which affects all of us in different ways but also because we are all rightly concerned about the present condition and future direction of the Australian economy. There can be no argument that the Government faces a daunting task in the management of the Australian economy over the next three years. The lot of economic managers in the world at the present time has been rarely more difficult. To the extent that the Government honestly and effectively confronts and deals with the economic problems facing Australia, it will have our support. In common with virtually every country in the Western industrialised world, Australia is currently experiencing stagnant economic growth, low output and high unemployment. Our inflation rate is uncomfortably higher than that of our major trading partners. Our major objective, but not our only objective, must remain that of reducing Australia's inflation rate to the level of or even desirably lower than the inflation rates of our major trading partners. In addition, Australia still experiences the consequences of the catastrophic drought of the last few years. Although that drought has largely broken, its effects will be felt for perhaps years into the future not only by farmers but also by non-farm producers whose incomes have been affected by the drought. Although there are sharply divergent views as to causation, I think it is common ground now that the effects of the international recession and the drought have been greatly compounded in Australia by the wages explosion of 1981 -82. It is against this background and as a response to these problems that I believe this economic statement can best be judged. The Government at long last has apparently accepted the severe impact of the international recession upon the Australian economy. At last it has abandoned its rhetoric of years past that Australia's economic problems were almost the exclusive fault of the former Government and owed very little indeed to international economic conditions. This is hardly surprising in view of the facts. The more recent survey of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that the average gross national products of member countries for 1982 fell by 0.5 per cent. Naturally, Australia's gross national products also fell, with the drought, in our case, making things infinitely worse. One of the most striking features of the whole statement of the Treasurer was the extent to which he has either endorsed the former Government's analysis of the economy, and the causes of our present difficulties as put forward during the election campaign, or repudiated the economic platform on which his party was elected. The Treasurer and some of his colleagues appear to have derived more pleasure since the statement was delivered from media claims that the statement implements policies of the former Government than they have from the extent to which it implements the stated policy of the Australian Labor Party. Not only has this statement repudiated former policies of the Labor Party and confirmed in many respects the former Government's analysis of our economic ills but also, even more importantly, it has illustrated the fundamental hypocrisy of the Labor Party's attack on the former Government's economic performance. If the Hawke Government really believed, as the Treasurer said last Thursday night, that the former Liberal Government went beyond the limits of fiscal responsibility in increasing commitments to outlays and tax expenditures and reducing taxation through last year, why did it not do something positive about this alleged recklessness in last Thursday night's statement? Why did not the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) arrest the alleged economic vandalism of which he and his Ministers have spoken with increasing shrillness in recent days? Why did they not have the courage, if they really believed those allegations, to increase personal taxation in last Thursday night's mini-Budget and thus put into reverse the changes that were announced in the last Budget? The Treasurer knows, as well as I do, that the real fiscal stimulus of the last Budget was contained in the personal taxation reductions which he admits will have a full- year effect of about $3,000m in 1983-84. I will tell honourable members why they did not do that. They did not do it because when the last Budget was brought down the Labor Party argued that our taxation reductions did not go far enough. The former Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) said they were mean. The present Prime Minister ran around the country demanding a deficit this financial year 50 per cent higher than we are likely to have and the equivalent of 4 per cent to 5 per cent of gross domestic product. He told us to throw away our calculators. He told us to forget about the size of the deficit. He wanted a deficit this year of $6,500m, without a care in the world as to the implications of that size of deficit for next year's budgetary problem. The true position is that in Opposition the Labor Party called for a much more expansionary Budget last year than the former Governement was willing to bring down. Not one member of the Australian Labor Party was opposed to the size of last year's Budget deficit. Again, in the election campaign, the Labor Party made promises to the tune of $4,000m, derided the unwillingness of the coalition to offer further taxation cuts and ignored our warnings that the economy could not afford what Labor had offered during that election campaign. The deterioration in the Budget position for next year, about which the Prime Minister and his colleagues have so piously wrung their hands in recent weeks, overwhelmingly has been due to the sharp deterioration in the economy which occurred during the latter half of last year and which the former Government fully acknowledged and disclosed. The final proof that the Government accepts this analysis is the fact it has taken no action in his mini-Budget to overturn the major thrust of last year's Budget. It simply cannot have it both ways. It cannot now say that last year's Budget was reckless and irresponsible yet, by its very inaction, do virtually nothing to change it. It cannot, as the Treasurer piously does at page 15 of his statement, claim that the full year cost of the taxation concessions in last year's Budget amounting to around $3, 000m was suddenly discovered when the Labor Party was elected to power. This fact was fully disclosed in the Budget Papers last year and spelt out in great detail. In fact a significant part of the present Prime Minister's speech on the Budget last year was devoted to the full year effect of the tax concessions announced in that Budget. Despite this acknowledg- ment, he committed himself to another $4,000m of spending during the election campaign and having won office, now has the effrontery, along with his colleagues, to say: 'We never realised it was going to cost so much next year'. The major fiscal policy announcements in last Thursday night's statement, with the exception of the changed housing arrangements, leave virtually untouched the measures introduced by the former Government in the last Budget. When allowance is made, as my colleague the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, for the impact in 1983-84 of the Budget cost of operating Medicare of approximately $ 400m, the projected Budget savings in that year from last Thursday night's package is virtually zero. It would appear that the net yield from the Hawke Government's assault upon the alleged vandalism of the last Budget is no more than $28m or a farcical 0.005 per cent of total Budget outlays. I suspect that the Treasurer is really privately rather happy with the fiscal stimulus contained in last year's Budget. I think he is fairly pleased with the effect that last year's Budget is having on the economy at present and I suspect that he rather believes that the fiscal balance in last year's Budget was probably about right. He notes rather approvingly in his statement that one of the reasons the Government expects some improvement in economic activity next financial year is in fact that very same fiscal stimulus. Indeed, the Treasurer at page 9 of his statement has nominated six reasons why he expects there to be some improvement in economic activity next financial year . Five of these reasons are in no way derived from the economic policies or actions of the present Government. I make no particular point of that except to put it down for the record. The final reason and of fundamental importance is the question of future moderation of income claims. Of course, that is a matter of fierce contention. However, one thing is clear. Such moderation as has occurred to date in income claims has been largely the result of the former Government's initiative in introducing the wage pause and not because of the prices and incomes accord sponsored by the present Government. As the Leader of the Opposition has already pointed out, last Thursday night's statement is largely irrelevant to the issue of unemployment. The real economic battleground as far as unemployment is concerned is the area of wages policy. What happens to wage increases in Australia over the next 12 months will have an impact on levels of unemployment many times greater than the total impact of the Treasurer's statement of last Thursday night. I do not say that in denigration of the statement but it is an obvious declaration of fact that the real ambit and the real battleground on which the question of unemployment is to be resolved is outside the ambit of last Thursday night's statement. We must therefore keep that statement in perspective. As an exercise in job creation and as an exercise in reducing unemployment, the statement is largely meaningless and irrelevant. The point needs to be made again and made clearly: The evidence presented by the Government to the National Economic Summit Conference showed beyond argument that the longer the wage pause continued the greater would be the improvement in the employment situation, the sharper the fall in inflation and the faster the rate of economic growth. The Government's response to this statement of fact and to the Opposition's continued support for the wage pause, and also the support of many respected industrialists, is to say that it is industrially unreal to try to maintain the wage pause at least until the end of this year. In taking such a stance the Government not only puts industrial harmony ahead of the interests of the unemployed but also underestimates, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the willingness of those in work to accept sacrifices in helping those out of work. A recent public opinion survey revealed that approximately 70 per cent of those interviewed supported the maintenance of the wage pause at least until the end of 1983. Despite its acknowledgments about the importance of profitability in the private sector, the Government seems unwilling to take the final leap and acknowledge that in present economic conditions the only way profitability can be rebuilt and the growth in unemployment checked is for those in work to accept nothing short of a real reduction in income. The restoration of private sector profitability is not something merely to be mentioned when representatives of the business community are present; it lies at the very heart of the solution to our unemployment problem. It cannot be painlessly achieved. Any objective analysis of the Australian economy over the past 20 years will show very clearly that as real wages have risen business profitability has declined and as business profitability has declined unemployment has risen. In the 1950s and 1960s there was a relatively constant share of profits to gross domestic product of around 17 per cent. There was also a relatively constant but consistently low level of unemployment. But between 1972 and 1975 the profit share of business fell dramatically and unemployment rose. It was not until the late 1970s that the profit share started to rise again, returning to a level of about 15 per cent. As a result, in an 18-month period towards the end of the 1970s, something like 250,000 additional jobs were created. However, with the recent wage explosion, the profits share has again fallen drastically and is now less than 13 per cent-an historical low. As the Leader of the Opposition has already pointed out, the Treasurer's statement last Thursday night added to the already long list of broken promises of the Hawke Labor Government. I am sure the overwhelming majority of the Australian people would wish that the existing health care arrangements remain unaltered and many hundreds of thousands of those people will bitterly resent the Government's premature termination of the health insurance rebate despite the explicit promises from the Prime Minister that it would be left untouched until the new Medicare arrangements came into force. This surely will become one of the more notorious of the many broken promises of this Prime Minister. This statement, and those supporting it, contain some truly astonishing contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) says that the single most important thing which can be done to stimulate greater housing activity is to reduce interest rates. Yet the major policy decision of the Government announced last Thursday night in the area of housing was to announce an effective increase in interest rates of about 1 1/2 per cent through the abolition of the taxation rebate. What inconsistency can exceed that? Here again both the Minister for Housing and Construction and the Prime Minister have recently adopted, and I welcome it, an argument of the former Government that higher deficits lead to higher interest rates. Yet in the very statement we are debating the Treasurer has announced that at the next Loan Council meeting the Commonwealth will encourage the States and their semi- government authorities to borrow much larger sums. He has virtually guaranteed a blow-out in the borrowing demands of the States and their semi-government authorities. This must put greater pressure on financial markets and must therefore, using the very argument of the Prime Minister only last weekend and of his Housing Minister this morning, exert upward pressure on interest rates because it is the total public sector borrowing requirement and not just the Budget deficit component of that requirement which competes with private sector demand for loanable funds in our financial market. A $1,000m addition to the semi-goverment borrowing program will have precisely the same interest rate effect as a $1,000m addition to the Budget deficit. It will be no answer, as I anticipate the Government may well argue, that semi-government authorities will be given greater freedom to borrow overseas. Quite apart from the exchange risk considerations, which are very important in themselves, greater overseas borrowing by semi-government authorities adds directly to the domestic money supply. If in fact the Government intends-as it says it will, and I hope it does -to run a firm monetary policy, it will need to sell more government paper to soak up the additional liquidity created by these increased overseas borrowings. This, in turn, will bring us back to square one and exert further upward pressure on interest rates. On the subject of monetary policy, I believe that some of the Treasurer's comments in last Thursday night's statement were downright deceptive and dishonest. The Treasurer knows full well that when the former Government left office the growth in M3 for the 12 months to February was 10.6 per cent, which was within the target range announced in the previous Budget. The fact, as he says, that the target was virtually out of reach by March is due largely to the sins of omission on his part during that month. The truth is that M3 rose dramatically, from February's 10.6 per cent to 12.4 per cent for the 12 months ended March 1983-by far the largest rise for something like seven or eight years . One has to go back to the 1972-75 period to find a jump as high as that. The bulk of the March rise was due to the massive capital inflow which followed the March devaluation. If the Treasurer denies this, let him have a look at what the Treasury had to say on page 20 of its own economic round-up for April. It said: The devaluation produced an immediate and marked turnaround in private sector foreign exchange transactions. This considerably eased domestic liquidity conditions and most short term rates fell sharply immediately after the devaluation. Despite this, the Treasury points out: The non-bank take-up of Commonwealth Government securities had only a minor overall influence on liquidity conditions in March. The present Government simply did not sell enough government securities during that period. The real truth is that in the two and a half months this Government has been in office it has allowed the money supply to grow quite rapidly because it has wanted to procure for political reasons reductions in interest rates. It now belatedly realises that this is not appropriate and has made a thoroughly welcome decision to hold a large bond tender of $1,500m. The only problem is that nobody has got around to telling the Minister for Housing and Construction that there has been a change in the Government's policy. It is therefore quite discreditable of the Treasurer to seek to excuse his own monetary laxity by attacking the former Government on this score. It is astonishing that a statement of this importance, from a government which prides itself on access to relevant information and open government, should make no reference to the latest forecasts of economic growth available to the Government. This incredible omission assumes greater importance in the light of the debate we have had in recent weeks about the projected size of next year's deficit. It is an indisputable fact that the level of economic growth next financial year will have a profound effect on the size of that year's deficit. The entirely speculative and much used figure of $9.6m was based upon a growth forecast for the next year of a mere 0.5 per cent, yet the Government's favoured scenario, scenario A, as presented to the National Economic Summit Conference, assumes growth of 2.7 per cent in that year. At the weekend there were Press reports to the effect that next year the Government expected growth to be much higher, around 4 per cent. Why, then, did the Treasurer not mention a growth figure in his statement? He would have received one; I know that. Why will he not make it in public? His refusal to make it public only confirms the view I have had for a long time-that he wishes to perpetuate the myth that $9.6 billion was ever a realistic bench-mark against which the performance of the Government, in achieving what ultimately proves to be the deficit for next year, can be judged. It is open to the Treasurer to reply to this. I hope that he does. The Treasurer has no credentials to issue challenges to the Opposition about alternative economic policy. Despite this being the first major economic statement of the Hawke Labor Government to this Parliament, the Ministers involved have given a totally incomplete account of themselves. They have not provided a growth forecast, they have not provided a deficit forecast and they have not provided an inflation forecast. They have repudiated the economic policy on which they were elected but they cannot decide whether last year's Budget was either good or bad. They are indulging in irresponsible, speculative comments about future movements in interest rates. The Minister for Housing and Construction is particularly vulnerable on this count. He has no grounds on which to justify his wild predictions that housing interest rates are about to fall. I do not believe that anybody, particularly the electors of Bruce, will be deluded by that sort of totally misleading, totally deceptive and totally unfounded political prediction. The Government will waste $400m of taxpayers' money next year through the needless introduction of the new Medicare arrangements. I believe the Government would have been better advised to apply any gross savings in last Thursday night 's exercise towards a reduction in the size of the Budget deficit. As is usual with Labor governments, this economic statement diverts money from the private sector to the public sector. It is a statement on social policy rather than a statement on the economy. By having no overall economic impact, this statement raises real concerns about the future. Government Ministers tell us that further measures will be taken in the Budget. That remains to be seen. The fact is that the failure of the statement to alter the deficit means that Australia faces at Budget time either a huge rise in taxes and a big cut in spending programs or an excessive reliance on monetary policy which would push up interest rates-that is , of course, if the Government really does care about the size of the deficit. On all of the facts, it demonstrably does not. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(5.23) -The measures that the House is considering at present represent the most recent part of a program which the Government has undertaken since it was elected on 5 March to bring about a reversal in the type of situation which had developed in Australia and to get Australia moving again. The House is having a cognate debate on the economic statement on the state of the economy, the housing policy initiatives which have been announced, the Community Employment Bill introduced by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and a Bill to establish an Economic Planning Advisory Council. One would be forgiven for believing, as a result of the contribution made by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the former Treasurer in the former Government, with all the evidence that should have been available to the former Government and to those who acted as the architects for its economic policies, that they would have at least learnt that not only their approach was wrong but also their understanding was deficient, the policies that they attempted to put into place were ill-devised and ill-designed to meet the challenges that Australia faced during those years, and that the policies the former Government put into effect were responsible for exacerbating the situation that Australia was experiencing. It is not possible, of course, to go through all the individual issues that were raised by the honourable member for Bennelong, who preceded me in this debate. But the honourable member did say, in part, that the present Government was repudiating the economic policies on which it was elected. I think what we need to do is to consider the essential elements of the economic policies upon which this Government was elected. Let us not lose sight of those essential elements when we are looking at the possibility of some form of modification being built into the general approach of this Government as a result of the quite disastrous economic and budgetary position which this Government inherited . I remind the honourable member for Bennelong and honourable members generally of something of which I reminded them on the most recent occasion on which I spoke in a debate in this House. I refer to the fact that the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the week preceding the election on 5 March made it perfectly clear, spelt out to the Australian people in very clear terms that if the reality proved to be that both the former Treasurer and the former Prime Minister had distorted and misrepresented the truth, if it became apparent that the Australian community and the then Opposition had been less than well advised by the former Government and if, in the light of that and the decisions made at the National Economic Summit Conference it became apparent to the new Government that some modifications of its policies was necessary, those modifications would be made. Let us make no mistake about it, that was more than adequately spelt out. The Australian people, before they cast their vote on 5 March, knew that if the situation we inherited proved to be other than what we had been given to understand it would be, some modification may be necessary. On previous occasions I have indicated that it may well be necessary for us to document the development of all of those circumstances which finally brought us to the point where we did become informed of the type of fiscal position the Hawke Labor Government was going to inherit. When did we become informed of that ? When finally was that advice available to the new Government? This did not occur in the week prior to the election on 5 March; not even on 5 March itself when the Australian people were casting their vote, showing their overwhelming and massive support for the Hawke Labor Government. We did not even know at that time the significance, the ultimate reality, of the disastrous fiscal position into which the previous Government had led this Parliament and this nation. We did not know that until the week following the election. How fortuitous it was that even the former Treasurer himself did not know until a quarter to six in the evening of the day preceding the election that the Budget deficit for the next year was going to be $9.6 billion. How fortuitous it was not only for the Treasurer but also perhaps for the Department of the Treasury and the Secretary to the Treasury that that information suddenly became known in the dying hours of the last day before 5 March. But what had been the circumstances which preceded this? On about 7 March, a couple of days after the election had been held, two similar articles-one in the Newcastle Herald by a correspondent Jane Eyre and the other in the Sydney Morning Herald by that newspapers' correspondent Jenni Hewett-referred to Mr Howard's February statement that the estimated deficit for 1983-84 would be higher than this year' s deficit, which at that time was being spoken of as being in the vicinity of $4 billion. The former Treasurer in his February statement said: . . . some estimates have put it as high as $6 billion. He said 'some estimates', and I ask honourable members to keep those words in mind as I read the statements which follow that one. Jane Eyre's article continued: At the same time (i.e. in late February), Mr Howard asserted that under Labor- If a Labor government were to come into power- that next year's deficit could be as high as $10 billion. Of course, the then Treasurer had been well and sufficiently advised at that time-late February-- Mr Howard —Oh, no. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Oh, yes indeed. In early February the former Treasurer knew that the projected deficit for next year was at least $8 billion. What was the former Treasurer's knowledge and understanding at the time he used the figure of $6 billion that was used during the election campaign? On Channel 9's Sunday program on 13 March the former Treasurer in the former Government admitted that he knew the deficit for next year would start at around $8 billion long before he used the figure of $6 billion during the election campaign. If my contribution to this debate is to be disputed, let me quote the actual words that were used by the former Treasurer. He said: I was given some indication of a very general kind in the early part of this year that the deficit for next year might approach double what it was looking like being for this year. At that time it was looking like being $4 billion for this year. If we double that figure we get an amount of $8 billion. So that was known early this year. The former Treasurer received an informal note from the Treasury before the election was called informing him that the 1983-84 deficit would begin-- Mr Howard —That is not right. I'll show you the minute. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I will stand corrected. I am quoting from a newspaper report. If in fact that informal note did not indicate to the former Treasurer that the 1983-84 deficit would begin at around double the $4 billion forecast as the outcome for this financial year, I will be quite happy to be corrected. I would not deliberately misrepresent the position. In the week following the election the former Treasurer admitted that the $6 billion deficit figure for 1983-84 that he had used during the campaign-of course, as we became aware, that was an underestimate of $3.6 billion of the figure that was being presented by the Treasury in the last week prior to the election-was his own figure and was not based on Treasury advice. In the first days of the week following the Federal election on 5 March he was confronted during, I think, about a 35-minute Press conference and was quoted as saying then: I don't accept that I just made it up. That was the figure of $6 billion- I think that somebody who has been Treasurer for five years is entitled . . . to give some order of magnitude based upon one's own understanding. How does that stand with the suggestion that was made initially by the former Treasurer that some estimates have put it as high as $6 billion? There were not some estimates; there was one estimate-it was the former Treasurer's estimate. But the estimate that he made was not even based on the advice he received from the Department of the Treasury. He grabbed it out of the air, knowing the danger of releasing, immediately before the election, a projected deficit figure that was in the vicinity of $8 billion or $9 billion. He revealed that he had first found out about the $9 billion figure five days before the election. The elections were to be held on the Saturday and on the Monday before he was advised by the Treasury that the projected deficit for 1983-84 would be in the vicinity of $9 billion. The final figure, $9.6 billion, was not disclosed until the very convenient hour of a quarter to six on Friday of that week. I am not blaming the former Treasurer for that. Mr Howard —I am very pleased to hear that. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable gentleman received the information. What I am concerned about-and I make no apologies for referring to it-is the fortuitous time at which that information was provided to him. I repeat, on the Monday prior to the election the former Treasurer was advised that the 1983-84 deficit would be in the vicinity of $9 billion. The former Treasurer has revealed that the $9.6 billion figure was confirmed in a phone call at a quarter to six on Friday, 4 March, the evening before the election. Mr Ruddock —How many times are you going to use these notes, Bob? Mr ROBERT BROWN —I will probably use them for at least the next three years. That incredible performance, the falsification and concealment perpetrated by the former Government, the former Prime Minister and the former Treasurer, has given me sufficient running in this place for the next three years. But I will give the former Treasurer some credit. I understand-it has been stated as well in the media-that such was his concern about the significance of that information that either he or his office, on two occasions after the Monday of the week prior to the Federal election, sought advice from the office of the former Prime Minister, the Right Honourable John Malcolm Fraser, the former member for Wannon. In effect, the former Treasurer asked the former Prime Minister: 'Will we divulge this important information to the Australian people so that, when they vote next Saturday, they will be as well informed as they can be about the fiscal position that the next Government will inherit? Should we advise the Australian people; should we take the Australian people into our confidence; or should we conceal this information?' What was the answer given by the former member for Wannon, the former Prime Minister, the Right Honourable John Malcolm Fraser, on both occasions, the advice that came back to the Treasurer's office was: 'Do not reveal the information'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.38) —This is the second occasion on which the Australian people have had an opportunity to gauge the sort of leadership that this nation will get from the Hawke Government . The first was the occasion of the National Economic Summit Conference, when we witnessed a very clever exercise, the outcome of which was the sabotaging of the wages pause, the continuation of which was absolutely necessary if we were to handle our economic problems. Instead, the Government produced a prices and incomes accord which has turned out to be nothing more than what the unions want to interpret it as. Every day that agreement seems to be falling further into tatters. A mini-Budget has been brought down, one that opts for the easy, opportunist approach to the very serious problems that face this nation. It does not provide the strong, resolute, determined leadership that the difficult circumstances of the day demand. Apparently, the Australian Labor Party believes that it can treat the Australian people as fools. That is the only conclusion that one can come to after its performance at the Summit and the introduction of this mini-Budget. Promise after promise has been broken. Minister after Minister has blundered. The Government has see-sawed from inaction to panic. As it stumbles from one day to the next, from one disaster to the next, it snaps back at anybody who seeks to question its activities, its bungling and complete incompetence. Any sort of consistency on the part of this Government is very difficult to find. That is not very surprising when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) does not consult his colleagues and, in turn, they do not consult their colleagues. In fact, the Caucus has become practically a social club of the Parliament. But there has been one shred of consistency. I refer to the repeated claim by this Government that all its failures are the fault of the previous Government. Time after time we have heard the Prime Minister claim, in this House and outside of it, that the cause of all the Governments troubles is the 'terrible deficit' that it inherited from the former Liberal-National Party Government. The Government has fabricated this exercise as an excuse to cover up its own inadequacies and deceit. It knows that both the former Prime Minister and I, when we brought in the wages pause last year, did so because of the difficult circumstances facing this country in 1983. The people of Australia know that, during the campaign, the former Prime Minister, the former Treasurer and I repeatedly emphasised the economic problems facing this country. There was no cover-up concerning just how difficult were the circumstances. The Government knows that the impact of the world recession, the collapse of prices for export commodities, the excessive wage demands and the effects of the drought had produced circumstances that were very difficult indeed. Australians knew it, the Australian Labor Party knew it, and even the drover's dog would have known it. There would have been no surprise about that whatever. Despite this, the present Prime Minister and his colleagues went into the election campaign making promises that they knew were irresponsible and could not be kept. That was a gigantic betrayal of the Australian people and the Australian people will not forget it. I have no doubt that well before the election campaign the Labor Party made a conscious decision to use that tactic. It must have known that the Australian economy could not meet the cost of such promises as it was dishing out and trumpeting, during the campaign. Yet it went ahead, planning after the election if it won, to find a way out. That way out is its reference to a projected deficit of $9.6 billion for 1983-84. That figure is far too high, the Government says. I fully agree, as do my colleagues. We feel that such a level of deficit would be disastrous, but a projected deficit is just that-projected. The deficit for 1983-84 will be what the Government makes it. It will be the response of the Government to the highly serious economic circumstances that Australia faces today. Clearly, it would have been cut if the Liberal and National parties had stayed in government. For example, in 1976, when the Government faced a deficit forecast of $4.8 billion, inherited from the Whitlam Government, it cut the projected deficit by $2.6 billion or almost 50 per cent. In 1978, when the deficit forward estimate was $6 billion, the Government cut that figure by more than $3 billion, or more than 50 per cent. So there is nothing magical about a Budget forecast of $9.6 billion for 1983-84. It can be cut or, at least could be , if the Government wanted to cut it. That is the real point. The exercise in deception in which the Government has engaged concerning the deficit has, I believe, two aims. The first is to allow the Labor Party to weasel out of its election promises. The second is to condition the Australian people to accepting massive deficits and massive government spending. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) hope that if they set up a $10 billion deficit as an aunt sally and then knock it down, Australians will be much more ready to accept an $8 billion deficit-still a massive deficit but less, of course, than the imaginary figure that somebody is supposed to be so worried about. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer hope that if Australians accept an $ 8 billion deficit for 1983-84, they will accept similar deficits in the following years. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer and their colleagues are in fact laying the groundwork for an explosion in public sector spending on a scale never before seen in this country. The dangers the nation faces because of this exercise in deception were clearly spelt out in a column by the business editor, Mr Terry McCrann, in the Age on 13 May. I quote the opening paragraphs in full, because I believe they are relevant and important. Mr McCrann wrote: It is surprising how suddenly and completely the issues of the size of Government and the problems of funding large public sector deficits have faded from the debate over economic policy. But their disappearance from the public debating arena does not mean they have ceased to exist. Far from it. In fact, Australia is undergoing an expansion in the size of Government in the economy to rival that of the Whitlam years. Indeed, on a more pessimistic scenario, the expansion could exceed that of the Whitlam years. It is possible to project that by the end of the Hawke years-on a worst-case basis-spending by Governments and public authorities could approach 50 per cent of gross domestic product. This would compare with around 31 per cent at the beginning and around 38 per cent at the end of the Whitlam era. Furthermore, this new growth in Government will be accompanied by a veritable explosion in public sector deficits which far, far exceeds that of the Whitlam years. And, of course, they will have to be funded either by borrowing, discretionary tax rises -from a higher tax base than in 1973-or printing money. Indeed, again on a worst -case basis, the public sector deficits over the three years to 1984-85-which includes this year largely passed-could exceed a staggering $45,000m. Mr Sinclair —How much? Mr ANTHONY —An amount of $45,000m. This is what Mr Terry McCrann, business editor of the Age, wrote. In that quotation, Mr McCrann referred at one stage to the end of the Hawke years. Clearly he was referring to the term of the present Government. But I am sure that if the forecasts come true-and we are firmly heading down that trail now-the Australian people will not be able to get to the polls quickly enough to remove this Government from office. Last week's statement by the Treasurer confirms both the trend of those forecasts and my own fears that this Government is trying to condition Australians to accept large deficits. The result of all the Government's cost cutting was, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said on 19 May, a 'massive anti-climax'. All we get is a total net saving for 1983-84 of less than $430m-an amount roughly equal to the no doubt understated cost of introducing Medicare. This economic statement was only a cosmetic gesture of support for lower deficits. The Government seems to believe that with this gesture behind it, it can get on, unobstructed, with a massive program of Government spending. We saw last week the Government lay the foundations for a new round of higher inflation, higher taxation and pressure on interest rates. We have seen it give its blessing to the pay rise that the Australian Council of Trade Unions will be seeking from the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We have seen it back away from promise after promise on everything from lower taxes, the cost of fuel, the future of the steel industry and the funding of the Darwin to Alice Springs railway. In this statement specifically we have seen broken election promises on the health insurance rebate and on the housing interest rebate. This Government is digging its own grave and it is digging it with the shovel of deceit. The tragedy is that if it is allowed to go on, it will drag Australia and Australians down with it. I believe that all Australian should be alerted to the deception that the Labor Party is trying to put over in this mini-Budget. I want tonight to discuss another aspect of the statement made by the Treasurer last week. I refer to the Government's claim that the measures it announced meant equality of sacrifice for Australians. That claim is as bankrupt as the rhetoric of national reconciliation that the Labor Party used in the election campaign. It is as empty as the concern for the unemployed that it expressed during the National Economic Summit Conference. The fact is that the major share of the sacrifice will fall on country people. Overall, the amount may not be large. But the fact is that one-third of the total net savings the Government hopes to make will come from the rural community. Most country people are only now looking ahead with some hope after years of drought. Many, tragically, are now suffering from floods instead. International prices for most of our agricultural products are low, some disastrously low. Net farm incomes are the lowest they have been for over two decades and rural indebtedness is at record levels. Yet, on top of these problems, the Government plans to increase the costs faced by the rural community and to abandon programs which would have made its future much more secure. The Government has already broken its promises in regard to cutting fuel prices. It now proposes to increase the cost of petrol in the country-not in the cities. The cost of air travel, phone costs, postal charges, all so important to country people, especially those in isolated areas, are set to rise. The imaginative and forward looking Bicentennial Water Resources Program has been dumped at a time when the drought should have highlighted to everyone how important it is to try to help shore up our farms, those great renewable resources producing much of our vital export income. Communities from Kalgoorlie to Gladstone will suffer because of the water resources decision. It means an end to the feasibility studies into additional River Murray water storage and the possibility of diverting water from our coastal rivers to the west. These are all great schemes that could help the jobless and give the nation lasting benefits at the same time. It means an end to the Split Rock Dam project in New South Wales, to the Awoonga Dam project in Queensland, to the rehabilitation of the Kalgoorlie goldfields pipeline, to the Adelaide and iron triangle filtration scheme and to a score of other vital projects. (Extension of time granted). I thank the House for its indulgence. Some $70m was set aside for the water resources program for 1983-84. That program has been abandoned. I could not think of a more worthy program to try to give employment opportunities and still do something very lasting for this country than that sort of program. Now the Government claims credit because it plans to spend $20m for employment generation programs in country towns on water supply schemes. It is ridiculous to suggest that band-aid schemes such as that will have any long term impact on water supply security. We have to get to the basis of it with major programs; the other follows. On top of that, the Treasurer has put into question the level of funding for the existing water resources program. The Government has also made changes to the tax averaging provisions for primary producers. I would be very surprised if the abolition of the in-out provision yields the sort of revenue the Government seems to expect, or is the special privilege that members of the Government try to present it as. The increase in the interest rates on income equalisation deposits will be welcome- that is something. On depreciation, primary producers have been deprived of the benefits of a shorter depreciation period that now exists for manufacturers, miners and others who purchase equipment. Why have the primary producers been singled out and put in the worst position? In the past, because of their export significance, they were always given a favoured position and encouraged; but now , because of a Labor Government, obvious discrimination is emerging. Overall, the mini-Budget will cost country people around $140m directly, on top of the share they will have to meet on the cost of changes to pension and superannuation arrangements and the abolition of the previous Government's assistance to home buyers. This Labor Government has demonstrated yet again the total disdain of the Labor Party for the rural community. If there could ever have been any doubt about this, it must have been dispelled by the Labor Government's action to cancel the construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway or at least make it virtually impossible. That is a clear election promise broken. Its excuses are hollow because it knows the Northern Territory cannot afford to pay the $100m that would be needed over the next three years alone to meet its 40 per cent share of the costs of such construction. The blatant cynicism of the Labor Party in that area alone ought to be enough to ensure that the new member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) serves only one term in this Parliament. Country people, whether on the farm, in the towns or provincial cities, from all walks of life, have suffered harshly from the effects of the drought and the recession in a way that few other Australians have. The Government now asks them to suffer further and to suffer more than their fellow Australians in metropolitan areas. No mention is made in the economic statement of Labor's promise to help the sugar industry. There is no mention of action to complete the tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication campaign in northern Australia. If action is not taken, all the work of years will be to no avail. Nothing could be so counter- productive as doing nothing in that area. It is clear from this statement that the Labor Government is running true to form. It is showing again that it believes that country people really do not matter. Country people are of no interest or concern to the Labor Party, so it forgets them. It has shown itself incapable of realising that our great primary industries are a vital foundation of the economic success of the whole nation and of the prosperity of its people. If there is to be genuine, firm leadership given in this country, there has to be some fairness and courage. Those are the points which I have demonstrated today. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(5.59) —At the outset, I will put the whole matter of the economic statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) into its proper perspective. It must be seen in the perspective of seven long years of Fraser and Fraserism. It must be seen in the perspective of the economic mess this Government inherited at the end of all those years of economic mismanagement. It must be seen in the perspective of our inheritance from the previous Government of the highest unemployment in Australia for 50 years. It must be seen in the perspective of our inheritance of the highest interest rates on record. It must be seen in the perspective of an inflation rate only marginally lower than it was seven years ago when the Fraser Government began to lock this nation into its disastrous fight inflation first policies. It must be seen in the perspective of the highest Budget deficit ever imposed on this nation in our history-a deficit of a magnitude unparalleled, the size of which was so dishonestly concealed from the people of Australia during the recent election campaign. That is the perspective and that is our inheritance. That is the legacy which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), the Deputy of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) have left for this Government and this nation to clean up. It is that task, the most difficult and awesome economic task ever presented to any incoming government in Australia's history, which the Treasurer's statement last Thursday is designed to tackle. We heard today from the Leader of the Opposition and his Deputy, the former Treasurer, the architect of economic disaster in this country , some of the greatest humbug and hypocrisy ever uttered in this House. I referred to the previous Treasurer, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, as the architect of the economic disaster that we inherited. But let me make this point: I have, in a way, some sort of respect for the previous Treasurer, the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, for the rather manful way in which he has been prepared to embrace the responsibility for the deception which was practised on this country in the election period from 3 February to 5 March. I think he is to be congratulated-not for the deception, because, of course, we have condemned him for that-but for the manful way in which since that time he has been prepared, almost solely, to incur the wrath of the Australian electorate and to accept the responsibility for that deception. But a very interesting question concerns the state of knowledge of the Leader of the Opposition, the then holder of a very senior portfolio in the previous Government. He did not hold some lowly portfolio. He held a very senior economic responsibility, the portfolio for industry and commerce. The people of Australia and all members of this House now know, certainly, that the previous Treasurer knew of the deception. It is known that the previous Prime Minister knew of the deception. It is known that the previous Minister for Finance, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, knew of the deception. What has not been answered is whether the now Leader of the Opposition, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, knew of the deception. Did he know, as did the then Treasurer, the then Prime Minister and the then Minister for Finance? Did the Leader of the Opposition know, or was he not really a senior member of the Cabinet? Was he just the tea boy, who went and got the cream puffs for the other members of the Cabinet? Did he or did he not know? This is a very important question because the state of knowledge of the Treasurer and the manful way in which he has accepted responsibility for the deception, quite clearly cost him the possibility of the leadership of the Opposition. He did not welch. He manfully accepted responsibility for the fact that he knew that the people of Australia were being deceived; that the incoming deficit for 1983-84 was, in fact, not going to be the $6 billion deficit that was trumpeted around the country. He knew that it would be much more than that. Certainly, in the last week before the election, he knew that it would be of the order of $9.6 billion. The central question that has to be asked-I suggest that it ought to be asked by every member of the Liberal Party-is whether the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Leader of the Opposition, knew. If he knew-I suggest that that is the only reasonable deduction that any intelligent person can make-he has the leadership of the Liberal Party by default and, in a sense, by the courage of the present Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. It is about time that the present Leader of the Liberal Party showed the courage and the manliness that has been exhibited by his current deputy. Mr Tuckey —Is he starting to worry you? Mr HAWKE —No, I want him to stay there. He will make a perfect Leader of the Opposition for the very many years we shall continue to be in government. Those members of the Liberal Party who have allowed themselves to be deceived by this lack of courage on the part of the current Leader of the Opposition should ask, as every other thinking Australian is now asking: Did Mr Peacock share the knowledge of the deceit practised by the then Treasurer, by the then Prime Minister and by the then Minister for Finance, or was there some magical fence of lack of knowledge that was suddenly lowered around the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance which excluded the then Minister for Industry and Commerce? I suggest that any intelligent and honourable member of this House will know what the answer to that question is. Did the then Minister for Industry and Commerce know, or did he not? The answer, I suggest, is yes, he did know; and it is a travesty of justice that the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition should have been in the position where he sacrificed the possibility of leadership of the Liberal Party because of that fact. Criticism has been offered this day by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party-the three most important members of the Opposition, although there must be some doubt in their minds as to the ranking after number one. Given the electoral performance of the National Party recently vis-a-vis the Liberal Party, I suggest that the Leader of the National Party has very good reason to suggest that he is very much more important in the ranking than the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. But we have heard from the three of them today. Let there be no mistake that every criticism that they have had to offer is not a criticism of this Government or of the Treasurer's statement but is, in fact, from their very own mouths, an indictment of their own seven sorry years. The Treasurer's statement last Thursday night has very specific aims. It helps us to fight unemployment and inflation at the same time. That is what it is all about. We have been able to implement our election commitments to job creation and to housing while making very substantial progress in bringing under control the unprecedented budgetary problems left by the previous Government. As a result of last Thursday's measures, there are now improved prospects for private sector recovery proceeding over the next few years without being threatened by rising interest rates. There are improved prospects for the long term unemployed , especially young people, men and women, in rural and urban areas, finding their way back into jobs. There are improved prospects for the many Australians, especially young Australians, who were locked out of adequate housing by the policies of the Liberal Government, finding the shelter that earlier generations of Australians properly regarded as their birthright. I have been interested to hear the Opposition's objections to some of our measures and to the overall thrust of our statement. Not content with the results of their fiscal vandalism last year, the Liberals are doing their best to frustrate the reconstruction of the Australian economy. But that is exactly what one would expect from them. The Liberals' current attitude is consistent with their long sorry record of seeking short term political advantage at the expense of the Australian economy and at the expense of the interests of the Australian people. Their attitude now, as they get in the way while we clean up the mess which they left, is consistent with the political opportunism and the electoral deceit that the Australian people have come to expect of them. The Opposition has accused us of breaking election promises. Most Australians have been impressed by the extent to which we have been able to implement our program on job creation and housing and in other areas in the light of the disastrous budgetary inheritance which was concealed from us and from the Australian people until after the elections. Above all, we have kept faith with our fundamental promises of responsible expansionary fiscal policies and, more generally, good government. The Liberal Party told the Australian people during the election campaign that Australia, under Liberal policies, was headed towards a $6 billion deficit in 1983-84. The Australian Labor Party, like many Australians, took the Liberals at their word and proposed a number of programs to stimulate the economy and to assist groups of Australians who had been damaged most by the recession. Remembering the Liberals' record of electoral deceit, during the campaign I did caution that our proposals would need to be modified if it turned out that Messrs Fraser, Howard and Peacock and their colleagues had in fact been lying about the deficit. I was advised by the Secretary to the Treasury on the day after the election that the continuation of Liberal policies would generate a $9 .6 billion deficit in 1983-84. The Liberals had deliberately and cynically withheld from the Australian people information that was vital to intelligent assessments of the economic policies presented during the election campaign. We all know that the Liberals were prepared to corrupt the Australian electoral process for their own perceived cynical electoral ends. The Liberals' deceit did not end when they were dismissed by the Australian people on 5 March. The Leader of the Opposition sought to contest the advice of the Secretary to the Treasury-that if their fiscal policies had continued without correction, next year's Budget deficit would have totalled $9.6 billion. The figures of the Secretary to the Treasury were not related to departments' first bids; they were firm forward estimates of the cost of existing policies. The Leader of the Opposition knows it. His deputy knows it. The fraud and the political inspiration about these figures is all on their side of the House. The former Treasurer, Mr Howard, has asked why my Government did not simply reverse last year's tax cuts if we were so concerned about the deficit caused by his policies. I have no doubt that the former Treasurer would have had few qualms about reversing the cuts. That, after all, has been par for the course for the Liberals. That is standard Liberal Party practice. We were able to face some of the harder choices, and so far we have been able to avoid the increase in income tax rates that would have been so attractive and so consistent in form for the former Government. In 1975 we heard the Liberals' promises-honourable members will remember them-to reduce unemployment, to reduce inflation, and to maintain Medibank. All the people will remember the promises of 1975. Two years later, in 1977, we had the fistful of dollars, handed out before the election and snatched back only months afterwards. So that was 1975; that was 1977. Then we come to 1980. In 1980 there was the unmitigated lie about the resources boom without limit, which encouraged the wages explosion of 1981 and which ushered in the disastrous unemployment explosion of the last two years. Time after time, election after election, the Liberals betrayed the trust of the Australian people. They lied harder than ever in this year's campaign, but by now they have lost all credibility with the Australian people. Since March we have learnt that the Liberals' lies about the Budget deficit were the culmination of a year-long strategy of deceit. Last year the Liberals handed out concession after concession in the lead-up to what was going to be the September election that was stopped by the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. They carefully arranged then that the Bills they were piling up would be presented to the Australian people in 1983-84. We, in this new Government, have had to implement our policies in the wake of this financial irresponsibility. But that is only part of the inheritance of seven years of Liberal rule that we have had to start to correct. For seven years the Liberals systematically removed from Australia's taxation and expenditure policies any semblance of equity. The Australian people can be gratified that that era ended on 5 March. The new Government elected on that day is determined to keep faith with the Australian people. The Australian people expect responsible economic policies directed at economic recovery and, most urgently-for the duration of the present recession-protection of Australians in greatest need. The job creation and housing policies announced last Thursday implement our election undertakings in these areas. By the second half of the next financial year our Community Employment Program will be operating at a rate designed to generate 70,000 jobs for six months each in a full year. They will be useful jobs on projects developed in consultation with community groups. They will include the jobs on local roads promised during the campaign. By next year we expect that our wider economic policies will be taking hold, providing employment for increasing numbers of Australians, particularly young Australians . Inevitably some Australians will find it harder than others to take advantage of the new opportunities that will be opening up. Our Community Employment Program will be designed to provide the greatest help to our fellow Australians who are least likely to be taken back into employment in the early stages of economic recovery. Our housing policies are designed to meet urgent housing needs at the same time as they restore the contribution of housing construction to employment and to economic activity. The policies of our predecessors led to a huge slump in the housing industry all over Australia. The two rebate schemes introduced by the Liberal Government last year provide useful benefits for the recipients but they were poorly directed from the points of view both of housing needs and of the need to stimulate construction activity. Housing commencements for the current financial year are likely to be down to the level of 106,000. Consistently with our general concern to place the burden of fiscal restraint only on Australians in a relatively good position to accept it, the March rebate scheme will be continued for families with moderate or low incomes who have qualified for it. The policies announced on Thursday night by my colleague the Treasurer (Mr Keating) are directed specifically to bring new home owners into the housing market as well as to meeting the most acute needs through the increased provision of public housing. Our consultations with the housing industry give us confidence that our policies will lift housing activity towards an annual rate of 130,000 to 135,000 commencements in the second half of next financial year, compared with 106,000 in 1982-83. This strong recovery in housing activity will be a major component of our program for national economic recovery. In those circumstances is it any wonder that the Housing Industry Association-the body best equipped to talk to the Australian community, to make judgment about the programs of government-came out immediately after Thursday night's statement and gave unqualified approval to the program of this Government. Mr Hurford —And the permanent building societies. Mr HAWKE —And the permanent building societies as well. If we are going to talk about the broad range of endorsement of all our programs I suggest it is relevant to make judgment upon the fact that the Confederation of Australian Industry, the umbrella employer organisation, has welcomed our statement of last Thursday night. On the other side of industry the Australian Council of Trade Unions-the organised trade union movement-has overall, with certain qualifications in regard to superannuation, welcomed the statement, as has the overall employers' body. So we have the trade union movement, the overall employers' body, the Housing Industry Association, the insurance industry and the superannuation industry welcoming the statement. Is it possible that everyone is out of step except our little Andrew, except our little Johnnie and except our little Dougie? Our overriding commitment to the Australian people is to promote national economic recovery. We did not promise an instant solution to the economic problems that have accumulated in recent years. We informed the Australian people that it would take years of economic stability and growth to generate new jobs in acceptable numbers. The long term perspective that the Government has brought to the task of national economic recovery has required us, as a responsible government, to maintain a high degree of discipline with respect to expenditure priorities. If we had been concerned only with the next six months or the next year we might have implemented all our programs immediately while leaving poorly directed Liberal programs in place. This would have encouraged the continuation of the high inflation of recent years. It would also have placed pressure on financial markets as renewed confidence lifted private investment over the next two years. Higher interest rates would then have threatened the recovery before it had delivered the employment growth which we have undertaken to encourage. We quite deliberately rejected that approach. The National Economic Summit Conference called upon the Government to fight inflation and unemployment simultaneously. This meant that we were bound to accompany the implementation of our highest priority programs with measures to bring the Budget deficit under control. My Government's approach to fiscal policy is distinguished from its predecessor 's approach more than anything else by our long term perspective. We are aiming to provide of the order of half a million additional jobs for Australians over the next three years. This requires a long period of economic stability and sustained economic growth. We are as much concerned with the budgetary outlook in 1984-85 and in 1985-86 as we are with the year immediately ahead. Expenditure savings in the later years are as important as savings in 1983-84, given the Liberals' legacy of large structural Budget deficits stretching well into the future. It is a major achievement of the Treasurer's statement that it will reduce the Budget deficits for 1984-85 and 1985-86, each by around $1.5 billion, from levels that would follow from the continuation of the policies that we inherited. We are carrying this longer view of economic policy well beyond the Budget into all aspects of the nation's economic management. We know that we could generate short term reductions in interest rates through temporarily promoting rapid monetary growth, as the Liberals sought to do immediately after the last election. But such an approach would lead to sharply increasing rates and the truncation of growth when balance of payments and inflationary pressures inevitably led to its reversal. We are seeking lasting reductions in interest rates by holding government demands on financial markets within manageable limits and by holding monetary growth on a steady course. We are carrying this longer view of economic policy well beyond the Budget into all aspects of the nation's economic management. We know that we could generate short term reductions in interest rates through temporarily promoting rapid monetary growth, as the Liberals sought to do immediately before the last election. But such an approach would lead to sharply high rates and the truncation of growth when balance of payments and inflationary pressures inevitably led to its reversal. We are seeking lasting reductions in interest rates by holding government demands on financial markets within manageable limits, and by holding monetary growth on a steady course. Accordingly, the large bond tender announced by the Treasurer on Thursday night is designed to offset part of the monetary impact of capital inflow over the past month, and to finance the on-going Budget deficit in a non-inflationary manner. The same long term perspective guides our wages policy. We have been urged by some of our friends in business to seek the greatest restraint in wages that short term conditions would allow. We accept these urgings to the point of acknowledging that wage increases this year on anything like the scale of recent years would kill economic recovery almost as soon as it had begun. But we seek to avoid the opposite danger as well. We see no advantage in asking for such a high degree of restraint now that it is impossible to secure any co-operation and restraint from the trade union movement in 1984 and 1985. All honourable members of this House will recall the industrial chaos, the spiralling wages and prices, that followed the Liberal Government's abandonment of wage indexation in mid-1981. There is no threat of that happening this year. But the institutions and traditions of the Australian labour market are likely to produce exactly this result as recovery accelerates next year, unless we are able to restore confidence in a centralised system of wage fixing in 1983. This is why the Government since its early days in office has spoken of a wage increase of the order of 3 per cent to 4 per cent this year. Such an increase is consistent with the recovery of economic activity and employment. Above all, we judge it to be consistent with the continuation of moderation in wage claims in 1984 and 1985. The Leader of the Opposition spoke at length on the need for a continuation of the wage pause to the end of this year. He spoke of the 25 per cent increase in the cost of employing a worker in manufacturing industry in 1982. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that his party was in government in 1982 when that occurred. Under our policies, we are expecting wage increases of 3 per cent or 4 per cent in 1983. The Leader of the Opposition is quoted in this morning's Canberra Times as saying that his party has no wages policy. That is the policy the Liberals had two years ago, when manufacturing wages rose by a quarter within a year. The Opposition's wages policy is a fantasy. The Leader of the Opposition says that Budget cuts would not have been necessary if there were no wage increases this year. His arithmetic is as poor as his economic policy-the structural Budget problem would not be cured even by the most severe wage restraint this year. When we returned to economic recovery, if that could ever happen under Liberal management, the Liberals no wage increase policy could be expected to produce the same wages explosion as it did in 1981 and 1982. Where would that leave Liberal Budget policy? Presumably, on the Leader of the Opposition's logic, it would leave a bigger Budget deficit and much larger Budget cuts. The Leader of the Opposition this afternoon spent quite a long time telling us that his wages policy-that is, his idea that the wages pause should be extended until the end of the year-must be right, because it is supported in the opinion polls. What are we to think of his statement in this morning's Sun, that a leader cannot govern by opinion polls? When your wages policy is a no- policy, perhaps you have no choice but to go to the opinion polls. The shadow Treasurer, the leader of the vandal gang that created the mess that we inherited, once told us that it would be relatively easy to carve $3 billion off the forward estimates. Obviously he has found some new wisdom. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Prime Minister completing his speech. Mr HAWKE —The infamous razor gang laboured for a year for a few hundred million in lasting savings, making less than a quarter of the impact that the Treasurer' s statement will have in 1984-85 and 1985-86. There is something magical about the Liberal Party's new wisdom: Somehow it would have reduced the Budget deficit by more than us, without implementing any of the cost saving measures proposed by the Government. If the Opposition wants the Australian people to take it seriously, it cannot avoid answering the question: What would it have done? Would it have failed to implement new job creation schemes? The Leader of the Opposition says he does not like temporary jobs. I assure him that his job is not temporary because he will be in opposition for a very long time. That is consistent with the Liberals whole approach in government, when time after time they turned their backs on Australia's needs for special employment creation. Even the strongest recovery will take time to deliver jobs to all Australians who need them. Our community employment program supplements, but in no way substitutes for, permanent employment growth in the process of recovery. I ask the Opposition: Would it have failed to address the crisis in welfare housing, or of young families excluded from home ownership by the policies of recent years? What expenditure would it have reduced? How would it have addressed the problem of the rising cost of providing services to aged Australians, within the budgetary constraints that created? All Australia is waiting for the answer. It is a very simple question. On behalf of this Government I put that simple question to the Leader of the Opposition and anyone else who may wish to speak for the Opposition in unqualified terms. What would the Opposition have done if it had been in government faced with a deficit of $9 .6 billion-the deception it inflicted upon the Australian people in the election campaign? I put the question to the Opposition again: If it had been in government and had had to deal with a deficit of $9.6 billion as againt the deficit of $6 billion which it told the Australian people was the real figure, what would it have done? It will not do the Opposition any good getting its decimated numbers into a bus -it does not have to get a very big bus to take them all-taking them to the Bruce electorate and attacking this Government for its decisions which were taken with a due sense of responsibility to get this economy going in the fairest way possible. It can take bus loads of decimated Liberals to Bruce; it can take them where it likes. But the people of Australia will say: 'Do not knock this Government; do not criticise this Government because we know that it is honest and fair dinkum'. I ask the Opposition to answer the question for the people of Australia: What would it have done? What expenditure programs would it have cut? What additional taxes would it have imposed? Until the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the National Party of Australia and other assembled incompetents behind them answer that question they will continue to be treated by the Australian people as they were on 5 March. My Government has been asked by the Australian people to promote lasting economic recovery. Last Thursday's statement begins to implement the task accepted at the National Economic Summit Conference, to fight unemployment and inflation together. Where restraint has been required-we wish that it were not required-we have sought to ensure that it is borne by Australians who are relatively well placed to accept it. I commend the statement as an important milepost on the road to national economic recovery. Sitting suspended from 6.36 to 8.30 p.m. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(8.30) —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was waxing eloquent in defence of his Government's economic package. Mr Humphreys —We thought it was rather good. Mr FIFE —I say to the honourable member that during his speech the Prime Minister said that most Australians are impressed by the way in which his Government is striving to keep the promises made by the Australian Labor Party before the last election. Let me say that hundreds of thousands of adversely affected Australians are not impressed, particularly those Australians who are paying off a home loan. They heard the promise of the Prime Minister before the last election that the Labor Party, when in government, would retain the tax rebate schemes. That, of course, becomes the most recent promise broken by this Government. Last week in this House, following the economic statement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) announced with a great fanfare what he described as the Government's new initiatives in housing . While he concentrated on new measures he glossed over what was being taken away. Also, he made very little reference to some of the very real and positive achievements of the former Government, particularly in the area of home ownership. In summary, what this Government has done is to transfer housing assistance from people buying their own home to those who will rent government housing. At the same time the Government has reduced in total its financial commitment to all housing in Australia. This is an important point to note because the Government, in its rhetoric, has tried to lead Australians to believe that more funds are going to housing. This is a gigantic hoax because the opposite is the case. Before I get down to the details of the Minister's statement, let me put the First Home Ownership Assistance Scheme in its proper context. In contrast with the Labor philosophy, the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia are committed to the highest practical level of private home ownership in Australia. Our record in government has demonstrated this and has demonstrated the success of our policies to help Australians own their own home. By 1947, in the closing years of a Labor government, the Australian household ownership rate was 58 per cent. By 1971 the figure had risen to 68 per cent. In 1976, after another Labor Government, the rate had dropped to 66 per cent. By 1981 our policies had increased home ownership back to 68 per cent. Home ownership is the prime aspiration of most Australian families. This Government, despite the new scheme which it has introduced, has reduced in total home ownership assistance. It will stand condemned for that in the eyes of most Australians. The new Government has ripped apart and mostly discarded the elements of the former Government's 1982 home purchase assistance measures. In March 1982 the former Government introduced the Home Deposit Assistance Scheme which was designed to assist low and middle income earners to bridge the deposit gap with a maximum cash grant of $3,500. At the same time a tax rebate, reducible over five years, was introduced for all new and recent home purchasers . In August 1982 these measures were enhanced with a tax rebate, applicable to all interest payments over 10 per cent, for all home purchasers. The cost of the two tax rebate schemes and home deposit assistance was estimated to be over $ 550m in a full year, therefore providing a very significant degree of assistance to home buyers. Also in March 1982 the banks agreed to lend an extra $400m for housing over the next 12 months. I submit that our policies are working. Indeed, the big jump in home lending this year is proof that the former Government's policy in this area was the right one for Australian families. The stronger lending by banks and building societies clearly demonstrates the correctness of the policies which were put in place last year. It demonstrates how they are working to help Australian home buyers. Lending by banks is up by around 35 per cent over the period last year to a record level. Building societies have shown a 50 per cent increase in the March quarter over the December quarter. The building society figure represents the highest quarterly level since March 1981. On the basis of these figures, the present Government should have thought again and not tossed out the 1982 initiatives. In particular, the decision by the Government to terminate the general tax rebate for home purchasers is a callous blow to middle Australia, particularly many young Australians who have purchased a home in the last few years. Families and individuals who have already committed themselves to home purchase will not be able to take advantage of the new First Home Ownership Assistance Scheme and now they have had the tax rebate taken away. Many potential home buyers will receive no assistance at all as the new scheme is to be means tested. The Government's decision to remove assistance by way of the general tax rebate is effectively an increase in tax, totalling $ 185m a year, for those people who currently are paying off their homes. That was the estimated full cost of the general tax rebates. In fact, many home buyers will now pay extra tax of around $300 a year. Looked at in another way, the general housing tax rebate of the former Government effectively reduced interest rates for most home purchasers by between one per cent and 2 per cent. The Government, by its action in terminating this rebate, has therefore increased interest rates for home purchasers. This action makes a mockery of what the Minister for Housing and Construction had to say in his statement last week. He said: 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. This rhetoric does not match the Government's actions. The Minister's words were empty, just like the Government's election policies. I wish to refer also to the special tax rebate for those purchasers which was introduced in March 1982 by the former Government. It needs to be made clear that this initiative has been largely scrapped. The Government has decided that there will be no new entrants to this scheme and it will now become means tested in respect of those are currently eligible. The Labor Party, in its pre-eclection promises, committed itself largely to retaining both the housing tax rebates introduced by the former Government. It has now broken yet another promise. Current home purchasers who voted Labor now have great cause for regret. I note that the First Home Owner Assistance Scheme will benefit potential home purchasers on lower incomes. However, I point out to the House that it only replaces the former Government's Home Deposit Assistance Scheme, a similar type of scheme directed at the same group of income earners but without the incentive to save for the deposit, such savings being themselves extra funds for housing in that they were placed with institutions that lent for housing. Indeed, as I said before with the removal of the general tax rebate for housing and the phasing out of the March 1982 rebate scheme, net assistance to home purchasers has been reduced. On the Government's figures this reduction is of the order of $250m in a full year. This is a disgraceful attack on home ownership in Australia. There is also a further point that needs to be made about the Government's new First Home Ownership Assistance Scheme. This new scheme will not come into operation until at least 1 October and possibly later. Already there are signs in the industry that some home buyers are delaying their purchase and delaying the signing of contracts. Indeed, I note in the newspaper today a report that the Housing Industry Association has already expressed concern about this. It appears that the Government has caused a partial hiatus in industry activity by announcing the new scheme well in advance of its commencement. The Minister for Housing and Construction is also reported in a morning newspaper as suggesting that people should buy now and not wait for the new scheme. What a strange thing to announce a new scheme and then to suggest that people should not take advantage of it. The Government obviously did not give much thought to this matter. The Minister has tied himself up in knots in trying to escape his real responsibilities. Of course, home ownership assistance was not the only subject dealt with by the Government last week. Further funds have been provided for public housing. I do not intend to criticise the Government for its plans to increase funding for public housing but I reject the Minister's rhetoric of criticism of the former Government's public housing activities. Public housing assistance should relate directly to the level of need and should not be at the expense of meeting the goal of home ownership. At times of difficult economic circumstances there is a higher need for public housing and this was recognised by the former Government. In the 1982-83 Budget the former Government allocated to the States $333m for welfare housing programs -a 27 per cent increase on the previous year. As an additional measure State governments were also permitted to nominate additional funds for welfare housing from their normal Loan Council program. Again, in recognition of special need, the former Government was able to allocate a further $100m for welfare housing programs from the Budget savings made possible by its wages pause initiative, an initiative that was much maligned by the Labor Party. This welfare housing assistance was designed to help those Australians whose economic circumstances mean that they will never be able to own their own home or those who because of temporary economic circumstances cannot achieve home ownership at this stage. The new Government now proposes an increase on what we achieved. The Government of the day sets its priorities with the use of taxpayers' funds. I have no argument with this except to point out that public housing should be targeted carefully to those in need. The third major matter dealt with by the Minister relates to new housing commencements. The Minister has promised that the Government's package will lift housing commencements by 22,000 next financial year. Housing commencements will rise next financial year in any event to a certain degree. The Government should very carefully watch that further stimulatory measures are not counter- productive in that they may lead to increases in housing costs and therefore prices. This would be a disaster, particularly for young Australians looking to buy their first homes. I understand from newspaper reports that the Minister has been warned by his Department about this possibility. I raised this matter as a plea to the Minister to monitor his Government's decisions to ensure that they do not lead to cost and price escalation in the housing industry. In summary, the Government has reduced net assistance for housing in Australia by drastically cutting home ownership assistance. The new First Home Ownership Assistance Scheme does not make up for what the Government has taken away. ( Extension of time granted). The Government admits this in the figures provided in the attachment to the Treasurer's statement but, of course, this is glossed over in the Minister's speech and in media handouts. On top of this, the overall Budget strategy being adopted by this Government must inevitably result in higher interest rates than would otherwise be the case. This will additionally penalise all home purchasers and prevent many potential home buyers from realising their aspirations. The Government's housing statement is a sham. I foreshadow that when the statement is brought on, in respect of the motion 'That the House take note of the paper' I will move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: the House is of the opinion that, whilst the Government's stated aim of further assisting the housing industry is to be supported, the Government should be condemned for taking action contrary to this aim and particularly condemned for its reduction in assistance to current home purchasers by effectively increasing their interest payment burden, and for its overall reduction in housing assistance. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation)(8.47) —I take this opportunity to reply to a couple of the points that have been made in debate by honourable members from the Opposition side. I refer not so much to the speech that we have just heard because the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) expressed himself in the modulated and moderate terms that one would expect of a former Minister for Aviation who served in that portfolio with some distinction. Nevertheless he was completely wrong save for one point. There is a clear point of difference between the two parties, the Opposition and the Government, on the question of priorities in the housing area. Our priority is to get the maximum possible number of houses built for employment and social purposes. Our policy is to favour those who are without houses at the moment to ensure that they are capable of getting houses. The previous Government's record on which the honourable member sought to stand was one, until the last Budget coincidentally, of continual reductions in the amounts of funds devoted to public housing and one that, whilst it fluctuated a bit over time saw a steady decline in home ownership in Australia. The proposals of the Government in this mini-Budget, which will be carried through into the main Budget, is to reverse that trend. However, I would rather speak about the points that were made in debate a little earlier in the evening by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony). He raises misrepresentation to an art form. There is practically nothing else that he does here that he raises to the level of an art form because his contributions on most matters are usually crude, and his performance tonight was no exception. I start with one particular point that has been reiterated by him and also by previous speakers and that concerns the question as to whether this Government is meeting its election commitments. What I want to point out about that last election campaign, before it dims completely from people's memories, is that it was one of those very rare occasions in Australian political history where politics is played pretty hard and fast. That the leader of the Australian Labor Party having become disturbed about rumours and reports that were apparently emanating from Government sources that the situation in which the country could find itself financially would be much worse than anybody expected had the courage, not after the election-not to walk in later saying 'Gee, look, we have been presented with this terrible deficit and there is really nothing much we can do about it except repudiate our promises'-but before the poll to say: 'If these rumours are correct, if the situation we will confront is anything like one could predict by deducing certain facts from statements being made by the Treasurer and others, then obviously we will have to review our election promises to make certain that the real priorities are the priorities which get met. We will have to trim our sails to the circumstances in which we find ourselves'. Those statements, unlike the repudiation of policies and promises by the previous Government after successive election victories in the late 1970s, were made a week in advance of the election. The electorate was put on notice that if anything like the situation that subsequently did emerge, emerged, the Government would consider itself bound to assign priorities in its election promises. We began to assign those priorities in the mini-Budget brought down last week. Of course, a number of other matters will be dealt with both on the revenue raising side and on the expenditure side in the 1983-84 Budget. I do not think any one could have listened to the speech by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) the other night and failed to be impressed by the determination of this side of the House that when it comes to implementing the priorities that were established during the course of the election campaign the policy of this Government will be to advance the interests of those in this country least able effectively to assist themselves and most punished by the way in which the economy has developed over the last few years. The Leader of the National Party has, as I said a little earlier, lifted misrepresentation to an art form. He has done that across the board in this place over the last couple of weeks. He has done it on security matters, having constantly harped in Question Time and in speeches about this matter, trying to imply some impropriety in the Labor Party's handling of security matters since it came to office. However, he has been sitting on a major security scandal associated with the leaks of material to the National Times. Those leaks can have occurred only during a period when he sat on the defence and intelligence committee of the previous Government. If anybody is to be answerable for those performances, it is the Leader of the National Party. Whatever may have happened over the last few weeks pales into insignificance when compared with the compromise of Australian intelligence agencies and the compromise of Australian relationships with important neighbours and allies that occurred as a result of the ineptitude of members of that security commitee of the previous Government. In my view it is a matter which has not had sufficient airing in this House. Of course, that was not his theme this evening; his theme was to misrepresent the position of this Government on both its overall economic management and its rural policy. The Leader of the National Party waxed eloquent on the fateful consequences to this country of a continuing Budget deficit of the proportions with which we are now confronted. He brought out the Business Review Weekly-he gets handed a free issue on the aeroplanes as he leaves Canberra-to demonstrate the lack of wisdom of the course which he suggests is about to be pursued. He excoriated this Government for allegedly attempting to convince the Australian public that a Budget deficit which never would have occurred will occur because of the expenditure priorities of this Government and that really he would have had absolutely no problem dealing with that had he still been in a position to deal with it-as he did when he cut the deficit from $6 billion to $3 billion in 1978-79. He made those statements in his 20 minute speech, but not once did he cite an example of an area where an expenditure cut might be made or an area of the community from which revenue might be raised to allow a reduction of that $9.6 billion. Not once did he put forward a proposition in that regard. Instead, he went through a variety of proposals-proposals on which this Government has been prepared to bite the bullet and in regard to which the former Treasurer wished to bite the bullet but had it snatched away from his jaws by his colleagues in the previous Parliament. In fact, the Leader of the National Party presumed to criticise every single aspect of the proposed expenditure reductions that were included in the statement brought down at the end of last week. He went on from that to say that the statement amounted to a persecution of the rural interest in this country. Nothing could be further from the truth but I think we will see repeats in this Parliament of the experience of the Whitlam Labor Government when dealing with members of the then Country Party, now the National Party. Every job creation scheme proposed will be ridiculed but a red hot track will be beaten by individual members of the National Party to the back door of the office of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). They will do their very best to ensure that their electorates benefit, and they themselves benefit politically, from the various schemes of assistance that will flow through to local government in both city and country areas. I see that one of the new National Party members is grinning away at me on this point. I expect with great confidence that that is exactly how he will be behaving over the next few months. But he will come into this place to heap abuse on those schemes. Far from bearing the brunt of expenditure reductions, as the Leader of the National Party claimed, rural people will be among the greatest beneficiaries of these changes. The Australian Wheat Board has been given the facility to borrow overseas. This will result in hundreds of millions of dollars being paid to farmers rather than being used to cover high interest bills. The Board has been asking for this facility for 18 months and has welcomed this announcement. In the field of tax averaging and income equalisation, the Government has removed rorts, inequalities and inefficiencies of the kind the Leader of the National Party loves to defend. The new income stabilisation scheme will pay a rate of interest two percentage points above the two year bond rate. The old tax related returns produced anomalies whereby the richest farmers gained the greatest benefits, with an effective interest rate of 25 per cent. The majority of farmers will be better off as a result of the new scheme and the rip-offs of the wealthy few will be eliminated. The petroleum products freight subsidy scheme will involve only $2m to $3m. The Leader of the National Party should be aware that fuel represents less than 10 per cent of farm costs and is a tax deductible expense. The indirect effects of this economic statement will greatly favour primary producers who, it must be remembered, have already benefited greatly from the devaluation. The effective control of interest rates and inflation which will be developed as a result of actions such as those we are considering will greatly advantage all primary producers. The net result of the statement will be a boost to rural incomes, not the disaster predicted by the Leader of the National Party . The Leader of the National Party further claimed that rural dwellers were carrying one third of the burden of the cost cutting involved in the economic statement. He has shown his poor arithmetic with this claim. He made some extreme statements of cost allocation and by some poor work with his sums he arrived at a sum of one third of the total of net revenue savings to the Government, but that is not an indication of costs to the rural people. By way of changes to the ability of the Australian Wheat Board to seek overseas loans, as I said, country people will come out of this very considerably better off. So they should; they have had to bear much of the brunt of the burden of the terrible drought over the last four years. This mini-Budget has gone to meet their real needs. It will ensure that those real needs will continue to be met, by eliminating from the process some of the rorts which have benefited only wealthy farmers and those who have not had to live on the margin. I want to refer briefly to a matter in this mini-Budget which has has some impact on my portfolio, to allay some of the concern expressed in the community about aspects of it and to explain it a little further. Even though it does not come strictly within the area of my Department it obviously has an effect on the aviation industry. It is the imposition of an excise of 2c a litre on aviation fuels from 1 July, which will increase excise revenue by about $15m in 1983-84. I just point out a couple of things about that. This increase, which is the first since 1977, has been implemented in lieu of navigation charge increases this year. There will be no air navigation charge increases this year. One does not have to go far in general aviation to find out where in fact the objection lies to the way in which people in this area have been charged in years past. The principal objection lies in the fact that those people are obliged to meet essentially very heavy fixed charges no matter how infrequently they use their aircraft. I hope that by this measure we will start to manoeuvre that aspect of the way in which we cost recover in the aviation program in the direction of usage rather than the mere possession of an aircraft. I think this will be a decision which in the long term, if it is continued, will considerably benefit the industry. My time to speak in this debate is running out, but I point out that, even with what I admit is a very substantial increase in excise on aviation fuels, we will recover less costs than were recovered last year and last year the cost recovery program fell by a factor of about 5 per cent. So we are sensitive to the needs of the aviation industry. This is a decision taken in the light of those needs. It is a decision which I think in the long run, even though it will hurt in the immediate future, will be very much welcomed by all sectors of the industry, particularly those least able to bear the cost recovery program. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(9.2) —In joining this debate I want to refer particularly to the Community Employment Bill 1983. I note that an amendment is now before the Chair. However, I wish to foreshadow an amendment which I will move to the motion for the second reading of the Community Employment Bill. The amendment reads: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House- (1) is of the opinion that the Government should acknowledge that permanent jobs will only be created when economic recovery occurs and should do its utmost to implement policies consistent with the following extracts from the National Economic Summit Communique: (a) There is a recognition that to achieve recovery will require restraint in expectations and claims from all sections of the community except the impoverished (paragraph 2); (b) It is a legitimate expectation that income of the employed shall be increased in real terms through time in line with productivity (paragraph 8), and (c) The preservation of the private sector as a profitable operating sector is essential to Australia's well-being and to encourage job creating investment both from within Australia and abroad (paragraph 9), and (2) resolves that the Government should seek to extend the wages pause and subsequent wage restraint until economic recovery, increased investment and consequent job creation have commenced strongly'. As I said, I will formally move that amendment when the Community Employment Bill is called on. However, in this cognate debate I would like to quote from the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) on the Community Employment Bill. At page 817 of Hansard he is reported as saying: 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. One must say that the National Economic Summit Conference was a very important factor in regard to that environment. The Summit ought to have been educative of all people interested in the costs faced by Australian Industry, the competitiveness of industry and its capacity to trade around the world. It ought to have provided some sense of direction including some approach to consensus. It certainly ought to have left, as it did leave, to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission the mechanism and the formula for an appropriate wages outcome against that background. It would seem that while the Summit will have educated some people-I have no doubt that it educated the general public-Mr Dolan, the President of Australian Council of Trade Unions, has not learned as much as others. It is not surprising to find that as soon as he departed from Australia to attend a meeting of the International Labor Organisation in Geneva more experienced, more mature and more receptive people within the ACTU have learned something which he apparently did not. But whatever the outcome of the ACTU's position before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is, the wages outcome is critical for the future of this country. It is critical for recovery and job creation, and that is the point of my foreshadowed amendment. I would like to make a number of specific comments on the Community Employment Bill, but they must be seen against the background of the foreshadowed amendment because we are just playing at the margin with this legislation. First of all, the Bill seeks to provide temporary employment for less than 10 per cent of the unemployed. Secondly, it does so in a manner and by criteria very similar to those adopted by the previous Government when distributing the $300m saved from the wages pause in respect of Commonwealth employees. Thirdly, I have no doubt that the Fraser Government, had it still been in office in August, would have introduced a similar program to this. Mr Howe —Oh! Mr MACPHEE —I can assure the Minister that that would have been so. Let me say in addition-- Mr Howe —Absolute rubbish. Mr MACPHEE —The Minister says:'Rubbish'. Let me say that in making that observation I am not carping but am pointing out that we recognise the marginal significance of the program. However, we recognise that it is important that economic recovery should be achieved by broader economic means than are reflected in this Bill. The program in this Bill had its genesis in the wages pause program of the Fraser Government which the then Opposition roundly and wrongly condemned. The State Labor governments, the present Government's State colleagues, supported the proposition because they knew it made economic sense and because they knew it helped marginally in job creation. We saw it as a modest contribution towards employing some people and we see this Bill in the same light, but as no more than that. We therefore support the Bill but we draw the Government's attention to the broader economic issues which impinge upon unemployment. I really do not suppose that the Government needs to have its attention drawn to those issues because, after all, in speech after speech at the National Economic Summit Conference the theme was 'jobs, jobs, jobs'. There was a call for a reduction in costs, particularly those costs which we have the power to control; that is, wages. That was seen as the means by which we could achieve the best circumstances in which to take advantage of the world economic recovery when it comes and thereby provide jobs. Therefore, I challenge the Government to accept the amendment which I have foreshadowed. Indeed, I believe the Government would be in serious strife with its own supporters, including all those which are parties to the Summit communique, if it voted against my foreshadowed amendment. I do not believe that the Government has any chance of carrying out its election promises if it does not in fact support my proposed amendment. Indeed, it is quite significant that the Minister, in his second reading speech, recorded at page 817 of Hansard, had this to say about the objectives of the Bill: 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 . . . up to 70,000 full time jobs for an average duration of six months. I ask the House to consider what that really means. The Minister says that 70, 000 full time jobs will be created for an average duration of six months. In fact, the Bill talks of a minimum of three months and a maximum of 12. But the words 'generating a level of activity consistent with' are used. If the wages policy falls down, will we have a level of activity that is consistent with that objective, let alone one that will meet the objective itself? Therefore we cannot escape the overall economic objectives which have been spoken about earlier in the debate. I wish to discuss an aspect of this matter which I believe the Government can take charge of. I refer to a Press release which I made on Sunday which, however , seems to have received no coverage in the media. I believe that it makes an important point, one to which I drew the attention of the Government. I believe that the Government should tell building industry employers, the employers who are now likely to break the wages pause, that it will not reimburse such employers on government projects for wage increases granted outside the centralised wage fixing system. It should also call upon all State governments to do likewise. It would be tragic if the money allocated to job creation were to go towards meeting additional costs of materials and increased wages for those who already have jobs. The major stimulus to employment in the mini-Budget and in the last Budget of the Fraser Government involves the building and construction industries. Many building industry employers are likely to bow to the threats of renewed thuggery by the Builders Labourers Federation and only action by governments, such as that which I suggest, will cause them to think again. If the employers cannot pass on their costs to the government client they will be less likely to concede. For them to do so will weaken their viability as a company and their employees will then realise that their jobs are at stake. I urge the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to adopt that approach and ask him to comment on it at the end of this debate. The Minister, in the second reading speech, as reported at page 817 of Hansard, stated: 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. One must ask: Why then abolish the Special Youth Employment Training Program? That was not mentioned at all in the second reading speech of the Minister. The Government has a complete misunderstanding of the objectives and results of that program. It was not a job creation program. It was designed to lift the level of skill of long term unemployed youth with an unsatisfactory school record who were not competitive in the market place even at a time that was more prosperous than is the present. We sought to lift their level of skill by providing them with work experience, by subsidising them in employment. These measures have the effect of abolishing that program, yet nothing adequate is substituted in its place. The surveys carried out by the Department for which the Minister is now responsible show, if recollection serves me accurately, that close to two-thirds of those who undertook the Special Youth Employment Training Program were still in the same job three months after the subsidy finished, which meant that they had gained employment. Others had gained employment elsewhere as a result of the skills that they had gained on the job. But the objective of the program was not the creation of jobs. It was to make people more competitive in the market place , regardless of the state of the economy. The Government displays a serious misunderstanding of the position. It was displayed by its supporters when in opposition. Also, the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), when shadow Minister, displayed that misunderstanding time and again . Now there is talk of training to be gained, but how is it to be gained? There is some talk of a private employment training program, but we have not seen its details. I believe that in the end it will not be very different from the Special Youth Employment Training Program which is to be abolished by these measures. Again, one must ask the Government-I ask the Minister particularly to respond to the question-about mature age training. What will the Government do, through its so-called special relationship with the trade union movement, to bring about a recognition of the fact that many people left school too young, they did not have the literacy and numeracy necessary to obtain apprenticeships and they could not be trained, with the result that in times of recession they cannot obtain jobs? Mature age training is clearly required but the trade unions remain a major obstacle to its being achieved. There is also a dilemma about the labour intensiveness of some of the programs mentioned in the Bill. At the Committee stage I will refer to some of the criteria outlined by the Minister in the second reading speech and will offer some very constructive comments in that regard. It seems to me that if wages increase, if the Minister cannot convince his State colleagues to administer this program in such a way as to place particular emphasis upon assisting unemployed youth, the prospect is that a desperate effort will be made to seek labour intensiveness in order to provide the 70,000 jobs projected. That will be self-defeating. It will defeat the objectives set out in the second reading speech. If wages go up, especially, there will be a temptation to find 70,000 jobs in the most labour-intensive areas, where no skill will be involved. Thus, people may be on a job for three months, six months or 12 months but in the end the program will be no better than the make-work programs which were epitomised by the Regional Employment Development program of the Whitlam Government. In fact, even Mr Kenneth Davidson, the economics editor of the Age, who is no admirer of the Opposition, speaks of the cruel illusion which this Bill represents to people who are seeking employment. As I have said, at the Committee stage I will refer to the quite important aspect of the criteria that are to be adopted here, but I make the observation in passing that we are looking at a program which is little different from that proposed by the previous Government in the Budget which is still current. During this financial year we were looking at a wages pause program which had job creating benefits as great as any proposed in the Bill. The former Government proposed welfare housing, airport upgrading, the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program and water projects, all of which were important for job creation. The present Government, in saying that its razor gang has removed these projects, is using mirrors to pretend that it has provided $300m for the creation of extra work. In fact, people who are concerned with the Brisbane Airport work and other such projects will have cause to wonder. I believe that in the end most of what is proposed will be nugatory and that all of it will represent a cruel deception and illusion to the unemployed. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(9.17) —Tonight I have the opportunity, once again, to follow the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), as I did last week in a debate on industrial relations. Strangely enough, the Opposition shadow Minister has taken the view that he took last week: That the Opposition, had it been in government, would have introduced a similar Bill. That clearly shows that the shadow Minister may have been a lone wolf crying in the wilderness when the former Government had the opportunity to do something in this regard. The honourable member has proposed an amendment to the motion for the second reading . I do not believe that on the Government side we would have any difficulty with the first section of his amendment, which states: (1) is of the opinion that the Government should acknowledge that permanent jobs will only be created when economic recovery occurs . . . I am sure that had the shadow Minister been in the House just before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) spoke on this subject, he would have heard the Prime Minister say that very thing-that a job creation program has to be introduced immediately to help those who are unemployed but is not the sole answer in regard to creating jobs for the future. That will have to be done by way of prudent economic management, in which this Government has taken the first step by its announcements in the economic statement that is before the House. The debate tonight shows the total lack of direction of the Liberal-National Party coalition in relation to economic matters. The Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Peacock) addressed this House for 45 minutes. He was followed by Opposition speakers who had little to offer in the way of constructive comment. The only constructive comment that I have heard tonight came from the honourable member for Balaclava and was made in the first section of his remarks. In fact, at Question Time today the Opposition had not even one question to ask the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in relation to the economic statement. That shows how bereft it is of ideas concerning anything that is going on. The major issues to which this nation should direct its attention, as was expressed so clearly in the National Economic Summit Conference communique are those of unemployment and inflation. They must be tackled together. No longer can we have policies such as those of the previous Government, the present Opposition, which insisted that inflation be attacked first and ignored the unemployment situation. Fancy the Opposition coming into the House tonight and saying that it would have introduced policies similar to these had it been returned to government. There is no possible way that it would have been returned to government considering the type of approach it had been taking over the last seven years, during which time it created the most massive unemployment this country has ever seen. This Government has not been afraid to take action in this regard. Indeed, the very nature of the approach to be taken by the Government was signalled by the calling of the National Economic Summit Conference. For the last two hours or more we have been asked: When will the Government do this; when will the Government do that? It is only some 70-odd days since the election yet speaker after speaker has said that this Government has failed in its obligations and has dishonoured its promises. Let them give us a three-year period and see what we can and cannot do. At that stage Opposition members can stand before us and tell us what we have not done. The major issues on which we said we would take action were unemployment and inflation, both at the same time. This economic statement clearly indicates that the Government intends to take action in those areas. The matters that the Opposition is talking about and the matters about which it says we have done nothing will be looked after as time goes along. We cannot do everything in the first 70 days of office. I do not know how the Opposition expects this Government to do in 70 days what the former Government could not do in seven years. We have already put many things in train in our first 70 days of office. The Government's economic statement has clearly been received by the community as a responsible approach. The very fact that this debate not only covers the economic statement but also the housing policy initiatives announced by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), plus two major items of legislation, clearly shows the importance that this Government places on honouring its major promises to the Australian people. Let me turn to the matters being debated. I refer firstly to the economic statement. I turn to the Treasurer's statement in relation to the improvement expected in the economic activity of the country. The Treasurer said that the fiscal stimulus implicit in the Commonwealth Budget for 1982-83 and the prospect for 1983-84 would show some improvement but not enough as far as this Government is concerned. He said that we can expect some improvement in the international economy; that we can expect a marked slowing in stock decumulation so that a greater proportion of increased demand will be met from additional production; and that we can expect improved prospects for farm production and exports. There is no doubt about that. We have gone through one of the worst droughts that this country has ever experienced, so we must expect that farm production and our exports in that sector will contribute to the national economy. It is like the bleating of lambs to hear members of the National Party claim that this Government is depriving the rural sector of any of the benefits and that its decisions will cost the rural sector more than anybody else in the community. Right across the board, ever since the National Economic Summit Conference was first considered, it was clearly stated that all sectors of the community would be expected to contribute to the needs of the Australian economy at the present time. I do not doubt that the rural community is quite capable, regardless of the drought, of coping with the loss of some of those benefits which were put in place by the previous Government on behalf of the so-called rural community. I did not hear the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) mention one word in his speech about the depreciation allowance for the storage of petroleum products. That was the greatest rort that any government ever introduced into this country. The previous Government provided a taxation depreciation allowance of 100 per cent on secondhand fuel tanks-a 100 per cent allowance on an asset that was 15 to 20 years old, that was dragged out of the back of a shed, put out in the front yard, repainted and declared as an asset of value. There was a 100 per cent allowance on that asset. That was the Opposition's idea for a fuel storage policy. The Opposition was bereft of policies. It had no policies. It had no idea how it would go ahead. These sorts of things have to be addressed by any responsible government. The Treasurer spoke also about the pick-up in dwelling constructions. That was added to by the announcement by the Minister for Housing and Construction shortly after the Treasurer's speech. The Minister for Housing and Construction said that this Government has attempted to regenerate the housing and construction industry in this country. Its capacity had run down to its very bare minimum, something like 106,000 dwellings per year, when it is capable of achieving far more. Any responsible government that has a surplus of funds in the community that can be used by the public sector must be expected to stimulate the economy by assisting the housing industry. The Treasurer also referred to 'the improved prospects for on-going moderation of income claims as the prices and incomes accord is implemented'. We have had speakers from the Opposition side tell us that we must continue the wage pause. Even the previous speaker alluded in his amendment to the fact that we need to continue the wage pause indefinitely. Common sense will tell anybody that since the wage pause was introduced the wage earners in this country have been asked, and are being asked, to accept a big burden at the present time as far as the economy is concerned. Any housewife who goes into a supermarket every day of the week knows that the prices of the ordinary products that she is buying are still increasing. There is no price surveillance at the present time. That is another policy initiative that this Government will introduce. The wage pause has cost the ordinary people of this country an enormous amount. They have lost the potential to spend money and consume goods. They are feeling the pinch of the wage pause. Every other sector of the community needs to be prepared, when this Government puts forward logical proposals-as it has done in this economic statement-to share the burden fairly. We have not said to anybody that one particular sector should shoulder the whole burden yet the Leader of the National Party came into this House and tried to tell us that two-thirds of the savings have been borne by the rural sector. I represent a rural electorate. I represent it on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. The Opposition cannot say today that it still represents rural electorates because it does not have them all. On this side of the House we can represent rural people as well, if not better than, anybody on the other side of the House ever could. We will do a better job. If the trend in voting in this country continues we will find that my seat, as a rural seat, will not be the only rural seat that is held by the Labor Party. Many people sitting on the other side of the House representing rural seats will not be here after the next election. Let us look at what the Opposition would have done had it had the opportunity. In the last five minutes of my speech I turn to some of the things that it could have done. We were looking at a projected Budget deficit of $9.6 billion. That was something that we were not informed of. Had the Opposition been honest with the public and revealed that, it might have been on this side of the House. The Opposition parties tried to stay in office by taking the country to an election when they thought they could win. They were told by the Australian people that they wanted nothing of them. The Australian people put the then Government out and put a responsible government in. That is why we are on this side of the House and that is why we have the opportunity to make these decisions. I ask the Opposition what it would have done. It had two choices. It could have been totally irresponsible and gone for an enormous Budget deficit, which is probably what it would have done if it thought it could have won an election by doing so, or it could have reduced the figure by two possible means. The choice which would normally have been expected from honourable members on that side of the House when in government was an increase in taxes. They did it before but they increased them only for one sector of the community. We know that. They tried it in the past. We have seen them in action and the Australian people have made their judgment. Over the last seven years pay-as-you-earn taxpayers in this country have been slugged. In 1981 we saw an increase of 22 per cent in tax for pay-as-you-earn wage earners and a 17 per cent increase in 1982. Those increases were way above anything to do with the inflation rate. While the present Opposition parties were slugging the ordinary Australian people, they were putting through some 40-odd pieces of legislation in which tax concessions were made available to people in this country who were quite able to look after themselves. These people had capital investments; they owned land; they had their own businesses. They were quite capable of making decisions without the Australian Taxation Office helping them. But what did the Opposition parties do when in Government? They slugged the ordinary Australian working people and passed a stack of legislation aimed at giving tax concessions which would not show up in the Budget Papers. The economic statement which this responsible Treasurer has put into action clearly defines areas which, had things been allowed to continue, would have added to the Budget deficit to an enormous degree, and not just this year. We need to look a little further ahead. This economic statement tells the people of Australia that the action we are taking now will be responsible for putting the economy back in shape over the next two to three Budgets, and not just this one. That is the difference between sensible economic management-the approach taken by a Labor Government-and that taken by members on the opposition side of the House when they were in government. Often the Opposition, when in government, brought forward a piece of legislation that was designed to assist a sectional interest. There is no doubt about that. We can go through them all because there are plenty of examples to look at. One has been detailed in the economic statement, namely the petroleum storage matter, which is probably the worst example of the lot. I am glad to see that it was immediately eradicated. Everyone in the country knows that oil companies ran around and slapped their monikers on every oil tank they could find to make sure they got the concession rather than those who were supposed to get it. Honourable members on the opposition side of the House were looking after their friends. What they did not do was take a logical view of the future implications of their actions. The economic statement that we are debating here tonight takes a logical view. It is clearly aimed not at what we do today. In addition, we have indicators on superannuation, housing and job creation. The greatest benefit that this country will receive will be in the future when we will be able to budget the economy of this country in such a way that we will not have to adjust the taxes of the pay- as-you-earn taxpayer every year in an attempt to make room in the economy for the sorts of things that the former Government put in the Budget last year. They would have cost us a fortune in 1984-85 and a lot more in 1985-86. The Treasurer has clearly outlined where those savings will occur. They will be over $400m this year, but will rise to well over $2,000m in future Budgets. If we can maintain this approach we will not only restore employment to this country, but also restore all sectors of the economy to a sound economic base. We will be returned as the Government with a good majority and half the Opposition will not be here. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(9.32) —Speaking to this economic statement is the first opportunity we have had in this House of discussing the economy since the election on 5 March. Let us not be under a mistaken impression about this. The people of Australia made a judgment on 5 March as to what government would control their destiny in future. The Australian Labor Party is in government for that reason. The Australian people passed their judgment on that day in respect of many things, including the policies that were being pursued by the previous Government. As I said, this is not only the first opportunity we have had of debating the economy since the election, but also, in effect, Labor's judgment of everything the previous Government did prior to 5 March. On that basis, let us say that this should be the last opportunity that Labor should have of debating in this chamber not the economic statement-I have not heard one of the back benchers debate it; all they have done is play on the theme of the $9.6 billion deficit, which I will speak about later-but other matters. Let us see what Labor's final response has been. From the great roar of rhetoric that we have had in this chamber, from outside and from the Press about the ills of the previous Government, we have had what one of my colleagues has described as a whimper for an answer-a $425m reduction in a deficit which has been floated at $9.6 billion. This is the answer. Mr Beddall —What would you have done? Mr BRAITHWAITE —We have properly described what we would have done. If the honourable member had listened to the previous Treasurer and had been here to listen to his observations he could have been quite well informed. The answers are being given here and it is not our fault if the honourable member is too dense to listen. The situation is that we are to have a $427m saving in the proposed Budget of $9.6 billion. In mentioning that figure, which last Thursday represented the Government's total response, I mention also the sleight of hand that has operated in this regard. I refer to the additional expenditure that has already been allocated by the Labor Government. Trans Australia Airlines has been allocated $115m; Qantas Airways Ltd is to receive $60m; the Australian National Line has been allocated $90m; and $21m has been allocated for a referendum. None of these expenditures had been indicated prior to the election. In one swoop, the Government has chewed up $286m of what was proposed to be a $ 427m saving. That is great stuff. That is not the only area in which there has been sleight of hand. The economic statement is significant for another sleight of hand and that is taking away the employment opportunities that were offered by the capital works program. I mention the Alice Springs to Darwin railway, the water resources program, the Brisbane Airport and all the others. This was the long term response of the great economic theorists on the Government benches. They do not want to learn. Even Blind Freddie could see the situation as far as the capital works program is concerned. It would have given not only job opportunities during the developing stage, but also opportunities of further employment later. Let us look at the airport situation. What have we had out of the statement itself? There will be an effective rise in air fares and in the prices of petrol. There will be a slowing down of this facet of tourism. Job opportunities will be missed because they are going out one door. The survival of the Australian economy will depend on capital assets which will encourage industries in their wake and make job opportunities. But what do we have? We have just done the Northern Territory out of 1,250 jobs in development alone. I am not sure of the figures for the other areas and their programs. We have yet to hear, for instance, what will happen with the Burdekin Dam. There are grave rumours that perhaps we will have to wait for the Budget to find out what will happen. Mr Hunt —It will get the chop. Mr BRAITHWAITE —As the honourable member says, it is likely to get the chop. It will not only be the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) who will have to suffer the embarrassment of going back to try to defend an impossible situation, but also the Labor members of Herbert (Mr Lindsay) and Leichhardt (Mr Gayler). It is rather significant that in this chamber those on the Government side are making meek noises about the necessity for a brucellosis eradication campaign which has received the great wipe in the economic statement . Prior to the election, Labor was making pleasant sounds about the help it would give to the Queensland sugar industry. In the statement there was not one word about an underwriting program, a loan program, or anything else designed to give jobs to people on the land and keep them in those cities and towns along the coast. Labor has to answer for a lot. I am sure that the Territorians will not forget such promises as were made by Labor in May when the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) assured the Territory Labor Leader, Bob Collins, that preparations for the construction of the Darwin to Alice Springs rail link were proceeding on schedule. What happened in last Thursday night's statement? Mr Lusher —He had no idea. He wasn't consulted. Mr BRAITHWAITE —He was not consulted about that matter; he was consulted about other matters of national security, but not about that. It means effectively that the Northern Territory does not have the capacity to meet the required 40 per cent of the costs of construction. The economic statement states: The Commonwealth assistance to the Northern Territory is very generous. It proceeds to work out that assistance on a per capita basis. I am sure that the Government would agree with me that the rail link in the Territory was the one thing that would have given job opportunities, development and encouragement to that area. Where does the Northern Territory find itself in the light of the Minister's promise? It is right back to where it was. It is significant that another phase of Labor policy, on the mining of uranium, is the thing that probably prevents the Territory from gathering income and revenue to be able to meet that 40 per cent. So, on all sides, development in the Northern Territory has been stymied. It has been cut in its tracks. I am sure that the Territorians will not forget the manner in which they have been treated in this regard. This also brings up the question of the power-house in Darwin, which is absolutely necessary to encourage industries-as was the railway . What is to happen to the airport development and all the other programs that were already in place there? What we have to do, by reading the newspapers, is to wait for the next episode somewhere along the line, perhaps in the Budget, to see what will happen in that regard. Speakers in the debate from the Government side are very keen to try to deny the fact that one-third of the savings, one-third of the sacrifice, is to be borne by country people. Yet they have the gall to say here that they have some feeling for rural and country Australia. Let this be evidenced in what support they are giving back to the people whom they say they represent. I refer to income equalisation deposits and depreciation on certain assets. I inform the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham)-who has now fled the chamber-that the depreciation allowance on fuel containers was deliberately meant, at the time of the oil crisis, to ensure that there was on-farm storage, and it succeeded. Further storage was created throughout the ports. There was a deliberate policy. Let us also look at air fares, and at the cost of fuel, water and such things in regard to where this great equality of sacrifice is being made. The equality of sacrifice is that one-third of the savings involved in this mini-Budget is being borne by 6 per cent of the population. Some equality! The Government is strong on hypocrisy but very weak on equality. I am not ashamed to stand here to support the rural people of Australia, the only people who have any effect in regard to decentralisation. But I wonder whether the Labor Party is ashamed to go back to the people who put it in government to say what it has done in this economic package. On tonight's Nationwide program a great supporter of the Labor Party, Mr Barry Unsworth, really took the Government to task, particularly on the basis of the superannuation commitment. There was no superannuation commitment on the part of the Labor Party when it was in opposition and when it went to the polls. The great policies were in respect of there being no capital gains tax. Yet Labor's treatment of superannuation is just that. Someone might care to respond to the criticism of Mr Barry Unsworth, the Secretary of the New South Wales Trades and Labour Council, who has indicated that the manner in which the Government has attacked this aspect is nothing short of criminal and will have the same repercussions as the 25 per cent across the board tariff reductions of 1974. The left wing here would not agree with what he said, but one must expect that type of thing from uneducated people in that regard. What has this presentation meant in respect of promises? We have been told about the $9.6 billion and other matters, but let us look at the cost in promises. I ask the Government: When the Labor Party went to the elections, how big was it on advertising the fact that all of its promises were qualified by the manner in which the deficit was then framed? I can show plenty of advertisements from my electorate concerning the election campaign which talked about tax cuts, rebates, the sales tax on retreaded tyres, devaluation, jobs, and the whole lot. I could not see one Labor advertisement that appeared in that election campaign saying that all this was qualified. There was no qualification in this regard whatsoever. In government, these people are to have a recovery by advertising it. It is the first advertisement-led recovery that I have seen. They are spending millions of dollars on advertising a Summit which is already in collapse. It is a great joke. One local government member will be selected to be on the Economic Planning Advisory Council. I applaud the Government for that. But let us look at the composition of the remaining 16 members of the Council. The shadow Minister for small business will move an amendment in that connection. However, included in the membership is that great economic expert of Australia, the latter-found economic person who is concerned about the matter, the Prime Minister himself-an instant expert on the economy. Let us look at his track record as regards being on the EPAC-ACTU-Solo, right down the drain; travel; Bourke's store; and all the others. This is the great economic expert who is to preside over this Council, denying the people of Australia the normal budgetary considerations of being able to approach Ministers with their problems. What a great aspect of the economic package this is! On the other hand, we find that local water programs are to benefit by $20m and local roads will benefit by $70m. There is to be a 30 per cent cost requirement from the project sponsors in regard to these work creation jobs, and this lies with the States under the legislation. If this 30 per cent is to be carried over and paid by local government, it must be recognised that with this aspect of funding local government has a commitment too. I warn the Government, if it feels that the creation of jobs and the extra money involved will be at no cost to local government, that this will not be so. If the Government feels that its contributions to local roads of $70m and to local water programs, in lieu of the bicentennial water program, are reasons not to meet its commitment in personal tax sharing in real values, it has another think coming. In fairness, we should realise that local government will be maintaining and carrying a large proportion of these job projects. Also, in some States there may not be proper consultation with the local governments on the conditions of the programs. I hope that the States and the Federal Government will ensure that local government is properly consulted in every way. The whole aspect of the economic statement, the Summit and everything else was based around the wage situation throughout Australia. It is significant to realise that it was members of the Opposition, when they were in government, who introduced the wage pause of which the then Labor Opposition was highly critical . Yet the Economic Summit, for everything else it did, gave no firm direction on this vital aspect. I hope that the Government sees the necessity of keeping wages to a reasonable level. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs CHILD(Henty)(9.47) —Seven years of government neglect have left Australians with a housing problem second only to unemployment in magnitude and social costs . And, like unemployment, Australia's housing problem will take years of government action to remedy. It is not by accident that unemployment and housing were two of the highly featured programs in last Thursday's economic statement, or that they are being debated together tonight. The two problems are closely linked and with courageous moves in the housing area this Government expects to be able to begin to grapple with the enormous burden of unemployment that we have inherited from the previous Government, as well as the enormous deficit we have also inherited. Expecting a $6 billion deficit, we were informed of a $9.6 billion deficit on taking over the reigns of government. As Kenneth Davidson said in the Age on 8 December 1982: The blow out of the deficit from a 1.7 billion in August to $4 billion in December in a matter of three months is either a measure of massive economic collapse in a very short period or of some cynical work when the Budget papers were being prepared. One wonders what his comments would have been had he known the real facts-a $9.6 billion deficit. I hope the electors of Bruce give some thought to that hidden $ 9.6 billion deficit when they go to the polls on Saturday. It was known at the time of the last election by the then Government, but unknown at the time to the Australian Labor Party. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) pointed out in his economic statement: . . . even more reprehensibly, it-- The former Government- 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. That was obviously done on the vote now, pay later, plan. Of course, the Opposition expected to be in government then and, had it been in government, probably would have reversed its promises, as it has done so often in the past. The people of Bruce should ponder this. As the Opposition predictably attacks our housing and employment initiatives, we should ask the Opposition to say what it would have done. What would it have done? What did it do over seven years for job creation and housing? In March 1983 the Housing Industry Association stated that in Victoria: The deficiency between needs and supply is currently between 7,000 and 8,000 dwellings a year. The accumulated deficiency over the last four years is over 20 ,000 dwellings. The Housing Industry Association estimates that the construction of 7,000 dwellings will employ an extra 3,500 to 4,000 persons on site and 2,000 to 2,500 off site contractors. The spin-off from this activity would create $35m to $40m worth of business in home furnishings and another 1,000 jobs in Victoria. The further spin-off from reactivating the housing industry-again I refer only to Victoria but the same activity will take place in every State and Territory-will be an extra $11,324 revenue in income tax, company tax and the savings on the welfare bill as more and more people are working. We will, as the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) said, see that housing plays a key role in our determination to get Australia moving. Increased housing activity is a crucial element of this recovery. Housing will play its role as a stimulus to economic recovery. We are aiming for an annual target rate of 130,000 to 135,000 house commencements in the second half of 1983-84. This will mean an increase of 22,000 over the 1982-83 figure and will create an extra 25,000 jobs. We are dispensing with the ineffective schemes put in place by the previous Government. They were totally confusing. To assist moderate first home buyers we will introduce one simple scheme. Home buyers will be able to choose that mix of deposit assistance and interest subsidy that best meets their needs. We consulted the housing industry, housing finance institutions, housing consumer representatives and the State and Territory Housing Ministers before completing our plans. They were not thrust upon anybody; we had comprehensive dialogue about them. We are not introducing measures that will run into labour or material bottlenecks, or cost pressures. The package is desperately needed by the industry and by those without jobs. Direct funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement will be increased to $500m in a tremendous boost to public housing. This 50 per cent increase will be the start of a joint Commonwealth-State task to give some justice to those in need of public housing. Public housing should be a secure option for low income people. Instead, after years of government neglect, it offers little hope. In 1980, 320,000 families and single pensioners were eligible, based on their incomes, for public housing but were forced to pay high rents in the private sector. High demand and short supply have caused rents to soar. Rents have increased in Melbourne by 12 per cent and in Sydney by 15 per cent. The average rent in Melbourne is $86 a week, and now represents 36 per cent of the minimum weekly adult wage of $238. The average rent in Sydney represents 48 per cent of the minimum weekly adult wage. The unemployed face a double hardship in unaffordable rents and discrimination by landlords and estate agents. Caravan parks, with high site rents and poor amenities, have become a way of life for thousands of Australian families. The 36,300 young unemployed who are not living at home are extremely vulnerable to homelessness and youth refuges are currently coping with only one third of the requests for emergency accommodation. Under the conservative Government of 1975 to 1983 money for public housing through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement fell dramatically. Between 1974 -75 and 1982-83 there was a 64 per cent cut in real terms. In 1974-75 payments to the States totalled $385.4m. In 1983-83 they totalled $312.6m, a drop in real terms of $72.8m. It is vital that Australia's poorest housing consumers get the greatest benefit from Labor's policies. Equity should be the key objective of all our programs. The social consequences of artificially constructed environments, where all the elderly, all the single parents or all the disabled are housed together, are totally undesirable. Public housing can respond in a sensitive and innovative way to changing social needs. Far from being a drain on national resources, expenditure on housing, both private and public, creates jobs. For every $100m spent on home buildings, more than 8,000 jobs are created. There is a high multiplier effect because most items used are made in Australia. Additional expenditure on housing has a rapid impact on creating work. The two problems causing the greatest misery in Australia today are unemployment and housing. The insecurity and poverty suffered by families paying expensive rents is causing family breakdowns. The personal effects of long term unemployment are untenable and the social costs of long term unemployment are horrific. I congratulate the Ministers involved in this statement on their initiatives in the interests of the Australian family and of the army of unemployed. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(9.56) —I refer firstly to the Economic Planning Advisory Council Bill before the House. It was foreshadowed in Australian Labor Party policy and agreed to at the National Economic Summit Conference. It is to be a statutory body comprising 17 members. It should be noted that over one-third of its members are to be Government representatives: Three Federal, three State and one local government. It will be top heavy with government representation. It is meant to be a body receiving views from the outside community, yet it will be bureaucratic by its very nature. Whenever a body such as this is created it tends to be the start and the finish of the matter. EPAC will be the consultative body with government and will cut out consultation between all other community groups and the Government. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said that EPAC will replace the traditional pre- Budget consultations. Labor is abandoning the wide ranging consultations and discussions of the previous Government. There will be less consultation with the community on Labor Budgets. The Economic Planning Advisory Council will have only a limited usefulness. How can a 17 member body replace the wide ranging groups previously consulted? How can the Prime Minister say 'The Government is keen to hear the views of groups and individuals in the community' if they are blocked off in this way? The Council will act as a filter and will stop community views reaching the Government. Under the previous Government these groups had direct access to Government in the Cabinet room. The EPAC Bill ignores small businesses. There is no mention of small business in the Bill or in the second reading speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). There is no planned representation of small business on EPAC. It is essential that small business be represented on EPAC. I call on the Government to invite a small business representative or representatives to be members of EPAC. The charter of EPAC should refer to the importance of small business in the Australian economy. Even if the Government gives a commitment to small business, I am not sure that EPAC can be of assistance to the small business sector. However, in accepting the inevitability of its existence, EPAC must take into account the needs, difficulties and problems facing small business in Australia today. The Bill provides for three members to be selected in consultation with business, compared with four in consultation with the trade unions. If EPAC is, as the Government states, to be represenative of a wide range of views, small business must be represented and included. Given that EPAC is stated ALP policy and received support at the Summit, the Opposition will not vote against the Bill. However, in the Committee stage we will move an amendment seeking that small business specifically be represented on EPAC. The Government, in its EPAC Bill, and in its mini-Budget, fails to understand the nature and importance of the small business sector in the economy. Labor claims a new approach to small business-it talks of an action plan. The action in the mini-Budget is a direct attack on the small business sector. It will force it to contract. Labor forgets that growth and jobs can come only from a healthy and expanding private sector. Only the private sector can create wealth for the benefit of the total community. Only with encouragement of the dynamic small business sector with incentives to make profits and create wealth can growth and reinvestment come. Labor fails to recognise this. This mini-Budget means upward pressure on interest rates. Labor fails to understand the problems and burdens facing small business through high interest rates. High interest rates stifle profits, stifle growth and stifle investment. The Government fails to understand the nature of investment and its relation to profits. Small investors in businesses will suffer from the abolition of tax concessions. The abolition of the dividend rebate will act as a deterrent to small investors and means that profits so necessary for growth will be taxed twice. This will discourage investment in small and medium companies. The Government's mini-Budget has created a superannuation shambles. The Government will now tax retirement lump sums. It totally forgets that these amounts are often used to start new businesses, or invest in an existing business. In times when early retirement is being encouraged, it is important that those retiring have lump sums available to them to give them the option to invest in small or medium businesses if they wish to do so. These tax concession changes foreshadowed by the Government in its mini-Budget are a positive discouragement to investment in small business. The taxation of lump sums discriminates against the small business sector and against owners of small businesses. Bona fide redundancy payments paid to wage earners are exempt from the new tax but similar payments to owners and shareholders of small businesses are not. The proposed legislation specifically attacks small business. It taxes lump sums and other entitlements. It means that a bona fide redundancy payment to employees in private companies who are also shareholders, is taxable. Those employees of private companies being beneficiaries of share incentive schemes will be caught whether they be on the shop floor, or in middle management. It is a discouragement of share incentive schemes and the concept of workers having an ownership share in the company for which they work. It is a discrimination against the small private company in favour of the big and larger public company . That is the effect of the Government's proposals. Under the Government's plans an employee, given the opportunity to buy shares in a public company, can still get the retrenchment benefit, but not in a private company. So much for Labor's small business action plan. Labor's action against small business is the manifestation of the plan. Doubtless, this Government in its marauding of small business will next attack the small business sector by removing the $1,200 self- employed superannuation taxation deduction in the August Budget. Labor's action plan against small business set out in the mini-Budget will hit and hurt small businesses in the country. The flow-on in rural Australia of the depreciation taxation changes will be enormous. At a time when the rural economy is starting to recover from the devastating effect of the drought, Labor strikes with this blow. Labor has no understanding of the special problems facing businesses in rural Australia. The increased Telecom Australia's charges are an added burden and farmers will also pay more for fuel. The mini-Budget is a straight-out attack on the prosperity of the dynamic small business sector. It is an action plan against small business. The facts speak for themselves. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Peacock's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 43 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beazley, K. C. Hurford, C. J.Beddall, D. P. Jacobi, R.Bilney, G. N. Johnson, LesBlanchard, C. A. Jones, BarryBowen, Lionel Kelly, R. J.Brown, John Kent, L.Brown, Robert Keogh, L. J.Brumby, J. M. Kerin, J. C.Campbell, G. Klugman, R. E.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Child, 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. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.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.Hawke, R. J. L. Wells, D. McM.Hayden, W. G. West, S. J.Holden, A. C. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Young, M. J.Howe, B. L. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Anthony, 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 McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Peacock, A. S.Dobie, J. D. M. (Teller) Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Robinson, IanFife, W. C. Rocher, A. C.Fisher, P. S. Ruddock, P. M.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Street, A. A.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. McLeay, Leo Wilson, I. B. C.Morris, Peter Spender, J. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Ministerial Statement Debate resumed from 19 May, on the following paper presented by Mr Hurford: Housing-Ministerial Statement, 19 May 1983. and on motion by Mr Young: That the House take note of the paper. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(10.12) —Earlier I foreshadowed an amendment. I formally move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'the House is of the opinion that, whilst the Government's stated aim of further assisting the housing industry is to be supported, the Government should be condemned for taking action contrary to this aim and particularly condemned for its reduction in assistance to current home purchasers by effectively increasing their interest payment burden, and for its overall reduction in housing assistance.'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Hodgman —On behalf of all the migrant home owners of Australia I second the amendment. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 19 May, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(10.15) —I move the following amendment to clause 9: Clause 9, page 5, omit paragraph (f) of sub-clause (1), substitute the following paragraphs: '(f) 2 members selected after consultation between the Minister or his representative and such organisations (other than the organisations referred to in paragraph (fa)) that are representative of business as the Minister considers appropriate; (fa) 1 member selected after consultation between the Minister or his representative and organisations representative of small business as the Minister considers appropriate;'. As I said at the second reading stage, this Bill ignores small business. There is no mention of small business in the Bill or in the second reading speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). It is important that the needs and problems facing the small business community are understood by the Economic Planning Advisory Council and the Government. Therefore it is important that small business be represented on this Council. Accordingly, the amendment I have moved provides that one representative of small business at least, be selected to be a member of EPAC after consultation between the Minister or his representative and organisations representative of small business as the Minister considers appropriate. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(10.16) —As the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) would know, the Economic Planning Advisory Council is very much an umbrella organisation. Many organisations claimed that they should be represented on EPAC. Unfortunately, as the honourable member would understand, to accept all organisations which wish to be on EPAC would make the advisory role that the Government has in mind almost impossible. Obviously representatives of small business groups and organisations will be consulted on the work of EPAC, as will other organisations. Even in respect of the larger group which attended the National Economic Summit Conference from which EPAC sprang, complaints were made about people who were not invited to attend. The problem is one of those features which arise when setting up organisations which cannot meet the reuirements of all the groups which want to be represented. However, it is necessary that the group remain a small one that can fulfil the role that is envisaged by the Government. For those reasons the amendment is rejected by the Government. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(10.17) —I want the Committee to note that tonight the Government has rejected the amendment of the Opposition calling for small business to be represented on EPAC. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Young)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 19 May on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(10.19) —During the second reading debate I foreshadowed an amendment. I now move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House- (1) is of the opinion that the Government should acknowledge that permananent jobs will only be created when economic recovery occurs and should do its utmost to implement policies consistent with the following extracts from the National Economic Summit Communique: (a) There is a recognition that to achieve recovery will require restraint in expectations and claims from all sections of the community except the impoverished (paragraph 2); (b) It is a legitimate expectation that income of the employed shall be increased in real terms through time in line with productivity (paragraph 8), and (c) The preservation of the private sector as a profitable operating sector is essential to Australia's well-being and to encourage job creating investment both from within Australia and abroad (paragraph 9), and (2) resolves that the Government should seek to extend the wages pause and subsequently wage restraint until economic recovery, increased investment and consequent job creation have commenced strongly'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Fife —I second the amendment. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(10.20) —In my speech at the second reading stage of the Community Employment Bill I asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) a number of specific questions. I asked him to respond to them at the conclusion of this debate. I also asked him to respond to the amendment which was moved in my name and upon which, by arrangement, we did not divide. But I think that reasonable people would have expected the Government to support the amendment as its foundation was in the contents of the National Economic Summit Conference. In these few minutes in Committee I wish to make some constructive comments about the guidelines which are contained in the Minister's second reading speech about the Community Employment Program. I refer , firstly, to the guideline that work must 'provide services of permanent public or community value' and I urge the Minister to talk with the National Trust of Australia and to urge State Ministers to do so in their States, because I believe that much of the work that can be done in restoring old buildings and other monuments which have the National Trust imprimatur will provide exciting work under the supervision of highly skilled engineers and craftsmen. I also commend the Government for earmarking the $50m for Commonwealth expenditure but I suggest that repairs and maintenance programs be looked at in respect of the Commonwealth factories. There are a dozen or so factories now in the Department of Defence Support which I know in particular require attention and I hope that they will be given priority by the Government in the national interest. I will make some comments in particular about the other guidelines and praise the continuation of the equal access by men and women to the programs. I say to the Minister that he will find when it comes to the States that there will be problems regarding the administration of those guidelines. It will require a great deal of vigilance by the Minister and his Department to ensure that the States administer the programs in accordance with the guidelines. There will be a strong temptation by the States to prefer work which is traditionally seen to be done by men. There is no reason why, if the States decide that they want to paint schools, for example, that the painting could not be done equally by females, but there is an assumption on the part of many interviewing officers , to whom this task will be delegated, that males are the people who can best use a paint brush. I believe very strongly that the Minister and his Department will have to monitor stringently that aspect of the guidelines. I also believe that the guidelines that were adopted by the previous Government regarding labour intensive programs should be adopted. I remind the Minister of the wording of those guidelines. They state: As a guideline, for projects undertaken by an individual State (when taken as a group), a minimum of 50 per cent of outlays on unemployed labour would be sought . That might sound complicated wording but the way in which we administered the previous program was that we said that a particular State could determine that one of its regions, where there might be a predominance of male unemployment, might be more capital intensive and more inclined to males. In another part of a State there may be a higher rate of female unemployment and a greater labour intensivity. Overall it ought to be 50 per cent male and 50 per cent female but I suggest that the Minister will have to take particular care to ensure that females are not given the drudgery of unskilled work. If the objectives of this program are to be achieved, females must be given the chance to increase their level of skill every bit as much as males. While the Government has properly delegated the role to the States, it must in fact very carefully supervise the way in which it is administered. Again, as with that need to ensure the extent and nature of female participation in a particular State, there will be administrative problems but the guidelines should be amended nevertheless in respect of the question of labour intensivity. There will be a battle in that regard between the treasuries , that is the State treasuries, and the departments of labour or whatever they are called; some are called employment and training and others have various names. My experience in that portfolio was that the treasuries very often won the day. What the Government will find is that capital works programs will tend to dominate if the Government is not very careful. So I strongly urge the Minister to amend his guideline because of the tendency for capital works to predominate. I warn the Minister most strongly that he and his Department will need to watch both State and local governments carefully to ensure that they do not end up subsidising work which was already bound to be done by the State and local governments, or work which would be extended by State and local governments at the expense of the Commonwealth. If the States and local governments were to get away with that, new jobs would not be created, but the States would save on expenses which they would otherwise have incurred. Therefore, I commend the previous Government's guidelines on that subject also. In a minute I will summarise what the guidelines were. They were that: Projects should contribute to the generation or maintenance of employment with emphasis being given wherever possible to achieving net additions to employment on the level preceding the introduction of the wage pause program. Estimates of additional employment and project costs for clearly defined projects must be presented to the Commonwealth for evaluation and announcement purposes. New projects under existing State youth employment programs may be eligible for funding if the additionality of program activity and of young persons assisted can be clearly identified and indicated at the time of announcement. I believe that that more comprehensive guideline will make the program more cost effective than the one which has been announced by the Minister and I also ask the Minister to report to the Parliament in November 1983 and May 1984 on the success of the various programs in meeting the limited objectives of this Bill. In particular, he should then itemise the State by State contributions in accordance with the criteria and stipulate to Parliament how many jobs were then created. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(10.25) — In the time available I have to be very brief and I simply say to the shadow Minister for employment and industrial relations, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), that I have noted his comments at both the second reading and Committee stages. I assure him that we have learned a great deal by looking at the guidelines which the previous Government laid down for the wage pause program and at the way in which the States have been able to manipulate those guidelines to their advantage. I assure him that in the new program which we are now introducing with this Bill we will not make the same mistakes as his Government made in respect of that program. We will most certainly, not only in respect of the guidelines but also in respect of the administrative arrangements with which we apply this program, ensure that there is a much tighter program and one over which the Commonwealth has much more control than it had over the wage pause program. We will ensure that many of the rorts which are being pulled by the States under the wages pause program will not be repeated in the Community Employment Program. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Young)-by leave-read a third time. Mr W. P. Butler-Peterborough, South Australia-Australian Jaycees Organisation-Mr David Combe-Wynyard Airport-Bathurst Mini Economic Summit-Funding of Projects in Tasmania Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.30) —Mr Speaker, in Question Time on 17 May the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was asked about the extra-curricula activities of the Chairman of the Ministerial Staff Advisory Panel, Mr W. P. Butler. In particular he was asked whether these activities included an involvement with a Mr Richard Farmer in the business of lobbyist. The Opposition was naturally concerned as to the huge advantage a person could obtain for himself or his associates in the business of lobbying the Government if, in the first instance, he had the opportunity to dispense the patronage of senior influential employment to ministerial staff. It would be vertical integration of the most profitable kind. The Prime Minister, whilst going to some lengths to recognise the association of Mr Butler and Mr Farmer and Mr Butler's role and power as Chairman of the Ministerial Staff Advisory Panel, first made another point quite clear when, to quote from Hansard, he said: To my knowledge, Mr Butler has not been and is not a lobbyist. As this was the substance of the Opposition question, one might think the matter can now rest. However, it certainly cannot and it would appear that the Prime Minister must be one of the few people in his Government whose knowledge on that subject is so deficient. The question now is, when does a lobbyist become a lobbyist-or, more importantly, when does a senior adviser to government become a lobbyist? The laws of contract quite clearly recognise the reality of the verbal agreement and it is my submission that a person becomes a lobbyist when he agrees to join in business with an established lobbyist, and others, to conduct such business. The fact that he in particular might not take a public position in that undertaking, and does not in fact see himself as a provider of the fodder for the business of lobbying, makes him no less a lobbyist; it just makes him a despicable lobbyist. The undisputed and unchallenged facts relating to this intent are written in the Sydney Morning Herald of 18 May. The relevant section, taken from an article referring to the Combe affair, says: Combe was told by a colleague-Mr Richard Farmer, the Canberra businessman and political adviser. Mr Farmer worked on the Hawke campaign this year. He also worked on the Hayden campaign in 1980-with Combe. Mr Farmer was interested because he and Combe had reached a very significant business decision. Along with Mr Bill Butler, Mr Farmer's business associate, and a former public servant, they were going into the lobbying business together . A little further on, the article states: Then Mr Farmer was told. Not just the excuse-but the real reason Mr Farmer and Mr Butler went to Combe's home. They told him they would talk outside, not inside. Their message was simple and chilling. The Hawke Government had cut Combe off. He was a leper. Nobody could go into business on this basis. Mr Farmer was not very happy about the events, but he could not do anything about it. In the light of that unchallenged information the question before this Parliament is no longer whether Mr Butler is a lobbyist; in fact, that is irrelevant. Mr Butler entered a verbal contract with that intention-a contract he would have kept had not the circumstances of Mr Ivanov and Mr Combe interrupted that cosy decision. What is more, the stated and undisputed fact in this article, which claims that Mr Farmer and Mr Butler were told of Combe's circumstances, raises considerable doubts in my mind that the Prime Minister had no knowledge of the intention of Mr Butler and Mr Farmer to enter into partnership with Mr Combe as lobbyists. Consequently, his answer last week leaves a lot of questions un- answered. He is the leader of his Government and bears the responsibility for it. He is obliged to dismiss the Minister who briefed Mr Farmer and who knew of Butler's intention or accept the responsibility for this mess himself. Any attempt to retain Mr Butler in his present position can only signify the Prime Minister's intention to condone this kind of lobbying at the lowest level. Of all the circumstances that have arisen from this sorry affair, this is the question that has not been resolved. I sincerely hope the Government will address itself to the position of lobbyists who hold other positions of influence with the Government. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(10.35) —Mr Speaker, we have heard a lot in this place lately about the conservation of wilderness, of trees that have been growing for more than 100 years. That is all very desirable but I would like to say a little about another kind of conservation which has a human element as well as a natural one, and which I think is also very important to our quality of life. I refer to the preservation, in a healthy and viable way, of significant old towns whose very existence is under threat because they are being by-passed by modern developments. In particular I want to refer to the historic old South Australian railway town of Peterborough. The history of Peterborough goes back 106 years but the people who live there do not believe it will go on much longer unless something positive is done about securing its traditional employment base in our national railway system, which is steadily being withdrawn from it in the case of rationalisation of Australian National Railways. In part, this process has to do with conversion to standard gauge, which is both inevitable and progressive. But it also has to do with an increasing emphasis on centralising ANR functions such as administration, supervision, maintenance and repairs to a greater extent in the Adelaide area. ANR currently employs 312 people at Peterborough, out of a population of 2,570. According to local authorities some 140 jobs have already gone during the past 18 months and Australian National has estimated that a further 30 per cent reduction in operational and mechanical staff could take place. Most of the houses formerly maintained for railways staff have been sold off. Looked at this way the future seems to hold very little for this once flourishing town which used to be the headquarters for what was known as the Peterborough Division, which included the 212 miles of track built in the 1880 to bring the ore from Broken Hill to Port Pirie for smelting and shipping. In marked contrast to the present day, this line was then the only one in Australia that actually paid its own way. That early prosperity seems to have set the tone for the building of Peterborough as a place to last. Its elaborate Town Hall, for instance, is the biggest outside Adelaide and in its heyday saw many a cabaret ball of 2,000 or so guests. The town has a more far-reaching claim to fame in that it is one of the only two places in the world where three different railway gauges meet-the original South Australian broad gauge, the narrow gauge of the Orroroo line and the standard gauge of the Transcontinental. Peterborough's importance in the railway system in the past has been partly due to this proliferation of gauges. It has maintained a bogey exchange service which enabled goods wagons to make the through journey without transhipment of freight. Now that the standard gauge line has been completed through to Adelaide this service is expected to be removed at any time. This will mean the loss of a further 84 jobs. The situation facing Peterborough is not immediately disastrous. Australian National has shown itself flexible insofar as it is prepared to soften the blow by finding alternative work for those declared redundant until they choose to leave. Some will retire to live in the former railway houses they have bought. Others will leave, as many have. But what worries those who have the interests of the town at heart is that no matter how painless might be the operations that remove one after another of Peterborough's former functions, their removal is no less final. They are concerned with what will happen to an old established decentralised town that has grown to maturity with its own traditions and way of life developed over several generations of economic security and a pride in its own identity. That is also my concern. If we accept the premise that decentralisation is a good and necessary aim in a vast country like this with most of the people crowded into coastal cities, ultimately we will have to do something about it. To start from scratch and establish planned new towns is a highly expensive business, as has been proved in other places. Surely it would be a much more gainful policy in economic, social and cultural terms for communities such as this to be sustained by a bit of compromise here and there until, by a joint process of self-help and regional planning, together with any necessary assistance, they can find a new role. For instance, some will say that Peterborough has all the ingredients, including the know-how, for a world-scale working steam locomotive museum with plenty of assorted track for tourist trips. But things like that do not happen overnight. Just for now, perhaps the goal set by the Fraser Government for Australian National to become self-supporting by 1988-89 is not so vitally urgent an end in these tough times that it justifies all the means necessary to achieve it. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.40) —Mr Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to a significant anniversary that will take place on 11 June. Mr John Brown —Happy birthday! Mr BRAITHWAITE —It is a little early for that; I will take those congratulations in December. It is the fiftieth anniversary of the Australian Jaycees organisation which was formed in Perth on 11 June 1933. I think this House ought to pay proper tribute to the work that that association has done for Australian youth over the years. In fact it has been estimated that some 150,000 Australians have benefited from the training of the Jaycees movement. Many communities throughout Australia have benefited from the service that this organisation has provided. There have been many significant events over those 50 years. The first world congress of Jaycees ever held in Australia was held in Melbourne in 1952. At that congress the official Jaycees creed was adopted. The creed reads: We believe that faith in God gives meaning and purpose to human life That brotherhood of man transcends the sovereignty of nations That economic justice can be best won by free men through free enterprise That governments should be of laws rather than of men That earth's great treasure lies in human personality That service to humanity is the best work of life. The Jaycees movement has made that pledge and given to the Australian community those very fine ideals. Some of the other significant events, in keeping with the creed, have involved the participation of members in social issues. In fact, at a time when the environment was never discussed in State or Federal parliaments the Jaycees in 1970 adopted the project 'My Country's Keeper'. That was followed in 1974 by an international project entitled 'Man and His Environment'. Those projects have influenced the social feelings of many Australians. Also the 'Road Courtesy is Catching' project was adopted in the late 1950s. We have only to see the number of road deaths today to realise how important that project was then and how important it continues to be. From 1981 onwards the Jaycees have been involved with the project 'Pride in Our Nation'. This is an attempt to bring to the Australian people the realisation that it is a privilege to be an Australian. That has been a very important project. In fact, a project that goes hand in glove with this is one designed to ensure that Australia Day is held on 26 January and not on the weekend closest to that date. I fully support that view. In 1961, in conjunction with the Australian Chamber of Manufactures, the Jaycees adopted the logo and the theme ' Australian made'. This continues to be an aspect of Australian trade and commerce. 'Youth speaks for Australia' is a youth training program which has been adopted Australia-wide by all chambers in Australia. This project is aimed at improving public speaking and presentation by youth. In addition to this, the Jaycees themselves have a Geoff M. King oratory contest which again is Australia -wide and which is named after a man who was prominent in spreading the organisation throughout Queensland in the early 1950s. In 1965-66 the Jaycees helped in the Government's initiative of conversion to decimal currency. They have spread the hand of goodwill and friendship throughout the world. This is the part they play in the international Jaycees movement. Some 600,000 young people throughout the world join together to form this wonderful organisation. They have helped to promote clubs which offer the same opportunities in neighbouring nations, such as Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Hong Kong. I am sure that they have done their share in spreading the hand of friendship. Three Australians have acted as world presidents in those 50 years. They are Mr John Rundle, an architect from South Australia, Mr Les Perrott, from Victoria who was the first world president, and Mr Royce Pepin. Many other Australians have acted in executive positions. In 1976 the organisation admitted women to their ranks and membership. I am sure that the women will play a significant part in the future of Australia as far as training is concerned. On 8 June the Australian Postal Commission will recognise the Jaycees with the issue of a postage stamp. It is important to realise that Jaycees is not a service club. However, in providing a service to the community it trains its members to take their place in leadership roles in local government, State government and Federal government. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(10.45) —On the afternoon of 10 May three questions were asked in this chamber-the first by the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), the second by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the third by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). It is my view that the Opposition set out to raise the name of David Combe in order to embarrass the Government. It was prepared to ruin the reputation of a man to score a cheap political point. The disgusting role played by the Leader of the Opposition in this affair is what I wish to raise tonight. The Leader of the Opposition engineered this attack. It is my view that the Leader of the Opposition organised this attack on David Combe to cover up some of his own business dealings. Late in January 1983 a meeting took place in Melbourne, at the home of a Mr L. Matherson in South Yarra. In attendance were the Soviet Ambassador, Dr Soudarikov, a Mr Dashevski, a trade representative from the Russian Embassy, and Mr Laurie Matherson of the import-export company called Commercial Bureau. At the time this company was the major company dealing in Australian-Soviet trade. The fourth person present was the Leader of the Opposition, who at that time was the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It is interesting to note that before the meeting could take place the now Leader of the Opposition sought the assurance of the other three that details discussed at the meeting were to be secret and not to be disclosed to the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser. This request is, to say the least, strange. What did Mr Matherson and the now Opposition Leader have to discuss with the Embassy representatives that could not be 'repeated' to the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser? Did they discuss trade between the two countries? Were ways to by-pass the trade embargo discussed? Did the present Leader of the Opposition offer to make things easier for Mr Matherson's company in its trade dealings with the Soviet Union? Was the subject of the usual hefty commission discussed? Or was Mr Peacock involved in discussing matters which could be conceived as a threat to Australia's national security? This is what the Opposition has been saying about other people. These questions must be answered. I ask the Government to investigate the issues I have raised here tonight. I put to the Government that these issues could be considered under the terms of reference for the Hope Royal Commission on Security and Intelligence Agencies. A person who sets out deliberately to destroy the career of another in order to save his own miserable skin has no place leading a political party in this country, in my view. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(10.48) —I raise tonight a very serious breach of promise by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) and the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley). This matter relates to the upgrading of the Wynyard Airport in north-west Tasmania. The Prime Minister made so much of alleged broken promises by the previous Government. He told the nation he would be a man of his word, that he would fulfil his promises and that his word would be his bond. Yet within a few short weeks of gaining office he has dragged the political credibility of national leaders to an all time low. Before the recent election the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hawke, and his spokesman on transport, Mr Morris, gave a solemn undertaking that an Australian Labor Party government would proceed with the upgrading of the Wynyard Airport, which was agreed to by the Fraser Government and was then under way. The promises made by Mr Hawke and Mr Morris are reported in the Advocate and the Examiner of Saturday, 26 February 1983, and are there for all to see. It was a clear promise without any qualifications about the deficit or the dam. This was no vague promise about interest rates or unemployment, it was a clear promise to civic leaders and all the people of a regional community that a specific local project was in no way at risk, that it would certainly proceed 'as a matter of priority' under an Australian Labor Party government. History has now shown that the people of north-west Tasmania were hoodwinked by men who were deliberately dishonest or did not care whether they spoke the truth . We are now told by the Minister for Aviation that Wynyard Airport will not be upgraded and hundreds of jobs will be lost. It saddens me that local politicians -in particular the resident Labor senator, Senator Tate, and the Australian Labor Party candidate for Braddon, Mr Lance Fee-were party to this false promise and used it for their own political advantage. Now the promise has been callously broken with no apology, no excuse and no explanation for the deception . It is the most disgraceful act of political dishonesty I have witnessed in my years in politics. I know that local people, including those living in the far north-west and on the west coast, feel let down by Senator Tate. He had advance knowledge that this promise was likely to be broken, yet he failed to persuade Hawke or Beazley to keep his word-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should refer to members of the House by the names of their electorates. He is well aware of that. Mr GROOM —He failed to persuade the relevant Ministers and the Prime Minister to keep their promise. Senator Tate failed the people of the north-west coast and the people of the west coast. Mr Maher —I rise on a point of order. I was actually in Wynyard and I know that Senator Tate was not invited to the meeting there on the airport. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr GROOM —Senator Tate has attacked me personally in a desperate attempt to take the heat off himself. He has to realise that the ball is now right in his court. His political future could well depend on whether he can convince the Prime Minister to reverse his decision and proceed with the upgrading of the Wynyard Airport to medium jet standard. He has already lost a lot of credibility over this issue and I hope for his sake that he can convince the Government that it is wrong and thus regain some credibility. The Prime Minister does not care about the workers. He does not care about the jobs involved. He does not care about any individual except Bob Hawke. We have seen what he did to Mr Combe. He cut his throat. Mr Cunningham —I rise on a point of order. The honourable member is continuing to refer to honourable members by name, which is incorrect procedure. Mr SPEAKER —Yes, I notice that. The honourable member should refer to the 'Prime Minister'. Mr GROOM —I apologise, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister cut Mr Combe's throat. This act of political dishonesty proves that the Prime Minister is not a man of honour, not a man who can be trusted. I am sorry that Senator Tate pretends to defend the Prime Minister and support local people. I only wish that he had the intestinal fortitude to speak out against this insult to the people of Tasmania and acknowledge that a promise has been broken. It is a pity that he does not take the same tack as has been taken by local labor members of the House of Assembly who, in a statement released today, said that the issue is about the value of commitments given to the region by the new Government. They went on to say: For north west residents, the credibility of the Government is at stake. What an indictment of the new Prime Minister and the new Government, out of the mouths of good Labor Party members who have served the local area very well indeed. Two are former Ministers. One is a former Speaker of the State House in Tasmania. They have attacked the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has accused many on this side of the House of telling lies. Now the boomerang has struck a deserving target. This is a very important project. It is disgraceful that the Government has taken away funding for it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(10.53) —I would like to take a few minutes of the time of the House tonight to refer to a rather interesting and significant event that took place in my electorate last Sunday. I refer to the mini economic summit which occurred in Bathurst. It was an interesting idea and was conducted largely under the auspices of the State member for Bathurst, Mr Mick Clough, with my assistance as the Federal member for Calare and also that of the Mayor of Bathurst, Alderman Max Hanrahan. We decided to try to capture in a miniature sense the spirit of consensus which was so apparent at the April National Economic Summit Conference. We saw this as a small step towards achieving national reconciliation, reconstruction and recovery on a micro scale. The important aspect of the mini economic summit was that invitations were sent out to a wide cross section of the Bathurst community and the response was rather good, considering that the meeting was held on a Sunday when all sorts of other interesting events, such as football matches and social events, take place in a country community. Invitations were accepted by more than 60 people, including representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, trade unions, industry groups, pensioners, local financial institutions, social workers and other interested members of the local community. The event was covered not only by the local and regional media but also, interestingly, was picked up by the Australian Broadcasting Commission in its State news bulletin that night. I thought that recognised the importance of this significant event in my electorate. Syndicate groups were formed to consider very important issues affecting rural affairs, minerals and energy, urban and regional development, local government, education, emergency services, community affairs and a few other categories of activity as well. The syndicate groups will be reporting to an executive committee, made up of the State member, Mr Clough, myself as the Federal member, the Mayor of Bathurst, Alderman Hanrahan, representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and representatives of the unions. We believe that the exercise was highly successful-so much so that we intend to duplicate it on 5 June in Lithgow, which is in the eastern end of my electorate. I recommend that the exercise be repeated throughout Australia because I believe that only good can come out of such events. We recognised, as did the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in April, that there is in the Australian people a tremendous amount of good will. Unfortunately, a large amount of that has been alienated in recent times, particularly during the last seven miserable years of conservative government in this country. We see this event as an ideal way of involving the local community and promoting trust in putting forward local ideas concerning how we might go about, on a micro level, getting our economy moving again. I also see it as an ideal opportunity to obtain local committee input to plans that will be made in the near future to take advantage of the Community Employment Program announced by the Treasurer ( Mr Keating) and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) . Local input will be important in making the best use of community employment funds in my electorate and will certainly be very welcome to the participants in the mini economic summit. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(10.58) —I feel sorry for the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) and his constituents in that the Federal Government is not proceeding with the upgrading of the Wynyard Airport, but I remind the honourable member and the House that in my electorate the Labor Government has welshed on promises made during the election campaign concerning three projects. I refer particularly to the Warner Creek dam project, which has been estimated to cost $ 11m, the Craigbourne dam project, which was estimated to cost $6m and the upgrading of the St Helens port, which was estimated to cost $4m. As occurred in the electorate of Braddon with the upgrading of the Wynyard Airport, during the election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and other spokesmen for the Australian Labor Party came to Tasmania and gave wholehearted promises that they would embark on these projects if they were elected to government. However, now that they are in government they are welshing on their promises. They have refused to give any guarantee that they will honour the commitments they gave to the people of Tasmania. Quite frankly, I believe that not only my constituents but also those in other electorates in Tasmania have no reason at all to trust this Government when it gives promises with a view to winning votes but, once having attained office, it backtracks and welshes on the promises it has given. This House, with my constituents and other people in Australia, has every right to condemn the Government for breaking promises as it has. The Fraser Government had entered into long term negotiations with local and other authorities in Tasmania concerning the funding of these projects. Commitments had been given by that Government and local authorities had every right to believe that had it been re-elected the projects would have been proceeded with. The present Prime Minister and other spokesmen for the Labor Party came to Tasmania and said, 'We will fund these projects if elected,' withouth having the faintest idea of what they were all about. The people in Tasmania had every right to expect that if Labor were elected to government these projects would be proceeded with but now that has happened, the present Government says, 'It is a different ball game. We will not go ahead with them now. We will go ahead with these projects only if the Tasmanian Government refuses to go ahead with the Gordon below Franklin hydro-electric scheme'. I believe that that amounts to welshing on promises given during an election campaign. It represents political expediency at its worst. This House should condemn the Government for backing down on its promises, for deceiving the people of Tasmania. I believe that the Parliament has a right to demand from this Government a better go for the Tasmanian people. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Beazley —I require the debate to be extended. Mr SPEAKER —The debate may be extended until 11.10 p.m. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation)(11.0) —The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) was good enough to inform me that he intended to raise the question of Wynyard Airport in the adjournment debate tonight. I do not think he did his case much good judging by the way in which he raised it. On this question of whether undertakings have been given on this particular matter it is pertinent to look at the statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) during the last week of the election campaign on this and many other matters. As I have had occasion to remark before in this House, the first point that ought to be noted about this matter is this: The Prime Minister had the honesty, unprecedented virtually in the rough and tumble of Australian electoral politics, to point out before the date of the election, when rumours started to extend about the nature and the size of the deficit that this country faced, that if the financial difficulties were as massive as seemed to be the case then obviously the programs that were being put forward by the Government would have to be reviewed to ensure that real priorities were adhered to. He said that before the election and it was on that basis that he went to the polls. Unlike the performances of the previous Prime Minister, he levelled with the electorate. It is in that light that the remarks made by the honourable member for Braddon ought to be viewed. They ought to be viewed in another light as well. When honourable members come into this place to make a serious case for projects in their electorates, they must do a great deal better than handing around abuse, particularly if the Premier of the State wants to raise that same matter with the Prime Minister at a later stage. Mr Groom —This project was under way. You have broken a promise. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Braddon will cease interjecting. He has asked a series of questions. They are being answered and he should cease his incessant interjections. Mr BEAZLEY —The honourable member will have to do a great deal better than come into this place with a string of abuse, without argument, on the basis of a promise which the Prime Minister indicated, in the course of the election campaign, would need to be reviewed. The honourable member must understand one thing about airports. The airports program is not principally a job creation program. Projects are included in the program when there is a requirement for the proposed works, when they meet local needs and when they are of such priority that their completion is essential ahead of many other important expenditure proposals before the Government. The test of priority has had to be applied most stringently in the Government's review of the unprecedented Budget deficit projected for 1983-84 that had been inherited from the previous Government. The Government is taking positive initiatives to create jobs in Tasmania. During 1983-84 Tasmania will receive an allocation of $7.5m for employment creation projects. This is in addition to the State's share of $2.8m of the $100m remaining from the wage pause program. The State will also benefit from the $50m which has been provided internally for employment creation projects to be administered directly by Federal Government departments. Those are the schemes that provide employment. When we consider the construction of airports, we have to look at the requirements of the particular airport. The fact of the matter is that the traffic does not justify an extension of Wynyard airport-- Opposition members interjecting-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I have requested honourable members to cease interjecting. They are continuing. I can conclude only that the lateness of the hour gives them the incentive to do that. I ask that they desist. I call the Minister for Aviation. Mr BEAZLEY —The Opposition, as I said, will have to do a great deal better on this matter if it wants to be taken seriously. On the question of Wynyard Airport, there is not the demand for it to be developed at this stage. It is only a few miles from another airport that is in the process of being upgraded. It may well be that an argument can be made and sustained that Wynyard ought to have had priority ahead of Devonport. But that is all over because the development took place at Devonport first. The honourable member for Braddon chose in this regard to raise in this House certain matters related to Senator Tate. Senator Tate, as I understand it, has raised questions in relation to delays that took place in the preparation of submissions on Wynyard Airport, the blame for which he was prepared to lay at the- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. There being no other Minister seeking the floor, the Minister for Aviation may continue. Mr BEAZLEY —As I said, I understand that in the past Senator Tate has raised the question of the delays in the preparation of a case for Wynyard Airport. He has pointed out at different times that certain of the local representatives have in fact argued in the past against Wynyard and other airports in the area proceeding under the local ownership program. Mr Groom —That is wrong. It is quite false. Mr BEAZLEY —The honourable member can take that up at a later stage. But the fact of the matter is that, whatever the reason delays did occurr. In the circumstances that have arisen, when there are many airports claiming considerable priority, in areas that are far less well served than the north and north west of Tasmania, they must be incorporated within the program. In those circumstances, the justification for Wynyard does not stand at the moment. Mr Hodgman —You broke a promise. Mr BEAZLEY —If the honourable member has some views that he believes ought to be considered by the Government then he has the obligation to present that case in this House. The honourable member did his case, his State and his seat an enormous disservice by the absurd way in which he chose to raise this problem in this House. It is becoming fairly typical of the way in which the Opposition uses up its time in the adjournment debate. Very little that is constructive emerges from Opposition members, and this is another case in point. Senator Tate has played an entirely honourable role in this regard. He has been a very effective advocate for the situation of Wynyard Airport over a considerable period. He has regarded it most anxiously. The difficulty that has arisen, of course, is precisely the point that I raised earlier. We have to establish the priority and that priority must be based upon the real needs of the airlines industry as well as the needs of the local population. The simple fact of the matter is- Mr Hodgman —You made a promise. Mr BEAZLEY —I have already dealt with that question. Mr Hodgman —You have not. Mr BEAZLEY —The simple fact of the matter is that, unlike other Commonwealth projects, the airports program is subject to cost recovery from the airlines industry. If we undertake unnecessary developments at any particular time they will have a significant impact upon the travelling public and upon the airlines industry. This is not a circumstance that we take lightly in the Department of Aviation. I have already pointed out to the honourable member why a review has been undertaken of a wide range of capital works projects and the fact that the Prime Minister indicated that this might be necessary in the course of the election campaign. Mr Hodgman —He did not. Mr BEAZLEY —He did so in the course of the election campaign. Mr Hodgman —You are prevaricating again. You are being evasive. You are misleading the House. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison compounds his previous offences. I call the Minister for Aviation. Mr BEAZLEY —The honourable member used to be known in this place as the mouth from the south. Because of recent revelations in this House he is now known as the motorist of the Molonglo. If he keeps this up by the time this Parliament rises he will be known as motor-mouth. He has always operated in this place in the same way. The honourable member for Braddon expressed his case and all I can say is that it is a very sorry day for Tasmania when, in these circumstances, the only people it has for its advocates are the people who have been performing in this way. Mr Hodgman —A point of order. This is an underhand personal attack from a Minister who has prevaricated and misled the House. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. He knows that with only a minute of the sitting remaining I cannot name him but I would, in normal circumstances,if he repeated that remark. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.9 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Hurford to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 and by reason of the urgent nature of the work, it is expedient that the following proposed work be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: R.A.A.F. Base, Williamtown, N. S.W.-F/A Hornet facilities development tactical fighter-time critical facilities . Mr Hurford to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 and by reason of the urgent nature of the work, it is expedient that the following proposed work be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Avalon, Vic.-Construction of new works and upgrading of existing facilities for the new tactical fighter project-stage 2. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Dr Blewett to present a Bill for an Act to subject certain pensions to an income test. Mr Uren to move- (1) that the resolution of appointment of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House be amended by inserting after paragraph 3 the following new paragraph: '(3A) That the committee consider and report on the use of the Provisional Parliament House after it is vacated by Parliament.'. (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting its concurrence. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 24 May 1983: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal for collection of information-1983-No. 6-Survey of community and personal services industries. Postal Services Act-Australian Postal Commission-By-laws-Postal-1983-Amendment No. 1. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 3 Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to my question on notice No. 2253 of 13 May 1981 which asked the then Minister (a) had his attention been drawn to an article in To Vema of 21 April 1981, page 7, reporting that an Australian woman and her Greek lover were sentenced to 7 months gaol on charges of adultery by a Greek Court, (b) if so, was the Australian Embassy in Athens aware of that case, (c) had the woman involved been offered legal help and (d) would the Minister warn Australians travelling to Greece of the existence of this law. (2) If so, will he provide an answer to that question. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's original question is as follows: (a) No. (b) The Australian Embassy in Athens had not been aware of this case. The Embassy made extensive enquiries of the Greek authorities but was unable to discover details of the case described in the article. The Department of Foreign Affairs also checked with the publisher of the newspaper, in which only a given name and an initial were given. (c) Not applicable. It should be noted, however, that Australian missions abroad cannot offer legal assistance. They will watch the proceedings in serious criminal cases against Australians to ensure that they are not treated in any discriminatory fashion, and they are able to provide persons seeking legal advice with a list of lawyers practising locally (but without accepting responsibility for the lawyers who appear on the list). (d) It would not be practicable or appropriate to warn Australian citizens of the existence of specific laws against which they might offend in all countries. However, each recipient of a new Australian passport is given a copy of a booklet 'Hints for Australian Travellers'. On page 13 of this publication Australian citizens are warned that every person visiting a foreign country is subject to the laws of that country. Question No. 44 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) What factors are considered in determining whether meat products imported into Australia are unfairly competing with Australian meat products. (2) Other than the ban on all new contracts for imports from the Argentine from 8 April to 29 June 1982, what restrictions or categories thereof have been placed by Australia on meat imports in the last 10 years. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The question of whether meat products imported into Australia are unfairly competing with Australian domestic production depends on whether and to what extent such imports are dumped or subsidised by the exporting country and, if so , whether, as a result, material injury is caused or threatened to the Australian industry. In the case of formal complaints by Australian producers that imported meat is unfairly competing with domestic product, investigations are made by the Australian Bureau of Customs under the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975. Where it can be substantiated that the imported product is being dumped or being exported with the assistance of subsidies and as a result is causing or threatens to cause material injury to a domestic industry Australia can impose duties on the imported product equivalent to the established margin of dumping or subsidisation. As an alternative to anti-dumping or countervailing duties exporters may give an undertaking in relation to exports of the product. (2) Apart from the occasion mentioned by the honourable member there have been no restrictions on meat imports into Australia over the past ten years. Imports are of course subject to quarantine regulations and to any customs duty that is applicable. Question No. 103 Mr Bilney asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 10 May 1983: (1) How many Australia-based officers of his Department were stationed overseas in Australian posts served by the Australian Government telecommunications network in (a) 1980, (b) 1981 and (c) 1982. (2) What was the total expenditure of the Department on international telephone calls to and from Australia in each of those years. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 1980-184; (b) 1981-180; (c) 1982-178. The above figures are the average number of 'A' Based officers employed overseas in the financial years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1980-82. This information is public information and was provided to the House as part of the Budget documents each year. (2) International telephone calls emanating from Canberra to overseas posts are routed through the exchange in the Edmund Barton Building. This exchange does not differentiate between Departments. The total telephone account was paid by the former Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. In relation to calls into Australia most of the costs would be reflected in the appropriations of the Department of Foreign Affairs who administer all but eleven (11) Trade posts on a common service basis. In relation to the eleven (11) Trade posts only the total telephone charges have been recorded. It is not possible to differentiate between local calls, calls to other countries or calls to Australia. Figures for the three financial years are below: 1979-80-$179,543 1980-81-$179,704 1981-82-$191,412. Question No. 109 Mr Bilney asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 10 May 1983: What is the estimated cost of the impending by-elections necessitated by the resignations of the former Liberal Members for Wannon and Bruce. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The estimated total cost of the Wannon and Bruce by-elections is $280,000. Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 11 May 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the 'Ferguson' report of the 1982 review of the CSIRO Division of Animal Health which recommends that live foot-and-mouth disease viruses be imported to the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory (ANAHL) for diagnosis, research, training and vaccine production. (2) Has his attention also been drawn to reports of the independent committees of the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) and the Australian Academy of Science, which reach views contrary to those in the Ferguson Report on the need to import live foot-and-mouth disease viruses. (3) When will the Government respond to the ASTEC report and will it re- initiate the inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources into ANAHL and exotic viruses. (4) What (a) is the latest cost estimate of the ANAHL facility, (b) are the estimated annual running costs of the facility and (c) has been the cost of public relations to the CSIRO over ANAHL. (5) What international commitments have been made by CSIRO, or other Government agencies, in anticipation that foot-and-mouth disease viruses would be imported into ANAHL. (6) Has the Government decided to accept the ASTEC recommendations; if so, what program of work is proposed for ANAHL staff and what parts of that program require the expensive high security facilities provided by ANAHL; if not, should further appointments to ANAHL staff be stopped until the Government's intentions are known. (7) Who are members of the committee to select the new chief of ANAHL, and what are their qualifications for membership of that committee. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) The Government has under consideration its response to the ASTEC report. The Senate Standing Committee on National Resources has decided not to continue its inquiry because the ASTEC report covered the issues contained in the Committee's Terms of Reference and ASTEC consulted the same people from whom the Committee would be seeking advice. (4) (a) $150m (December 1982 figure); (b) $8m (February 1983 figure, including salaries); (c) The nature of ANAHL has, of necessity, involved CSIRO in informing interested parties about its role. This involvement has been an accepted part of the project and these costs cannot be isolated. (5) None. (6) See (3) above. (7) The CSIRO Executive will select an Officer-in-Charge for ANAHL on the completion of the incumbent's present term in November 1984. In making this selection it will be advised by a Search Committee. This Committee is yet to be formed. Question No. 122 Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 11 May 1983: (1) Will he ascertain whether CSIRO or the Bureau of Animal Health has organised a scheme for on-farm diagnosis of foot-and-mouth viruses using tests such as the ELISA tests, developed at the Animal Virus Research Institute in the United Kingdom several years ago. (2) If not, will top priority be given to organising a scheme of this kind as proposed by the Australian Science and Technology Council report on the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory, either by CSIRO, or, if it is not enthusiastic, by another organisation. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Neither CSIRO nor the Bureau of Animal Health has organised a scheme for ' on-farm' diagnosis of foot-and-mouth disease viruses using tests such as the ELISA tests. (2) The Government is yet to make decisions on the ASTEC report. When these decisions are known CSIRO will be able to consider development of appropriate research programs at ANAHL. The Organisation is aware that ASTEC has noted that 'safe diagnosis carried out ''on-farm'' using relatively simple procedures may be possible in the future, and the development and acceptance of such techniques should be promoted' but that 'no single diagnostic test is completely reliable, and dependence upon serology alone for the initial identification of an exotic animal virus would be unwise'.