Thursday, 25 August 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Chiropractic Services To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows : That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilizing chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. by Mr Bilney,Mr Burr,Mrs Darling,Mr Dobie,Mr Drummond,Mr Free,Mr Jacobi,Mr Lusher,Mr Maher and Mr O'Neil. 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. The concerns which people around the world have for the increasing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction: 2. The global concern that any nuclear exchange will inflict on humanity unimaginable death and suffering; 3. The vulnerability that Australians will face in any nuclear conflict between the major powers; 4. The public concern that Government should explore all avenues to ensure that the nuclear threat is eliminated. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament establish a Select Committee on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace to investigate the creation of a Ministry of Peace and Nuclear Disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie,Mr Fife,Mr Fry,Mr MacKellar and Mr Allan Morris. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth 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 Covention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1) We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) ''The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels'' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article II of the convention is likely to result in material 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. (5) Loss of religious freedom. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom,Mr Hawker,Mr Newman and Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia, Believing that men and women are equal but different, Convinced that Australia can provide equal opportunity for all citizens without foreign treaties, Concerned that ratifying the UN Discrimination Convention would give a Communist-dominated international committee the power to judge Australia's laws, Humbly petition that your Honourable House will not ratify the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. And we will always thus petition. by Mr Bilney and Mr O'Neil. 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. by Ms Fatin and Mr Scott. 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: 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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. Your petitioners pray that Members and the House assembled will close Omega. by Mr Kent and Mr Milton. 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 the 1978 Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance prohibits abortions from being carried out otherwise than at a hospital conducted by the Capital Territory Health Commission; and that a proposal has been made for the conversion of the North Canberra Health Centre into a Women's Health Centre with an associated abortion clinic. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government, the Minister for Territories and Local Government, and the Minister for Health, will give a categorical assurance that no abortion clinic will be established in the ACT. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Maher and Mr Ruddock. 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 the Tertiary Education Allowance Scheme (TEAS Allowance) has been progressively reducing in real terms throughout the 1980s, and is no longer at an adequate subsistance level. 2. that the situation where the independent TEAS allowance is substantially below the single, no dependant, unemployment benefit is inequitable and not supportable by cost relativities. 3. that the low level of TEAS allowance is detrimental to maintaining the proportion of students currently partaking in tertiary education. Your petitioners humble pray that effective immediately the TEAS allowance should be increased to the same level as the single unemployment benefit and thereafter be maintained in line with changes in said benefits. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain undersigned persons (citizens of Australia) (electors of the Division of Canning) shows concern and dismay that Fr Brian Gore, an Australian citizen and missionary priest in the Philippines is charged with suberversion, possession of explosives and of inciting rebellion, warrants of arrest pertaining to which have been issued and served on 18th October 1982. Your petitioners therefore pray that you do all in your power to urge the Philippine authorities to cease harassment of Fr Gore and to allow him to continue his missionary work without threat or fear of arrest; furthermore, that Fr Gore be allowed his right to legal advice and representation and of access at all time to this friends and religious colleagues. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms Fatin. 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: Holders of the health care card and pensioner health benefits card cannot receive any level of free dental care from private dentists, as they can medical care from private doctors. The existing network of private dental practices will need to be the principle mode of dental care delivery. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: Holders of the health care card and pensioner health benefits card be provided with free dental care through private dentist, immediately. Dental care be included in the formulation of Medicare. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. 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 objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: (1) That the Macedonian language be used by Government Departments in multi- lingual publications. (2) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language as a Higher School Certificate (H.S.C.) subject in secondary schools. (3) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language in tertiary institutions and that a course be introduced at Monash University in the Department of Slavic Languages. Your peititioners, 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the majority of Australian pensioners are denied the human right to share fully in one of the foremost scientific advancement in communication of our time , namely, telephone communication. For 20 years the telephone rental % rebate has remained frozen. Successive Governments have exhibited a 'deaf ear' and/or a 'stoney-heart' to all appeals that this resource be more readily available at a time when it is most needed to maintain health and well-being. It is regrettable that the Government in announcing the pending increased charges in telephone rental and installation has not shown humane understanding in absolving pensioners from such increases, as indeed, in giving attention in maintaining the service as a vital necessity for daily living-for many, their only contact with the outside world. These facts of life impel your petitioners to call on the Federal Government as a matter of urgency to:- 1. Absolve pensioners from increased telephone charges. 2. Adopt a policy that pensioners enjoy the benefits of scientific advancement, only calls be a charge. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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. 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 shooting of kangaroos. 3. Enact legislation to give the Commonwealth Government responsibility throughout Australia for ALL native wildlife and habitat upon which it is dependent for survival. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. Noting the the 1983 National Budget includes increased taxes on beer and spirits, we draw attention to the fact that wines have a higher alcoholic content than beer and that wine consumption must be a significant factor in the mounting problems arising from the use of alcoholic beverages; we request that all alcoholic wines be taxed to a degree comparable to the taxes on other alcoholic beverages. 2. Whereas non-alcoholic wines do not cause social problems we request that no tax on these drinks be imposed. 3. That government imposts on all alcoholic beverages be adjusted annually so that the real price of the beverages remain constant. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Newman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the railway crossing situated approximately 5 kilometres east of Port Augusta on Highway One (the main highway between Adelaide and all northern and western centres of South Australia and continuing through to Western Australia) has once again been the sight of an horrendous accident. This accident has caused two, possibly three fatalities. Previous requests have been made by the City Council of Port Augusta for the construction of an overpass, so that this section of the highway no longer presents a danger to the motoring public and those involved in driving trains over this crossing. Permission for construction of this overpass has previously been refused and the situation has now become critical. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reconsider their previous decision and approve construction of an overpass at this fatally dangerous railway crossing to avoid further loss of life. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: That payments to contract and sub-contract owner-drivers of trucks are likely to be reduced by ten per cent on implementation of the new system of tax deduction at source from payments for work and services; That profit or personal remuneration constitutes a very small part of payments received by owner-drivers, compared with capital and running costs and government charges; and That a deduction of ten per cent of gross payments would not only be much greater than required to protect the revenue, but would also cause hardship to owner-drivers and their families. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will not require tax to be deducted from payments to owner-drivers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The proposal of the Right Honourable the Federal Treasurer to impose increased taxation on superannuation payments is iniquitous and threatens the planned security and retirement lifestyle of all prudent employees. 2. The problem of 'double dipping' as defined by the Treasurer is more fairly dealt with by consideration of the assets of prospective applicants for old age pensions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament will rescind this proposal to increase the taxation on superannuation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr White. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the citizens of Queensland respectfully show: Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50% of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ' ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling,Ms Fatin,Mr Gorman and Mr Lusher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the Petition of certain citizens of the Northern Territory of Australia shows: 1. That the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of South Australia entered into an agreement on 7th December, 1907 requiring the Commonwealth of Australia to construct the Transcontinental (North-South) Railway from Darwin to South Australia; 2. That the Transcontinental (North-South) Railway has not yet been constructed ; 3. That the construction of the Transcontinental (North-South) Railway is the linchpin for the further development of the Northern Territory of Australia; 4. That the Transcontinental (North-South) Railway will provide employment through construction work, steel production and manufacturing and it will assist in ensuring the defence and security of Northern Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Commonwealth of Australia commence and complete construction of the Transcontinental (North-South) Railway at an early date. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Peter Morris,Mr O'Neil and Mr Reeves. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of the Division of Fadden shows that the Post Office facilities at Loganlea were removed when the Loganlea Railway station was rebuilt and were not replaced. Your petitioners therefore pray that because of the massive population growth in the area of Loganlea, the Post Office facilities at Loganlea be replaced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the Citizens of the City of Woodville and supported by the citizens of South Australia, being deeply concerned over the threat of closure of the Woodville Plant of General Motors-Holdens, respectfully show. 1. That the management of General Motors-Holdens has failed over a period of more than two (2) years to give any assurances that the Woodville Plant would continue in operation. 2. That a recent statement attributed to the GMH Managing Director, quote: ''The overall objective of our South Australian rationalisation plan has been to eliminate all productive activities on the Woodville site'' end of quote. This statement has not been refuted. 3. That the elimination of the Woodville Plant will cause enormous social dislocation, hardship and misery to the citizens of Woodville and South Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament of Australia will condemn this callous disregard for the citizens of Woodville and South Australia, and do all in its power to force General Motors-Holdens to retain its operations at the Woodville Plant. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. Petitions received. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House reprimands the Prime Minister for his failure to maintain national security in not demanding that section 78 of the Crimes Act, Espionage (Spying) and section 81 of the Crimes Act, Harbouring Spies, be included in the new section 14 (2) of the Migration Act, thereby preventing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs from acting under section 14 (2) to deport a non- citizen who spies for the Soviet Union or a non-citizen who harbours a Soviet spy such as Valeriy Ivanov. Mr JACOBI(Hawker) —In view of the appalling litany of insurance company collapses I am obliged to give notice of my intention to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act relating to the winding up of insurance companies. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House-(1) condemns the Government for its support of Telecom's new country-wide calling program which will deprive many rural subscribers of a local, untimed telephone call to their centre of business, and (2) requests the Minister for Communications to review the new charging policy to allow rural subscribers to make an untimed local call to their respective local business centres. Mr PUNCH(Barton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) Condemns the New South Wales Liberal Party decision that every Australian resident reaching 16 years of age, or on leaving school, be issued with an identity card bearing a photograph and number, and (2) Notes that in so doing a major State branch of the Federal Liberal Party has adopted a policy which is- (a) a matter of grave afront to human dignity and one which seriously threatens the principles of civil liberties and liberalism of the individual; and (b) identical to practices of totalitarian regimes of the extreme right and left. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) Notes that- (a) The increase in the allocation of tax sharing grants to local government for 1983-84 is 8.2 per cent compared with a rise in the inflation rate of 11.2 per cent and an increase in grants to the States by 11.8 per cent, and (b) demands placed on local government authorities that wish to participate in the Community Employment Program, to contribute 30 per cent of its cost, and (2) condemns the Government for dishonouring its election commitment to maintain the real level of tax sharing grants to local government and for weakening the financial position of local government in a most wilfull and destructive manner, and (3) calls on the Government to meet the financial needs of local government by increasing the grant by a further 3 per cent to meet its pre-election commitment . Mrs Darling proceeding to give a notice of motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's notice is out of order. I remind honourable members that notices of motion should be motions to be decided by the House and not contain argument. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Government for the introduction of- (1) the tax on lump sum superannuation payment linked with an asset test for pensioners; (2) tax at source (withholding tax directed against contractors), and (3) Federal Budget measures directed against the ordinary citizen of Australia. Mrs DARLING(Lillee) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House commends the Government, and the Minister for Transport, for their commitment to the national problem of road safety demonstrated by increasing expenditure to improve road safety in 1983-84 by 56 per cent. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the inhumane practice of apartheid and welcomes the formation of the multiracial United Democratic Front in Capetown, South Africa, comprising 400 church, civil, sporting and youth groups representing over one million people, and (2) supports wholeheartedly the UDF's rejection of both apartheid and the South African Government's new constitutional proposals for limited power sharing by Indians and coloureds but excluding blacks from the political process. Mr GROOM(Braddon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House expresses its gravest concern that the defence forces have chosen to use a map of Tasmania turned upside down and situated north-west of Australia to depict the enemy nation providing a 'measure of political and economic support' to the imaginary nation Tamaria against which our forces are to be deployed in the combined defence exercise Kangaroo 83 to be held in September-October of this year. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) Recognises the importance of asset tests in proper management of the social security system; and (2) Urges the Government to pursue consultation and discussions with pensioners and pensioner organisations. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the Community Employment Program which is in operation elsewhere in Australia is not yet operating in Queensland due to the tardiness of the Queensland Government by its failure to participate in the relevant discussions with the Commonwealth Government, and (2) condemns the Queensland Government for causing the postponement of job opportunities for young Queenslanders. Message received from the Senate concurring in the resolution of the House relating to an extension of time for the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform to report. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The serious threat to the stability of Australia's rural communities caused by the Government's contemptuous and discriminatory treatment of primary industries . I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr Keogh-Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I think that the honourable member for Darling Downs has made a mistake in his letter and he is referring to the Queensland Government, not this Government. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(10.14) —In the short time since this Government came to office it has created massive concern and confusion throughout our primary industries and the rural sector with its litany of bungling administration, broken election promises and discriminatory decisions. In less than six months we have seen this Government literally tear apart its document of so-called policies for agriculture. This is the document that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) claimed was the most comprehensive package of primary industry policies ever presented by a political party in this country. What utter rubbish! If it was such a brilliant package, why has so much of it been abandoned so quickly? The entire document has been degenerated by its authors into nothing more than a comic tragedy. The major sufferers are the nation's farmers. Like so many of the Australian Labor Party's other election documents, this paper has been proved to contain nothing more than empty rhetoric. No wonder the National Farmers Federation, in its pre-Budget submission in early July, stated that the Government's negative decisions have: . . . reached the point where there is now grave disquiet within the rural community that the Government, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's pledges to the contrary, will adopt an anti-rural posture and take actions to disadvantage the farm sector further. The NFF gave the Government a very clear warning in that pre-Budget document. It said that the rural sector had been forced to bear a disproportionate share of the burden of economic restraint in the May mini-Budget; that there must, therefore, be no further rural cuts in the August Budget; and that there now existed clear apprehension within the rural community because of the Government' s actions. In other words, the NFF was saying that if the Government wanted to retain any credibility whatsoever in the rural sector, it must give a positive demonstration of its stated commitment to the sector in the August Budget. The Government either failed to recognise the warning or, more likely, took no notice of it. The end result is that it has blown its opportunity. Its credibility in the bush is simply shot to pieces. The Government has often claimed that its policies and decisions are made after consultation with relevant industries. That has increasingly proven not to be the case. It was certainly not the case in respect of last Tuesday's Budget decisions. There were no pre-Budget consultations with industry or community and welfare organisations. Worse still, the much vaunted Economic Planning Advisory Council, the body that grew out of the so-called consensus of the National Economic Summit Conference specially to advise the Government on economic policy , had absolutely no input into the preparation of this Budget. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said so. After the Council's first meeting on 25 July he stated: The preparation of the 1983-84 Budget is nearing completion and therefore non- Federal Government members of EPAC have had no involvement in, or responsibility whatsoever for, what will be in that Budget. The evidence of the Budget overwhelmingly points to the fact that the National Farmers Federation wasted its time in preparing a pre-Budget submission for this Government. The document was totally ignored. Let us look at the decisions affecting primary industry and the rural sector generally that were contained in both the May mini-Budget and last Tuesday's Budget. They must be considered together because when they are their full impact becomes abundantly clear. The mini-Budget gave a reduction in general depreciation allowances; removal of the tax incentive from income equalisation deposits, despite an election commitment to maintain IEDs; an increase of 2c a litre in excise on aviation fuel; abolition of the special depreciation allowance for petrol storage; abolition of the in-out opting provisons of the tax averaging scheme, despite an election commitment to maintain tax averaging; cancellation of the bicentennial water resources program; a decrease in the amount payable under the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme; increased interest payments charged on Telecom Australia and Australia Post borrowings, resulting in higher telephone and postal charges; suspension of parts of the aerodrome local ownership plan; termination of the home deposit assistance scheme and the housing interest income tax rebate scheme; and a reduction in expenditure on the development of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line. On top of that-- Mr Fisher —There's nothing left! Mr McVEIGH —There is more to come. Those measures were contained in the May mini -Budget. On top of that, Tuesday's Budget offered only $20m for wool promotion in 1983-84, instead of the Minister's promised $28m; and only $1m towards the national soil conservation program-the Minister is sympathetic to that program; I am glad he is not sympathetic to me-instead of the promised $4m in the first year. It offers an excise tax on fortified wine that will cost the industry around $15m and threatens massive regional economic problems, despite an unequivocal promise that there would be no sales tax or excise tax on wine. The Government has said today that it will do it anyway, as the right honourable member for Richmond (Mr Anthony) has said. The Budget doubles the cost of export inspection charges for rural industries from $18m to $36m, at a time when industries can least afford them. It offers a 30 per cent increase in the excise on manufactured tobacco, a cutting back of the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme, removal of the tax concessions for clearing and cultivating new land and swamp drainage, removal of the sales tax exemption for oils and lubricants and an increase of 1.5c a litre in the excise on petrol and diesel fuel-and, to really rub salt into the wounds, it will index that excise. It does not increase the rebate for excise on diesel fuel for tractors and increases the excise on aviation fuel by 0.5c a litre on top of the 2c a litre hike in the mini-Budget. The Government is increasing funding for the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign by only $5.7m instead of implementing the promised accelerated package of $11m and is increasing petrol prices, when it promised to cut them by 3c a litre. It is a huge and miserable list of blatant discrimination against primary industry and the rural sector. No other industry sector has been penalised as specifically as the farm sector in these two budgetary exercises. The Government has tried to excuse itself-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I do not wish to interrupt the honourable member, but he is getting very close to making a speech on the Budget. The Budget is listed for debate later. I ask him to try to observe that and not to concentrate on the Budget but on the terms of his matter of public importance. Mr McVEIGH —The Government has tried to excuse itself for breaking specific promises on the grounds that the projected deficit for 1983-84 was larger than anticipated. That is a nonsense excuse. The truth is that Labor made recklessly expensive election promises, knowing full well that the nation could never afford them. Even so, the Government has brought down a Budget that punts for a deficit of $8.36 billion. That massive deficit puts the lie to the Government's stated concern about expenditure restraint. This Government is about imposing economic restraint selectively. It is the primary industry sector that has been singled out for the harshest treatment. This Government's Ministers sit around the Cabinet table-except for the Minister for Primary Industry, of course, who is not there; he is usually overseas-and any time they want to increase government revenue they turn to rural sector programs to see what can be creamed off. That is the real attitude of this Government to the welfare of our farming industries. Furthermore, the Government has proved time and time again that it has no real understanding of or sensitivity about primary industry. We do not have to wait for Budgets or mini-Budgets to see the evidence of its ignorance. The Government 's decision in the fiasco over the Commonwealth fodder and interest subsidies for drought stricken farmers is one instance. That was a massive demonstration of bungling administration and decision making and of a total lack of understanding of what the drought was all about. In the election campaign Labor promised to maintain existing drought arrangements, to provide additional measures, to ensure that all types of farmers received equitable treatment and to extend drought aid after drought breaking rain. It has not honoured one of those promises. Indeed, Senator Peter Walsh, as the Acting Minister for Primary Industry, told us that the fodder subsidy would be scrapped from 30 June and the interest subsidy from 31 September. In so doing he hurled abuse at farmers and farm organisations. He said that the NFF was a pressure group for mostly well off farmers, that the NFF was being outrageously greedy, and that the fodder subsidy was a hand-out for millionaires, when the average income of an Australian farmer was only just over $2,000. He is a great economist, isn't he! He said the subsidy policy was a bad policy from the beginning, when he and his own party supported it in the Parliament. He said that the drought in Australia is virtually all over. Indeed, we know that it is still serious in many parts today . Senator Walsh had the gall to say that there was no pledge by Labor to continue drought assistance. He did not even know his Party's policy. The Minister did not even give him a copy of it. He said that the concept of a green drought was a nonsense concept. How ignorant can one be? Needless to say, Senator Walsh's totally unnecessary attack on farmers and farm organisations caused an uproar. The Minister must have cringed in shame when he read the Press clippings over breakfast, not in Australia but in Washington. All the Prime Minister, who is supposed to have sympathy for us, could say was that remarks such as Senator Walsh's were not helpful. Time and again the records show that the Ministers of this Government, from the Prime Minister down , trail around the country throwing around promises like confetti, but cash like armless men. Farmers can no longer believe anything this Government says to them . The Prime Minister told the NFF Conference on 17 May: The Government appreciates the very, very vital contribution that the rural community makes to our total national economy. That sounds utterly ridiculous when compared with the comments of the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen). That gentleman, speaking in the position of Acting Prime Minister, told the New South Wales Labor Party Conference in June that we could do without our wheat and sugar producers because we could buy those commodities more cheaply somewhere else. That remark demonstrates this Government's real feeling towards our farmers. Such is the true depth of the Prime Minister's feelings towards primary industry that, despite his lyrical public utterings, when the real test comes, he fails to turn up. He is not game to get into the ring. He could not be bothered to turn up for a Victorian Australia Labor Party country conference on 30 July, using the lame excuse that he had to spend a weekend in Canberra, no doubt sweating over the ramifications of the Combe-Ivanov affair. But the implications of his snub to the Australian Labor Party conference were picked up by one Victorian rural policy committee member, Carole Marple, who moved a motion stating: We would point out that this treatment of country members and country areas will not advance the standing of Labor in rural areas. That is what a member of the Australian Labor Party thinks of its leaders. We have also had broken promises in relation to the sugar and citrus industries. We also have the fiasco about the $4m payment to the Letona Cannery. The Government did not even have the administrative ability to get the matter sorted out. The Government's decision to maintain the tariff on imported grain harvesters is yet another example of bad decision making. The Government accepted the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission. Worse still, this Government did not consult the Australian Wheat Growers Federation or the grains industry as a whole. So much for the pious commitment to basing decisions on consultation. The wheat growers have said that this decision of the Government will cost the farmers $14m a year, whereas a bounty would have cost only $2m a year. In the words of the Australian Wheat Growers Federation: This decision casts serious doubts on the Government's commitment to the rural sector . . . The Government's statements about understanding the need for the grains industry to be competitive and have low costs are now shown to be empty rhetoric. The other interesting point about this ridiculous decision is that, of course, the Minister for Primary Industry did not have any say in the decision. It was announced by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button). Where was the Minister for Primary Industry? Was he involved in any of the considerations of the issues or not? Surely the answer must be no. I cannot believe that even this Minister for Primary Industry would have gone along with such a stupid decision. Of course, the Minister has tried to claim that his not being in Cabinet allows him to devote all his time to primary industry issues. But that is a totally shallow argument and one which I am sure even the Minister himself does not believe. Giving assurances and promises and then not being able to deliver them gets him embarrassed. Quite obviously, he does not have the clout to get them through Cabinet. Primary industries are still facing extreme difficulty as they struggle to emerge from the worst drought in history. They need sympathetic and understanding consideration from the Government. They need encouragement to get back on their feet again. Such encouragement should be given without question. It is in everbody's interests that our rural industries be as sound and competitive as possible. It is vital for the national economy. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(10.29) —The honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) obviously has the principles of the New York Yacht Club. He is so convinced of his own infallability that he will go to any lengths to distort the principles of fairness. This is the man who, as Minister for Housing and Construction, had the distinction of supervising the destruction of the Australian home building industry. This is the man who, as Minister for Home Affairs and the Environment-he was known around Queensland as the hero of the Franklin-was rolled by Cabinet every time he put up a submission. He was not rolled on the issue itself but on the grounds of Liberal expediency. Of course, he comes here today and says that we are not able to implement all our policies in our first Budget. What sane rational person would expect any government to be able to implement its policies in its first Budget, particularly in the situation that we inherited? Anyone would know that any action taken at the economic level takes at least 18 months to have any effect. We are in government for three years this time. We shall be in government for a few more years after that judging by the performance of members opposite. The honourable member, within weeks of our forming the Government, put down a whole series of questions on notice, somehow thinking that when a party is in government, even when Parliament is not sitting, all its policies are suddenly implemented. The Country Party or the National Party-or whatever it calls itself now, it varies from State to State-did not have any policies. The Leader of the Country Party, the National Party, the then Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, said in answer to a question; 'No, we do not have any rural policies'. This was leading up to the election. What happened? The Party just said: 'The policies that we are going on with are the policies that we have'. In other words, those honourable members were relying on the department to give them their policies. The way in which honourable members opposite have carried on today and when they were in government is childish, embittered and thuggish. I cannot emphasise too much the question: What about the situation that we inherited? Let me refer to the last Budget; and that is part of the reason why we are in the pickle that we are in today. It was an early election Budget. The ship painters and dockers spoilt the opportunity of the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, going to the people in September. His back gave up in November. The first time he had a chance was last March, and it was his last chance. The previous Government was interested in an early election because of the desperate economic situation in which it had landed this country. The then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden, was warning us, all through 1982, of the serious economic situation that we were in. Let us look at the previous Government's drought policies. On 24 August the then Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Nixon, was saying: 'There is no need for any more drought policies.' But the legend has it that the former Prime Minister , when flying home late one night, saw a red sky and thought 'Oh my God, a drought sky', and seven days later that Government brought in the drought policies after a meeting in Adelaide. Of course, the Department of Primary Industry was put through absolute hell in trying to get the policies implemented . What happened was that the previous Prime Minister ran out of lines. Even the conservative establishment no longer believed his lies. These are the people who blame the unemployed for unemployment. They have left us a legacy of three quarters of a million people unemployed. They have left us three million people on the breadline. They left us inflation at 11.7 per cent. They left us with no system of central wage fixation. They left us with a Budget deficit of between $9.6 billion and $10.4 billion. They then have the gall to come in today to complain that we cannot implement every election policy. This is a record deficit, and the Australian economy is in deep recession because of their mismanagement. The previous Government collapsed before the unions in a key case because the then Prime Minister wanted to go overseas, and the wages of the few employed people took off. Mr Fraser, as leader of this country, broke every key promise. I shall not go through them: Wage indexation; Medibank; we know them all too well. The 1977 election was another early election. That was a classic. He came in with his policies late in that year. In February he said: 'Oh no, the deals are off; the situation has changed'. Members of the previous Government were not axers; they were both axers and taxers. Worst of all, in terms of the situation that we inherited-- Mr McVeigh —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the subject that we are discussing. Perhaps you would like to read the wording to refresh your memory. The Minister has been speaking for five minutes, and he has not addressed himself to the matter and has not mentioned primary industry. We are not talking about an election in 1977. It seems to me appropriate that you should reprimand him-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. Mr McVeigh —I think that you should read the matter to him, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Ruddock —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Previously when Mr Speaker was in the chair he ruled that the Budget was under discussion at this time, that wide ranging debate-and I suggest that what the Minister is speaking on is a wide ranging debate about the previous Government's record-ought to be in the context of the Budget debate, and that speakers today should confine themselves to the matter raised in the matter of public importance. Mr Speaker so ruled, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I rule that the Minister's remarks are relevant to the matter under discussion and that there is no point of order. Mr KERIN —We were not even told. It was not until the run-up to the election that we were told of a Budget deficit of maybe between $5 billion and $6 billion . The Opposition was not game. It is now obvious from the comments of the honourable member for Darling Downs that he does not know how Budgets are put together. He suddenly thinks we can create EPAC, the Economic Policy Advisory Committee-it had its first meeting about three weeks before the Budget-and that the processes of government would enable such a body at that time to help in framing the Budget. Let us look directly at primary industry matters because now the Opposition is saying that it could have had a Budget deficit down to $5 billion or $6 billion. The Opposition's honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) said that one of the ways we could cut the deficit would be to have no Burdekin Dam scheme. I am sure the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) would be very interested in that statement. The Opposition has to tell us where it would have cut, because it has such a great record of cutting as far as primary industry is concerned. The honourable member mentioned wine. The only government in this country that put a tax on wine was the Gorton government. Whitlam took it off because he was pro-rural. I ask honourable members to look at fuel. The last Budget introduced by members opposite increased the excise on petrol and diesel fuel to 7.155 cents a litre-$176m. When those people were in government, in the 1977 Budget alone they raised fuel prices right across the board by 15 per cent. In the term they were in office their import parity policy raised the price of fuel to all Australians by 300 per cent-$3.5 billion. That was in the last year they were in office. Let us talk about income equalisation deposits. There is still a scheme on equalisation deposits. The scheme which Opposition gentlemen had depended on people's tax situation. Only a handful of people could take advantage of it. Three per cent of farmers had money in the income equalisation deposit scheme. The funds were staying at the same level. It was no longer living up to the purposes set for it. We still have income tax averaging. The Opposition suddenly seems to think that, because the automatic opt-in opt-out provisions have been removed, there is no tax averaging scheme. This again is absolute nonsense. Let us look at some of the other industries in regard to these people's great record ! Let us take the razor gang decision in connection with the wheat industry, for example. No one could understand what the then Government was doing with respect to the interest subsidy. It took us months, literally, to work it out. When this Government brought in a plan in the May economic statement to give the Australian Wheat Board the option to borrow overseas and save hundreds of millions of dollars, the honourable member for Darling Downs criticised and attacked it until he went back to the wheat growers in his own electorate and found out that that was what they, the Wheatgrowers Federation and the Wheat Board had been wanting for years. Talk about people bungling; it is absolutely unbelievable. Mr McVeigh —What happened to the Queensland grain growers? Mr KERIN —The Queensland grain growers? Mr McVeigh —What did you include in your Budget estimates for them? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will cease interjecting. Mr KERIN —The honourable member talks about depreciation. There is still the investment allowance. Primary industry is on exactly the same basis as all other industries in this country. We talk about inspection. These people who introduced the 50 per cent recoupment of inspection costs for our exports were members of the former Government. They introduced it in 1979. They introduced it most formally in their razor gang statement. They set down administrative procedures for it but they were so administratively incompetent that they only started to introduce it. They introduced some for 1 January and were to introduce more for 1 July. Yet Opposition members start to criticise the Government about this. Let us look at soil conservation. Which government took the Commonwealth out of soil conservation? It was the former Government. I well remember the words of the right honourable member for New England. He said: 'There is no need for the Commonwealth to be involved in soil conservation. There is tax deductibility there, after all'. The right honourable member for New England is known as the honourable member for STD. After about 13 years he finally got around to putting an office in his own electorate. That shows how much notice he takes of the people in his own electorate. Let us look at the razor gang and what it did to primary industry when it felt that it had to do something about cutting government expenditure. This is on top of an administration that gave us the meat substitution scandal and the Asia Dairy Industries scandal. The Razor Gang suddenly decided that plague locusts did not cross State borders any more so it decided to give that responsibility back to the States. The Razor Gang decided to sell the Australian Wool Testing Authority because it wanted to ruin the international integrity of that organisation. It decided to sell all the wool stores. God knows why it decided that. There is even debate as to whether the Government owned them. It took the Australian Fisheries Magazine off the freelist for Australian fishermen. As I said, it introduced the 50 per cent inspection recoupment. It ended the forestry agreement with Tasmania. It bungled the interest rate subsidy for the Australian Wheat Board. It wiped out the Commonwealth Council for Rural Research and Extension. It ended Commonwealth involvement and extension and it froze wool promotion. Honourable members opposite now have the hide to say that we should not have gone along with their policy. We have gone along with their policy on citrus. The honourable member for Darling Downs had the gall to say that we should not go along with their policy on citrus. If I had the time I would go into that matter. If the honourable member looked at the Brazilian figures he would see that the effective price has gone up by 20 per cent and protection at this stage has been lifted. Mr McVeigh —Why do you go running around overseas? Mr KERIN —The honourable members talks about overseas trips. I am quite happy to put up my record against that of the previous Minister. I went to the International Sugar Agreement meeting with the Minister for Primary Industries in Queensland, Mike Ahern, on behalf of the sugar industry in this country. That was a pretty important meeting. I went to New York to talk about beef quotas with John Block and William Brock. Anyone who stands up for the primary industries in this country would not object to those overseas trips. I went to Papua New Guinea for the Australian Agricultural Council meeting because that was a decision taken by the last Australian Agricultural Council. Therefore, the honourable member should not give me this nonsense about trips. I think it is very important that someone should go to the Middle East and follow up the good work that has been done by the Leader of the National Party in that part of the world and I will justify that in terms of Australia's farmers. In last year's Budget the National Farmers Federation asked for the following things from the former Government: It wanted a 20 per cent bounty on fertilisers . Did it get that? No. It wanted an additional $30m for rural research. Did it get that? No. It wanted an additional $5m for wool promotion. Did it get that? No. It asked for rural adjustment funding to be increased to $32m. Did it get that? No. It asked for national disaster relief and drought administration. Did it get them? No. It asked for a write-off of current industry debt in regard to the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign and it got that. But it did not get any return to the original level of Commonwealth funding. It asked for a increase in rural road spending. Did it get that? No. It asked for initiatives on telecommunications. Did it get them? No. It got an increase in charges. It asked for an increase in the income equalisation deposit interest rate. Did it get that? No. Let us look at a few other requests made by the National Farmers Federation. It asked for an electricity connection depreciation allowance. Did it get that? No. It asked for farmer establishment schemes. Did it get them? No. It asked for meat security funding for the additional costs associated with inspectors, carton sealing and species testing. Did it get that? No. It asked for a commitment to soil conservation. Did it get that? No. It asked for budgetary identification of wheat industry assistance. Did it get that? No. There was half a yes in all the promises to the requests by the National Farmers Federation. The matter of public importance raised today by the honourable member for Darling Downs is humbug. He cannot stand up to it. The past Government's record shows that we are in tough times and hard decisions have been taken. But the decisions being taken by this Government are fair decisions. They are in the interests of all Australians and they will affect some people in some sectors adversely. We are not here to win popularity contests; we are here to govern in the interests of all Australians, including rural Australians, and we are doing that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 6 September 1983, at 2p.m ., unless Mr Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. Australia's International Treaties and Conventions-Industrial Relations- Commonwealth Government Employees Compensation-Australian Wine Industry- Queensland Government-Meals on Wheels Organisations-Passports: Certification- Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs-South West Tasmania-Liquefied Petroleum Gas-Western Australian Legislative Council Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.45) —Since the decision of the High Court of Australia in the Franklin River Dam case, the significance of Australia's international treaties and conventions has taken on a new importance. The implications arising out of that case and the earlier Koowarta decision for constitutional federalism are, to put it mildly, enormous. To those who may be smugly satisfied with the outcomes of those cases, I extend a friendly warning. Any Commonwealth government, present and future, will enjoy an ability to regulate and control by legislation activities not previously considered to be the responsibility of a Commonwealth government and, more appropriately, considered to be the responsibility of State governments. Nowhere are the implications more important than in the area of industrial relations. I want to outline some of the contradictions in the attitudes of the Australian Labor Party and its Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the whole question of freedom and implications for unionism. Earlier this year the Prime Minister, for the first time since achieving that high office, addressed the International Labour Organisation, the ILO. He said, amongst other things: The fundamental right of freedom of association is not something conditional. I hope to demonstrate that the Prime Minister did not really mean that and that, to him, freedom of association is subject to conditions and limitations. A couple of sentences later, in the same speech, the Prime Minister said; Freedom is indivisible. Of course, that is not an original phrase by any means, nor is it one that was ever meant to be taken literally, I suppose, although we all pay lip service to it from time to time. What is the freedom of association that is precious to the Prime Minister and, may I add, to most others? To judge from the Eighty-seventh Convention of the ILO, the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, freedom of association principally concerns the rights of workers to join unions and of employers to join employer's associations. The operative words in Article 2 state: Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation. The word 'organisation' is defined as 'any organisation of workers or of employers for furthering and defending the interests of workers or of employers' . That is all right as far as it goes, but it probably does not go very far. We must recognise that the ILO is a specialist organisation and that that is a specialised definition. Freedom of association means much more than just being free to join a trade union, a professional association or whatever. I am sure everyone will agree that freedom of association must apply to sports clubs, political parties, service clubs, churches and so on just as much as it does to employer-related bodies. I do not propose to suggest that anyone in this chamber would think otherwise. This view of freedom of association is fully supported by the way the matter is dealt with by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Clause 1 of Article 22 states: Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests. In other words, the right to join trade unions is treated as an important sub- species of a general right to freedom of association. Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which I will refer again shortly, uses almost identical language. For the moment I return to the Eighty-seventh ILO Convention and I repeat the words: Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish, and, subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join , organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation. It seems clear that the phrase 'without previous authorisation' refers to any necessity to obtain permission from any third party, whether government, employer, government agency or unions before establishing a new, or joining an existing, organisation. The phrase subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, which gives each organisation the exclusive right to decide, by its own internal constitutional procedures, whether it will accept an applicant as its member. We are now left with what I believe to be the core of the clause-it certainly is in this context-'the right to establish and to join organisations of their own choosing'. When faced with the implication of this phrase the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) suddenly finds that the fundamental right of freedom of association is not unconditional and that freedom is divisible after all. The plain meaning of the phrase is that if one does not like one union, one has the right to join another . If the second union will not have that person, as is its right, that person has the right, if he or she wants to, to form another union with like-minded people-a union that may suit that person better; in other words, there should be no closed shop. But there is an even more fundamental implication of freedom of association. Freedom of association requires a corresponding freedom not to associate. There is no freedom of association if one is free to join an organisation but is not free to stay outside that organisation. That is compulsion or, at very best, an Orwellian kind of freedom. The judges of the European Human Rights Court showed their awareness of just this point in a case in 1981 concerning three British railway workers who were dismissed because they would not become members of the closed shop union. The court held that this was a violation of their rights under Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Six of the judges added a concurring note to the main verdict. In their opinion the Convention gives an absolute right not to belong to a union for just the reason I mentioned a moment ago; that is, that freedom of association requires freedom not to associate if it is to mean anything. Article 11 of the Human Rights Convention states: Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Apart from the reference to freedom of assembly these are the exact words in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I hope that, by quoting from those various covenants and bodies, by now I have shown that any form of compulsory unionism and closed shop contravenes the spirit and the letter of the Freedom of Association Convention and the ILO Convention No. 87 of the ILO charter. It is also explained by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. To that list we may add the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. This is a point that should be considered very carefully by those on the other side of this chamber who are proposing an Australian bill of rights . Such a bill would, to some extent, be dependent for its constitutional and international validity on international conventions such as those that I have mentioned. Observances of the freedom of association provisions in these conventions would require massive changes to our industrial relations and arbitration systems-changes which, I might add, would do the country a great deal of good but which may be very unwelcome to the vested interests of the trade union movement. Freedom of association is meaningless without concomitant freedom to choose the terms and conditions of the association. Yet this Government remains committed to compulsory unionism in all its Australian forms. It is clear that the Prime Minister was only engaging in rhetorical flourishes and not meaningful speech when he told the ILO about the unconditional right to freedom of association and the indivisibility of freedom. The whole point of freedom of association is that no one should be compelled to join an association against his or her will. Given these international precedents and conventions, some of which have been ratified by Australia, I am sure honourable members opposite will identify the scope for future governments-not necessarily of their own ideological bent-to rely on external affairs powers to legislate in ways which may not please them or their supporters. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(10.55) —In my first grievance debate I raise a question that concerns a large number of people living in the Melbourne electorate. It concerns compensation within the Commonwealth area. Commonwealth workers compensation legislation reads like a boss's manual on how to keep the workers in their place. It reflects a scandalous disregard for the rights of workers. Ironically, the Commonwealth workers compensation legislation gives workers in the public sector far fewer rights than afforded those in the private sector operating under the various State workers compensation legislation. In summary, the gravest injustices in the system are: One, the level of payments which is unrealistically low and not related to the pre-injury earnings and earning capacity of the worker; two, the fact that superannuation and other benefit payments are taken into account by the Commonwealth in making the payment; three, the arbitrary termination of payment rights afforded the Government and the lengthy delays in the workers' right to have an appeal heard against determination; four, the lack of penalties written into the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act against the Commonwealth when lengthy delays have prevented workers having use of the money that is finally deemed theirs by right, without penalties and interest loadings-it is in the Commonwealth's interest to delay claims as long as possible; five, the failure to make the Commonwealth liable to find light duties for workers deemed to be capable of performing light duties; six, the loaded system where officers responsible for making an initial assessment of a claim in a so-called independent capacity become the prosecutors in a hearing if the claim is denied; seven, the failure to observe patient-doctor confidentiality between government doctors and workers; eight, the requirements on workers to lodge claims as soon as possible after receiving an injury, but the failure to place any time limit on the Commonwealth in responding to a claim; nine, the long delays in cases being heard; and, ten, the intricate and often legal detail and knowledge required to lodge a claim which necessitates use of lawyers at the worker's expense. The level of payments under Commonwealth legislation needs some discussion. Under the legislation workers are placed in a precarious position whether their claims are accepted or not. If it is denied, the long delays in hearing cases force workers on to the breadline. But if the liability is admitted, the levels of payment are so inadequate that the workers are still forced into a reduced standard of living compared to the one they were used to when they were able to work. It is grossly unfair to force workers into a position when the fault lies with the employer who is paying the miserably low weekly sum and who in this case is responsible for the laws which reduce workers to poverty levels. Even the inadequate sum now paid is not extended or adjusted in any regular way. This is not the answer either. The answer must lie in making payments at or near the level of income earned by the worker before his or her accident. In regard to superannuation and other benefits paid to people, the Commonwealth also takes into account superannuation and repatriation benefits as weekly income when assessing the amount to be paid. This does not apply in any other compensation scheme and is a disadvantage to Commonwealth employees. People working in this Parliament are affected by this legislation. These payments have nothing to do with the worker's work capacity and should not be taken into account when assessing payments for work capacity loss. The termination of payments needs to be discussed. Under the Act the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation can issue a determination stating that an incapacity has ceased and terminate payments. The worker can appeal, but appeals involve long delays during which the worker is deprived of an income to which he or she is entitled. If the worker wins the appeal, he or she receives no compensation for loss of income and the lump sum back pay is taxed at a higher rate than if it had been paid weekly for the whole period. Surely it must be incumbent on the Commonwealth to prove its case before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal before it can terminate payments. Lack of penalties or interest provisions is a further problem. After lengthy delays a worker can receive back payments, but no interest is paid on the money denied that worker for so long, nor are there any penalties on the Government when the delays have been blatantly the fault of the Government. Under this system it is clearly in the Commonwealth's interest to delay claims as long as possible. This is grossly unjust to the workers affected. I am sure that all people involved in industry have come across the problem of light duties. There is also no requirement on the Commonwealth to provide light duties for workers who are deemed to be capable of performing those light duties ; in other words, the Government can cease or cut back payments on the grounds that the worker is capable of light duties but expect some other employer to provide those light duties. It is basic natural justice that the Government should be responsible for providing light duties if it declares a worker capable of performing them. The system is certainly loaded against the workers. The Commissioner for Employees' Compensation, allegedly unbiased and independent, receives his advice from delegates in the appropriate department who instruct the Government in any litigation. It is similar to Caesar appealing to Caesar. At this point the Commissioner often requests all evidence available to the worker. This prejudices the worker's later case if the Commissioner denies liability. One side of the case is presented with the opposition's evidence. Further, government doctors, with whom a worker ought to have a doctor-patient relationship, can be used to break confidentiality during hearings. The worker surely must expect the normal confidentiality in all areas in which it normally applies. This area ought to be examined by the Government. The lodging of claims is another problem area in the Act. Another loaded aspect of the legislation is the requirement for workers to lodge their claims as soon as possible after the accident or injury; yet there is no similar requirement on the Government to answer the claims. The Act must be amended so that after a reasonable time-say, three months-the case automatically goes to the AAT. But even at the AAT there are long delays. Workers compensation cases must join the long queue with pilots' licence applications, pension appeals and a range of other appeals that go before that Tribunal. Clearly, there should be a separate tribunal, or preferably tribunals, to hear workers compensation cases. There should be enough tribunals to ensure prompt hearings so that workers are not prejudiced or suffer financially from delays when they are denied money to which they are justly entitled. But even when liability is admitted, the procedures for lodging claims and filling out forms are so technical and fraught with dangers that workers are forced to use lawyers. Either the claim process should be simplified or the Government should bear the cost of any legal expenses. For instance, a case brought to my attention involved a worker who was prejudiced because he did not know the difference between an injury and an aggravation and lodged a claim under the wrong section of the Act. Such actions should have no place in the system. Workers' rights ought not be denied by crawling through loopholes in the Act. The worker was denied his rights in that case because of this biased and unjust Act and the system it allows to operate. It is a system we have inherited . The Government is concerned about the rights and interests of working people in this country-those workers who serve under it and have served under other governments for many years and the newer members of the work force. I say to those people in my electorate who work under this Act that I am sure a government of our persuasion will bring this situation to a drastic end and undertake the necessary and required surgery to the Act. Mr HICKS(Riverina)(11.05) —It is impossible to believe the lack of understanding of the Government in its decision to introduce an excise tax on fortified wines. The decision is particularly worrying because it demonstrates that the Government simply has not done its homework. To be generous, the impact of this decision on the wine making industry and the wine grape growing industry is far greater than the Government was led to believe by its advisers. If this is not the case the action of the Government is callous in the extreme. The fact is that the Government has blatantly broken a very specific promise to the wine industry. Labor's election policy stated absolutely unequivocally that a Labor government would not impose a sales tax or an excise tax on wine. I wish to quote from the rural policy speech of the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in Griffith on 20 February 1983. He said: The wine industry is beset with problems. The industry is faced with the need to make bold decisions at a time of low profitability if the industry is to be in a position to meet the opportunities of the 1980s. Labor has pledged not to impose a sales tax or an excise tax on wine. We will seek co-operation with the States to facilitate the establishment of grower regional councils. The Labor Government will examine the special problems faced by co-operative wineries and supplying growers. The taxation disadvantages suffered by the wine makers with respect to stock holding will be objectively examined on the basis that wine making is a primary production process, not a manufacturing industry. That promise has gone out the window and the ramifications are only just beginning. Let us just look at some of the facts the Government ignored in reaching this decision. Sales of fortified wines, as a percentage of total wine sales, have fallen from 53 per cent in 1967-68 to around 18 per cent in 1981-82. That is clear evidence of the difficulties facing this section of the industry. Those difficulties will be greatly exacerbated by the new tax. The tax will put between 70c and $1 on the cost of an average bottle of fortified wine. That will have a very considerable effect on demand, which will further aggravate industry problems. The Government has totally failed to understand that grape growing for fortified wines is very much a regionalised activity. Sixty eight per cent of the fortified wine grapes are grown in the South Australian Riverland and Barossa Valley areas and 21 per cent are grown in New South Wales, most of this being grown within the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. Does the Government not understand that at least 20 per cent of the industry is engaged in the manufacture of fortified wines and that, because of the quantity of grapes required to make fortified wine as compared with unfortified wine, this 20 per cent of the industry affects 40 per cent of the wine grapes grown? One-fifth of the volume in fortified wine is spirit, which is to be excised. In the MIA there are wineries that depend to a major extent on the production of fortified wines. There is a real threat that some of the smaller wineries will not produce any of this wine this year because of the Government's new imposition. Mr Katter —Why do they hate the little people? Mr HICKS —That is right. Where does this leave the wine grape growers? It is no exaggeration to say that some of them will go to the wall. It is an extraordinary situation when a government that claims to be committed to increasing employment introduces a taxation measure that threatens the economic viability of entire regions, of individual farmers and of a large proportion of the wine making industry. Needless to say the decision is also shot full of holes. There is complete confusion in the industry because no one knows how the excise will be implemented. If the excise has to be paid within seven days of mixing the spirit with the wine this will have a disastrous effect and will place most wineries in an impossible financial position. A more equitable system would be to pay the excise when the wine is withdrawn from bond, if there is any justice in any excise at all being paid. Does the excise apply to fortified wines that are produced specifically for export? If so, why? Surely, if the Government is really interested in promoting Australian exports and in this case especially exports of fortified wine, all products for export must be exempt from this excise. Because of all the confusion in the Government's announcement it is hard to get an overall accurate assessment of the cost to the wine making industry. Nonetheless it will be very substantial indeed. Initial calculations by individual wine makers to whom I have spoken vary up to $2.5m and $3m a year in additional costs. In total, the tax could cost the industry up to $15m a year. That is a massive additional cost for an industry already in serious economic difficulty. The industry was promised earlier that it would get a great deal of assistance. Mr McGauran —Another broken promise. Mr HICKS —That is right. One of the amazing things about the Government's decision is that it was made despite overwhelming contrary evidence provided by the industry and even by the Labor Government in South Australia. I was interested to hear the South Australian Premier, Mr Bannon, on Australian Broadcasting Corporation television yesterday, saying that an excise tax could cause greater problems than a sales tax and that he would certainly be taking the matter up. I am sure Mr Bannon will take up the matter. I also hope that the New South Wales and Victorian Premiers and their Ministers for agriculture will also take up the matter. I am sure the industry will take up the matter most forcefully, and I can assure the industry that it has my full support. I am sure it has the full support of the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher), the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron) and all the members who are concerned with the Hunter Valley, although I believe that in the Hunter Valley fortified wines are not as important as they are in other areas. I am sure that those people will also take up this matter. I can assure the industry that it has my full support in bringing every pressure to bear to force the Government to back down on this discriminatory decision and on its original election promise. On behalf of the wine grape growers and the wineries in the Riverina and in other parts of Australia I ask the Government to think this matter through carefully with a view to withdrawing this hastily conceived tax. Mr BEDDALL(Fadden)(11.11) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to take part in my first grievance debate since being elected to Parliament. In this grievance debate I want to draw to the attention of this Parliament the demise of parliamentary democracy in Queensland. Since the events of 4 August and the sacking of the Liberal Party Minister Terry White just some 21 days ago, the Queensland Premier has taken the Queensland Government along the road of minority rule. He now governs with a National Party Cabinet and with only 28 per cent of the vote. This is an issue I feel all parliamentarians from all parliaments in Australia should greatly fear because it represents a principle that this country does not appreciate and does not support. Queensland now has an unstable Government led by an unstable Premier-a Premier who is afraid to face the Parliament in Queensland. That is a disgrace and I am sure all members of this Parliament would condemn the actions of the Queensland Government. I am sure that they will make sure that all the people who possibly can will work to overthrow that Government at the coming elections. Circumstances in Quensland are quite extraordinary in that Queenslanders will not have the opportunity to vote in an election until 22 October. That is a disgrace to any form of government. Even when Queenslanders cast their vote there is no guarantee that the Queensland Premier will accept the verdict of that vote. The Queensland Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, is on record as saying: ' It is not votes that count, but seats'. With the gerrymander in Queensland the wishes of the voters are often dismissed. I will return later to discuss how that gerrymander operates. The Liberal Party in Queensland is a sham. It does not even believe that it can become the majority party. It will not contest enough seats in the Queensland election to rule in its own right and, therefore, after the next State election, we may be faced with with a coalition government. I put forward the argument that an election will occur again within a few months when Bjelke-Petersen rejects the Liberal leader, as he already has. This is an issue that goes deep to the fundamentals of democracy. We have great traditions in Australia and Queensland is the one State that has never honoured those traditions. Mr Simmons —The National Party members here are all embarrassed. Mr BEDDALL —That is very true indeed. The National Party has been very power hungry over recent years and on many occasions has tried to obtain government in its own right. The people of Queensland have always rejected that, and I am sure that they will do so at the next election. But we must look back in history to see the reasons why the Queensland Government is now in this turmoil. The Queensland Government does not reflect the views of the majority of Queenslanders. Queensland is divided into four electoral zones-the south-east zone, the provincial city zone, the western and far northern zone and the country zone. It is not a surprise to many people in this House that the south- east zone, where the majority of population lives, also has the largest enrolments in the electoral divisions. Mr Wells —And no Cabinet Ministers either. Mr BEDDALL —And certainly no Cabinet Ministers. Mr McVeigh —You have one from Queensland in the Federal Parliament who is always overseas; so I would not talk too much about that. Mr BEDDALL —That is a fine point. The member for Oxley is an excellent Minister and does a better job than all the previous Liberal Party Ministers who used to serve in this House combined. When we consider the zonal system in Queensland, we find a strange situation in which adjoining electorates have a disparity of voters. The seat of Gregory, held by the National Party, has 8,254 voters, while the adjoining seat of Mount Isa, which will be won by the Labor Party at this election, has 14,875 voters. Within my Federal division, we have a State seat that is now approaching 30,000 voters-some four times the size of country seats. This situation entrenches an undemocratic government. The only way for that to be overcome is for all Queenslanders to reject the proposition of minority rule by a totalitarian Premier. Keith Wright, the new Labor Party leader in Queensland, offers Queensland a clear choice of stable government versus coalition disharmony. When he puts forward his policies in the coming weeks, I am sure that the people of Queensland will, as a whole, endorse those policies and endorse the return to stable government in Queensland. I am sure that they will recognise that in the short time that the present Government has been in power in Canberra, it has set an example for all Australian governments in providing government that is accountable to the people and responsive to the wishes of the people. While the Queensland parliamentary system is not directly influenced by this Federal Parliament, in line with recent decisions of the High Court, perhaps the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) could investigate the possibilities of the Federal Government looking into any international convention that may demand parliamentary democracy, equal votes and equal representation. But I feel that that will probably not be necessary because in Queensland, for the first time in 27 years, cracks have appeared within the coalition. They are not cracks now; they are rifts. We have a senior Queensland Minister such as Russ Hinze saying that he will not serve in any government made up of certain Liberal members. We shall see this continuing over the next few weeks as the coalition cracks continue, and the Government will fall at the polls. If that does not happen, the Queensland people will have a further period of unstable government, because what will happen, as I have said, is that the Queensland Premier will not accept the Liberal leader, and if the Liberal Party has any spirit at all, it will not enter into coalition. In the past, the record of the Liberal Party in Queensland has not been one of strength. Each time there has been an election, the Liberal Party has made protestations that it will demand extra from the coalition, and each time after an election it has caved in under the jackboot of Bjelke-Petersen. This again will be the case, and I feel that many Queenslanders will not accept a coalition government that is made up of a strong National Party and an incredibly weak Liberal Party, a Liberal Party which has no spirit, which has no integrity, and which is destined for destruction. Over the period of the last few elections, the demise of the Liberal Party, both State and Federal, has been quite extraordinary. The continued efforts of the National Party in Queensland have also been very encouraging for the National Party members. In this Federal House, of the nine coalition members represented here, only three are members of the Queensland Liberal Party. Mr Goodluck —Tasmania is still here. Mr BEDDALL —Unfortunately, the Tasmanian representation is not that good, either . Mr Groom —It is outstanding. Mr BEDDALL —Only in the opinion of the Tasmanians. I am sure that after the next Federal election there will be no Tasmanian Liberals in this place. This is an important issue, and I think that all Australians should be concerned about the way in which Queensland politics have gone over the past weeks. No Australian who believes in parliamentary democracy can support a Premier who does not command a majority of support in the State House. We have as a Premier a man who is not even game to face the Parliament of his State. That happened in recent weeks. The Leader of the Opposition petitioned the Governor to recall Parliament , but on the advice of Bjelke-Petersen the Governor refused that request. It is a situation that I think cannot be tolerated. I am sure that on 22 October there will be a change of government in Queensland and there will be no more coalition -controlled States on the mainland of Australia. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(11.21) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak in this grievance debate because I am much aggrieved. This is the first opportunity I have had to address the House in a grievance debate, and I draw the attention of the House to the words of the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin). On 14 February 1983, in McLaren Vale, South Australia-with pride and hope, I suspect- he outlined the ALP policy for the wine industry. Beside him stood the then candidate for the seat of Kingston, Mr Gordon Bilney. He was reassured because the honourable member for Werriwa said: I pledge that Labor will not contemplate a wine tax. In addition the honourable member acknowledged that the most vulnerable growers were those in irrigation areas. I rise to support the remarks of the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Hicks) and the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) in opposition to this Treasury impost. In its first full-blown Budget this Government has delivered the wine industry a severe blow. Honourable members from the other side of the House have suggested that grape spirit is not part of the wine industry. How pendantic can one get? Everyone knows that the intention of the Government in its pre-election promises was obvious. Its intention was to curry the support of the grape growers by reassuring them that their industry would not be loaded with an impost. Honourable members should ask any grape grower, any constituent in the seat of Kingston and, if they will, the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney). Broken promises and lies are not new experiences in this House. The real damage of this impost is the effect that it has on innocent people who genuinely believed the Government's pre-election statement. There are those who have suggested that there is good economic logic in the imposition of a wine tax, and that is a lie. I remind the House that successive Treasurers have recognised that the wine industry is quite different from other industries, that the wine industry is in a delicate stage of reconstruction and that the wine industry features long lead times as part of its reconstruction process and ought to have an opportunity to reconstruct. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that this impost is cruelly regional. Sixty-eight per cent of our fortified wines are produced in South Australia, 21 per cent in New South Wales and the remainder in Victoria. The electors of Riverina, Mallee and Wakefield have been duped by the duplicity of the Government. This impost will be borne directly by small grape growers-by the people on 20-acre lots-whom the Government purports to represent. This impost will be borne by an industry whose sales have fallen from 53 per cent in 1968 to 18 per cent in 1982. If we are to coin a phrase for this impost we ought to call it the tokay tax for it is an impost on sherry, port, muscat, frontignac, madeira, tokay and white port. Worst of all, this impost has to be paid within seven days of blending. In vintage time, when the industry is most pressed for cash, there will be additional demands to meet the excise within seven days of blending. The industry will be expected to find cash when the very growers who have provided the vintage are waiting to be paid. The Government, claiming to have a concern for small growers and for pickers, has lodged on the industry an impost which the industry will find difficulty in paying at the very time when the pickers, the employees in the wine industry, are rightly demanding payment. Some fortified wines will be in maturation for 15 years, but the impost will be paid within seven days of blending. Is this the hallmark of a compassionate government? What sort of cynicism does the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) expect to explode in the electorate when people hear what he said in his Press release? He said that the wine industry will welcome Labor's pledge not to contemplate a wine tax. If I were gracious with the Minister I might suggest he did not contemplate the matter at all and that that is why he was unaware of the damage this impost would do. But if I were to be realistic about it I would have to ask: 'What would he do to this industry if he took the time to contemplate what damage could be done?'. As if that is not bad enough, last night in the other place a South Australian senator refused another South Australian senator an opportunity to further question the Government on this impost. How do we excuse such unrepresentative action? How do we excuse a Prime Minister who, in an electoral statement on 20 February, said: 'The wine industry is beset with problems'? Thank you, Mr Prime Minister; it now has problems worse than ever! The Prime Minister also said: The industry is faced with the need to make bold decisions at a time of low profitability if it is to be in a position to meet the opportunities of the 1980s. The bold decision the industry might well now make will be never again to trust this Government or this Prime Minister. He pledged not to impose a sales tax or excise tax on wine. Wow! He pledged to seek the co-operation of the States to facilitate the establishment of regional councils. He should ask the Premier of South Australia what he thinks about co-operating with his Prime Minister in areas that beset the wine industry. He pledged that the Labor Government would examine the special problems faced by co-operative wineries and supplying growers. Is that achieved by landing them with an impost that gives them only seven days in which to pay excise on a product that will be maturing for at least two or three years and for up to 15 years? He pledged that the taxation disadvantage suffered by the wine makers with respect to stock holding would be objectively examined. Stock holding tax-section 31 (2) (a) of the Act did not even get a look in in the Budget and has been the very issue that has most concerned wine makers over the past decade. The industry I represent is made up of small growers who are struggling to reconstruct an industry that demands long lead times. The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) said but a few moments ago that he represented the Party concerned for the workers. There is no evidence in this monetary measure that the Labor Party is showing concern for any sector of the grape growing industry, least of all the small grape-growers or their employees. The Government may dismiss my representations as simply the jaundiced point of view of an Opposition member, but what will it do with the representations of the Premier of South Australia who today is every bit as angry as I am at the decision of the Government? I plead with the Government to look again at the impact of this excise, or this tokay tax may well prove that the industry was here tokay and gone tomorrow! Mr BILNEY(Kingston) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —The honourable member for Kingston claims to have been misrepresented and seeks to make a personal explanation. Mr BILNEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) in his remarks referred to the fact that I appeared on a platform with the then shadow Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, in McLaren Vale during the election campaign. It is quite true that on that occasion I appeared on that platform. The promise was given to the wine industry that there would be no sales or excise taxes on wines. I regard that promise as being completely honoured as a result of this Budget. A great deal of misinformation was put about by people. I am not ascribing blame-- Mr MacKellar —I raise a point of order. I fail to see where the honourable member has been personally misrepresented in the explanation that he has so far given. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Kingston may continue, but I invite him to come to the point of his personal explanation. Mr BILNEY —My point is simply that the honourable member for Wakefield seemed to imply that somehow I had misled the electorate of Kingston. I do not believe that the electorate was misled. I believe that the promise that I associated myself with has been completely honoured. I reject any implication that the Government has not honoured its obligations to the wine industry. Indeed, the wine industry in my area is very happy with what is being done. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(11.32) —I wish to raise two matters today. The first relates to the perilous situation that a number of Meals on Wheels organisations in Sydney, and I would imagine in Melbourne, are in at present. Meals on Wheels organisations provide a most important service to many home bound pensioners. Indeed, the Meals on Wheels service provides many pensioners in my electorate with their only decent feed during the week. For that reason the organisations are in need of significant financial support from governments and in need of significant community support from people within the areas that they serve. Some of the Meals on Wheels organisations in my electorate of Grayndler at present are experiencing both severe financial difficulties and difficulties with community support. Many of the inner city working class areas in Sydney and , no doubt in Melbourne as well, are facing a crisis in this regard. The pool of volunteers that those organisations have normally been able to draw upon is starting to dwindle. The Marrickville Council, for instance, is one of the municipalities in my electorate which conducts a very large Meals on Wheels service. It is an inner city suburb of Sydney with a rapidly aging population and an extremely high poverty rate. The incidence of car ownership in that area is extremely low and the pool of volunteers that the Meals on Wheels service can draw upon is restricted, whilst the pool of people who are beginning to apply for Meals on Wheels is rapidly widening. In my view there are a number of reasons why this volunteer pool is decreasing. As I mentioned earlier, there is a low incidence of car ownership in the inner city areas of Sydney. However, there is also an increasing circle of poverty among pensioners who own their own car. I feel there is a need to move away from the concept of worthy charity as the way that governments and communities have looked at Meals on Wheels services in the past, and to start to put them on a rational footing. I believe there is a necessity to ensure that there is still a high level of voluntary assistance in the schemes. We have come to the stage in 1983 where we are going to have to provide some financial support to those volunteers. The Marrickville Council, for instance, as I instanced before, has a very large Meals on Wheels program. It has applied to the Commonwealth Government for a grant of $23,000 to assist in keeping its service going. It estimates that the $23,000 will allow it to subsidise the drivers who provide their vehicles at the rate of $10 per week. Ten dollars is not a great deal of money. But to many of the pensioners who are assisting the scheme in Marrickville it is the difference in whether they can afford the petrol to make their car available or not. The Council also wishes to subsidise the runners, the people who hand the meals out, to the tune of $3 a week. This is a very small amount of money but it is an incentive for people to take on this most worthwhile work. I think we, as a Government and as a Parliament, should be assisting that service. I am sure-as Marrickville Council is sure-that there are many people in the Marrickville area who have the time to contribute to the Meals on Wheels services but whose restricted income will not stretch to meet the costs of their involvement in the service. Without the support of governments to assist volunteers to meet out of pocket expenses the future of the Meals on Wheels service in Sydney, and in the Marrickville area in particular, is threatened, with the accompanying high risk of those people who now receive meals being institutionalised. When one considers that the cost of providing assistance to Meals on Wheels is less than one-tenth of the cost of providing an institutional bed in a nursing home or hostel, one realises not only that it is very good for the people involved but also that it makes extremely good sense for governments to subsidise these activities. To subsidise them in worthwhile areas, such as Marrickville, to the tune of assisting the volunteers would be one way of ensuring that those schemes do not disintegrate. I also draw to the attention of the House a matter that is causing many of my constituents difficulty when they are acquiring passports. My electorate has one of the highest migrant contents of all electorates in this country. Consequently , many of my constituents, because of family commitments, require to travel out of Australia quite frequently. While I applaud the recent moves by the Government to tighten up the regulations relating to the issuing of passports to Australian citizens-the intentions behind the tightening of those regulations was most laudable-a minority of otherwise worthy and upright citizens in my electorate are being discriminated against. The Government has reduced the number of categories of people who are eligible to certify that persons making passport applications are who they say they are. The object of this certification is to ensure that the persons who are signing the certificates are able to attest quite honestly to the fact that applicants are the persons they claim to be. However, when we look at the rather truncated list of those who are eligible to sign this certificate, we find ourselves in some difficulty. For instance, an atheist or lapsed churchgoer who is a healthy person with good teeth and no criminal record is unlikely to know any of the people who are listed as being eligible to provide the certificate. Mr Simmons —They know their local member, though. Mr LEO McLEAY —I will come to that in a moment. If the honourable member has been signing the certificates, he will be in trouble too. The people who are eligible to sign those certificates are judges, dentists, clergymen, doctors, et cetera-not the normal type of people among whom the working people of an electorate such as mine would circulate. As I have said, if they are lapsed churchgoers, if they are healthy, if they have good teeth or if they have not had any trouble with the police or with judges, they do not know any of these people. This has caused great difficulty for many of my constituents. In desperation they have come to me and asked me, their elected member of parliament-as the honourable member for Calare has just suggested-to sign these certificates for them. They take the view that, if the Government has caused them this problem of not knowing anyone who is eligible, I ought to get them out of it by signing the certificate. Quite frankly, while I can accept the fairness in their argument, I am unwilling to sign those certificates because I do not know the people. So we have a catch-22 situation where people who should be able to receive a passport because they are Australian citizens and wish to travel overseas are placed in the rather invidious position of being unable to know many or all the categories of people who are now eligible to sign the certificates. While, as I said, there is a great need for the Government to tighten up the regulations in relation to the issuing of passports, there is also now a need to review the new system, in view of its operation, so that these people who are falling through the net can have their problems resolved. Finally, I quickly raise the position of two of my constituents, Mr and Mrs Mraz, who came to Australia from Czechoslavakia on visitors visas late last year . In February this year they applied to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in Sydney for consideration as refugees. They were interviewed in March with the assistance of an interpreter provided by the Department and were informed that it would take about two to three weeks for the recording of that interview to be transcribed after which it would be sent to Canberra for consideration. On 16 August this year I was approached by the Mrazs as they had heard nothing further from the Department. When I contacted the Department, I was informed that the tape had been impossible to transcribe and that they would need to be re-interviewed. However, the Department had not bothered to tell them that. The Department then told me that it would take a further six to 12 months before a decision was reached. I know that the refugee section of the Department has been particularly busy lately, but why did it take six months to arrange a re-interview and how long would it have taken if I had not approached the Department? People who have applied for refugee status in this country are unable to work because of their official status as visitors and they are experiencing hardship because their families resources to support them are becoming strained. They are suffering emotionally because of the uncertainity of their future and they are informed that this uncertainity could go on for another 12 months. I ask the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) to take this matter under urgent review and to try to resolve the problem of the Mrazs now. MR DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable members time has expired. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(11.42) —I am very pleased to join in this debate. I will look at you, Mr Deputy Speaker, rather than at members of the Government so that I do not get deterred from what I want to say. This is a grievance debate and one has to be very careful with grievances. I have a grievance against the Government and, in particular, about South West Tasmania. As my good friend the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) said to me before I started, 'Bruce, do not let the sun go down on your wrath'. I suppose that is applicable. I would like to give honourable members opposite a good serve but the honourable member for Braddon gave them such a good serve yesterday I do not think it is necessary . I think that those people in Tasmania realise what has happened. I think most people know what the Government did to us. They will learn. The honourable member for Braddon made the point yesterday that Tasmania has five Opposition members. That is terribly important. I think it will be remembered. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) is at the table. He needs a little bit of a serve. He is not a bad fellow, they tell me, but he serves it up a bit. Yesterday he said that Tasmania was a minor State. The Minister for Tourism said Tasmania was a minor State. I believe that he owes an apology to all Tasmanians because he will not get a tourist visa unless he does so. Mr John Brown —I apologise. You are a major State. Mr GOODLUCK —He apologised. You see, Mr Deputy Speaker, I can extract things from him very easily. Mr Newman —What about the $10m he promised. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, he has promised $10m to Tasmania. I am sure that we will get the $10m he promised for the South West of Tasmania. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! I invite the honourable member to comply with his original intention and to address his remarks to the Chair. Mr GOODLUCK —I said that I would not mention Tasmania but I am afraid that I have had to mention it a little. I will comment on the Budget. It is good to see the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) come into the chamber and to see the honourable member for Braddon here also. It is good to get a little support. That is what we need. That is the reason we stick together. If we work together we will succeed. The trouble with the Liberal Party-I will not give it a serve today of course-is that although it is framing what it will do in the future, it seems to be talking to the wrong people. No one has spoken to me. The Party cannot understand the reason we won in Tasmania; we had the pulse of the ordinary person. The socialists over there-the Government-have lost it. Mr Leo McLeay —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I know it is important that the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) should address his little soiree over there, but could you direct the honourable member to address his remarks through the Chair so that we can all understand him? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no substance to the point of order. I call the honourable member for Franklin. Mr GOODLUCK —I think that the Liberals should consult more with the Tasmanians because we have proven that we can win. Winning is terribly important. We have won in Tasmania, and we will win again and again. We are now the only Liberal State. I believe that Tasmanians should stay together and stop some of the manipulations that occur in Tasmania. All Tasmanian members of the House of Representatives, and the Senate and the other people involved in the Tasmanian Party can work towards becoming the outstanding light for the Liberal Party. We could develop it all over Australia. But we must be firm about what we stand for . We must not equivocate on certain matters, such as the family. We should make sure that we are different from members of the Government. The other day I attended a rally-an anti-nuclear, anti-USS Texas rally. I was surprised to see Labor Party people on the platform. There are some good people in the Labor Party, but it seems to attract the minority groups. I was amazed. The speakers were attacking the United States of America and the fact that a United States ship was entering the port of Hobart. Dr Bob Brown and Dr Norman Sanders were on the platform. I thought: 'What gives?'. They were attacking the United States. Unfortunately, not a word was uttered about Russia. The peace and disarmament movement should be sincere and fair. I know that there are some very sincere people involved in it. Very little was said by them about the Russian base which was mooted for Hobart. But when an American ship comes in, all hell breaks loose. Dr Sanders had the audacity to say that he left the United States because it was not good enough for his family. He came to Tasmania and ruined it . I say that he should go back to the United States. He might do some good over there. He had the audacity to stand on the platform and say certain things. He continually writes to the Melbourne Age stating that the State Government will do certain things in Tasmania. He incites the workers by saying that the State Government will chop down the trees and burn the forests. He is a rabble rouser. I am not a rabble rouser. They are the types of people that get involved with the Labor Party. Some good people are involved. Not all Government members are bad. But the Labor Party attracts trendy groups. In Tasmania we have a unique opportunity to stand firm about what we believe in. People will support us. A woman came up to me at the rally. She was a nice woman with a baby in a pram. She had a scarf on which was printed 'peace and disarmament'. I thought that she should have been at home that afternoon. She needed to do something with the pram and the baby and look after the family a bit better; then she might achieve disarmament and peace. The Labor Party attracts that type of person. We must set down very clear guidelines about what we stand for. I return to the Budget. How much time do I have? Mr Hodgman —Not enough. Mr GOODLUCK —Not enough, I know. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! I remind the honourable member that this is a grievance debate. We are not debating the Budget. Mr GOODLUCK —I have a grievance on the Budget. This coming together is terribly important-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member that under Standing Orders the Budget is listed for debate later in the day. Mr GOODLUCK —I will not talk about the Budget. I will talk about the price of petroleum and liquefied petroleum gas. It is a real worry. We should talk about coming together on the very important subject of petrol and LPG prices. All over Australia there are variations in the price of petrol. In Hobart at the moment-I did not want to mention Tasmania specifically, I could mention the Australian Capital Territory-we are paying 6c a litre more for our petrol than is paid in Melbourne. Mr Leo McLeay —But you don't have so far to drive. Mr GOODLUCK —We cannot walk across the water. The price of LPG has risen four times since Christmas. We are now paying 30c a litre for LPG and, in fact, we export about 90 per cent of our LPG to Japan for about 16c a litre. Mr Simmons —When you were in government what did you do about LPG prices? Mr GOODLUCK —I am interested in talking about coming together. You are not interested in consensus. The wiry-haired little coot who sits at the table-he is not there now-talks about consensus. He has no idea about consensus. I return to the question of LPG prices. We are paying 30c a litre for LPG. It is far too expensive. There have been four increases since Christmas. LPG is getting out of the range of the ordinary person. Many people converted to LPG because it is an efficient fuel for a motor vehicle. It is used in restaurants and by hoteliers and in heating for pensioners and others. We have to look at it very carefully. Mr Leo McLeay —Would you convert your car to run on hot air? Mr GOODLUCK —I do not know what the honourable member said. He is a lighthouse man; he is a beacon that has gone out! But he is all right. We should start talking about petrol-I am not talking about the Budget-because it is terribly important and because the price of petrol is going up. The increase of 2c a litre will have a flow-on effect right through the economy. The price of goods will go up. It makes it difficult for the average working man. That is the very important point. Honourable members opposite are not for the working people; they are for the trendy educationists. There are some lovely young children and some caring teachers. What a shame that at the last election the Australian Teachers Federation gave $750,000 to the Australian Labor Party. A teacher ran against me but she could not beat me, with all her money. I return to the very important point about petrol. We could work together on this petrol problem. We could all come together. We could have a committee of parliament and start looking at the price of petrol, which is terribly important. If the Government does not deal with this problem it will go down at the next election. Mr GEAR(Tangney)(11.52) —I rise in the grievance debate today, as did my colleague the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Beddall), to talk about an injustice-to the Western Australian people in his case-to the electors whom I represent in Tangney. I refer to the lack of democracy in the Western Australian Legislative Council, a dubious distinction we share with Queensland which, like Western Australia, has a gerrymander entrenched by the conservatives as in the Western Australian upper House. Unless we do something about it the people will continue to be disadvantaged in that the people for whom they vote will never rule on their behalf. In Western Australia we have had responsible government for 95 years. The Labor Party has ruled for 35 of those 95 years but has never had control of the Council. Although it has been in government, it has never had power. The basis for our proposals is fairness. The basis for the retention of the gerrymander, in Western Australia anyway, is not fairness but power. In the last election the Australian Labor Party gained 51.7 per cent of the vote and had only seven members elected to the Legislative Council whereas the coalition-the Liberal Party and the National Party combined-received 45 per cent of the vote and had nine members elected. Although the Labor Party got the majority of the votes it ended up with a minority of members. For many years the rationale for this gerrymander by the conservatives has been the country people's needs. There seems to be a pre-occupation with the rationale that, because there are vast expanses of country between electors, somehow their needs have to be met by having a mal apportionment. The conservatives seem to think that in that way democracy will prevail. Mr Ian Cameron —You try servicing them. See how good you are. Mr Cadman —That has never been the case and you know it. Mr GEAR —There are a couple of things I can say about that argument. My parliamentary colleague the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) has the biggest electorate in the world. He has no problem in representing that electorate quite adequately. In fact, in the last election he got the biggest swing of any member in this House. That is the rationale of the National Party, of course. Another argument it used was the wealth in rure rationale but it cannot use that any more because everyone is given a vote. I suppose if the wealth in rure rationale were the predominating argument today the National Party would take the right to vote off those people who were not wealthy. Mr Ian Cameron —I am talking to you, not him. Mr GEAR —That would suit the honourable member opposite, I know, because his Party has had a vested interest for the last seven years in making people less wealthy than they are in some instances. But the people who have wealth, of course, are well looked after by his mob. Mr Ian Cameron —We are still governing in Queensland and we will continue to do so. Mr GEAR —Not for much longer, thank goodness. Let us look at the argument put up about country needs. These are not dinkum arguments. One of the arguments we could use relates to two seats in the lower House-the Legislative Assembly-the seat of Kalamunda, which is only 12 miles from Perth, and the seat of Kimberley, which is many thousands of miles from Perth, at the top of the State. If they were dinkum arguments and if the more remote areas needed fewer people to elect the person who represents them, Kimberley would have fewer voters than Kalamunda . But that is not the case. Kalamunda has fewer voters than Kimberley which is many thousands of miles away. The reason is simple. It is that Kalamunda is represented by the Liberal Party and Kimberley is represented by the Labor Party . So there is no rationale for that argument, which has been with us for a long time. We could look at a more contemporary argument. Until the last Parliament five seats were classified as being outer metropolitan. They were Mundaring, Kalamunda, Darling Range, Dale and Rockingham. Many of the people who live in those electorates actually work in Perth and travel to and fro every day. The Parliament sets the boundaries in Western Australia. There is no independent committee which does that. In the last Parliament the Liberal Party put Rockingham back into the metropolitan area. The justification for this was, of course, the fact that Rockingham was held by the Labor Party. Mr Mick Barnett, a very able member, held Rockingham. He won it from the Liberals. But because it was a Labor Party seat and Mr Barnett made it a safe Labor Party seat by his hard work, it was put back into the metropolitan area. But it was the most remote electorate in terms of distance of those five seats I have mentioned. So once again the rationale of the argument about the needs of the country elector was dispensed with on the grounds of political expediency. Political expediencey, of course, involved the fact that Rockingham was held by the Labor Party. By putting Rockingham back into the metropolitan electorates the effect of the Labor Party representation in the Legislative Council was halved. So much for that argument about the needs of country people. It would seem more appropriate in this day and age, when better communications are available, that members representing those country electorates be given the opportunity to have better communications and better transport so that they can communicate with their constituents. I put it to the House that that is a much more reasonable proposition. The Bourke Government was elected on 19 February. It has three definite proposals which are before the Council at the moment. The first proposal is to abolish the Council system and replace it with proportional representation along the lines of that in the Australian Senate-that is, treating the whole of Western Australia as one electorate and having people elected on a party basis, proportional to the vote they receive in the election. That proposal has already gone through the House of Assembly. Another proposal is to resolve the deadlock between the two Houses. At the moment, unlike the situation with this House, the Legislative Council in Western Australia could send the Assembly to the people but not go itself. It can deny Supply, send the Assembly to the people and not be judged itself. The third proposal is to make enrolments easier. Western Australia is one of the only two States where it takes two forms to get enrolled for State and Federal elections. Not only is that hard, because one has to fill out two forms, but also things have been made increasingly harder because the State form for the initial enrolment has to be witnessed by a justice of the peace, a commissioner of declarations or a police officer. In this respect I refer again to the needs of the country people in that they are disadvantaged, because of their remoteness, in actually getting to see one of these people. Once again, that reform will advantage country people in that respect in that they can get one of their neighbours, who is already on the electoral roll, to enrol them. Those three proposals will come before the Council fairly shortly. I ask all those people in Australia who are interested in democracy to take a very close look at what happens in Western Australia. It is also worthy to note that when this House had a look at article 25 of the United Nations International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights, which deals with universal sufferage, that article was not accepted by the Liberal Party. So in that respect the thought of one vote one value, which is denounced by the Liberal Party in Western Australia, has also been denounced by the conservative forces in this chamber. I close my remarks by saying that it is about time that democracy came to Western Australia, and to Queensland on 22 October. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It is now 12 noon. In accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery the Hon. Eric Burnston, Minister for Economic Development and Trade and Deputy Premier, Saskatchewan, Canada. Also present in the gallery is His Excellency Kim Dong- Whie, Minister of Commerce and Industry in the Government of the Republic of Korea. On behalf of the House, I extend to the visitors a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr HOWARD —Has the Treasurer seriously underestimated the cost to consumers of the new excise on certain petroleum products, fuel oil, heating oil and power and lighting kerosene? Did an interdepartmental committee which met last night discover that, instead of raising the $122m stated in the Budget Speech, the excise will raise perhaps four times as much, or nearly $500m? In view of the effect of this particular impost on essential services such as power stations and on major employers of labour such as aluminium smelters, nickel producers and so forth, does the Government propose any changes to what was announced on Tuesday night? Mr KEATING —Representations have been received from a number of sources concerning the impact of the Government's decision relating to the excise on fuel oil. Claims have been made that the measure will cause hardship and that the revenue yield will be higher than estimated. The Government's estimates are, of course, prepared on the best information available to it. However, we are examining representations and will make a statement as necessary at the appropriate time. Mr PUNCH —Has the Treasurer's attention been drawn to reports that Mr Eric Risstrom has claimed that people on an income of $15,000 per annum face tax increases resulting from the combined effect of the May measures and the Budget of up to 56 per cent this year? Do these figures give a correct indication of the effect of these measures on Australian families? Mr KEATING —I understand that Mr Risstrom, of the Australian Taxpayers Association, asserted yesterday that the 1983 Budget, combined with the measures I announced in the statement of 19 May, would bring about large increases in tax for middle and lower income groups. He backed his assertion last night on the Nationwide program with a reference to a married taxpayer on $15,000 in 1982-83. He said that such taxpayers with a 7 per cent higher income in 1983-84 would pay a rate of tax some 16 per cent higher in 1983-84 than in 1982-83, after taking account of the loss of the rebate on health insurance and the 1983-84 Medicare levy. He was not saying that the rate will rise by 16 percentage points; rather, he was saying that it will rise by a sixth-that is, from 13 per cent, I presume, to 15 1/2 per cent. Although I do not have the exact assumptions employed by Mr Risstrom, I have no reason to doubt the arithmetic accuracy of the calculations. However, the accuracy of the calculations is not the real issue. The real issue is the meaning, if any, of such calculations. Mr Risstrom's analysis is very unsoundly based. The first example takes account of the tax subsidy provided on health insurance payments in the first year but does not take account of the insurance payments themselves. In contrast, in the second year the Medicare levy is included in the tax estimate which is produced, which is in a sense directly comparable with insurance costs which Mr Risstrom chose to ignore in the first year. To put it simply, Mr Risstrom's computer has turned out a figure which gives a totally misleading view of the effect on families of the Government's Medicare arrangements. In fact, when health insurance costs and the tax arrangements are combined we find that there will be a decline, not an increase, in the total cost per dollar of income for a taxpayer in Mr Risstrom's example. Mr Risstrom has given other examples which take into account the alleged loss of housing loan rebates. He appears to have ignored not only the fact that many low income taxpayers will continue to be eligible for a rebate but also the benefits of the Government's first home ownership assistance scheme. There is a general problem with Risstrom-type analysis even when more properly thought through. In short, focusing on the percentage change in tax rates or a small group of changes ignores the wider picture and can provide very misleading results. It has been Mr Risstrom's stock in trade in recent years to produce astonishing percentage changes in tax rates. Whenever the tax threshold does not move fully with incomes it is easy enough to produce enormous percentage changes at the lower income levels which in absolute terms mean only a few dollars a year. These results may look good in the Press but they do not faithfully indicate changes in tax burdens or the overall well-being of taxpayers. They do not become imbued with sense simply because Mr Risstrom pushed a button on his computer. Real aggregate household disposable income is a better indicator of general community well- being in terms of the resources available to citizens for their discretionary use. Real disposable household income is expected to grow in 1983- 84. I hope that when Mr Risstrom decides to hit his computer button again he does so taking full account of the impact of the Government's measures and has the decency to mention the fact that changes in tax arrangements for health insurance are in fact a substitution for health insurance payments which were previously paid by people to health insurance funds. Mr O'KEEFE —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that Andrew Stathis of Bishopsgate Insurance Australia Ltd was able to transfer $6.7m overseas with Reserve Bank of Australia approval? Is it a fact that insurance companies enjoy an exemption under Reserve Bank exchange control regulations which is not given to any other industry? Is this a dangerous monetary problem? Will the Treasurer review this policy with a view to altering this procedure to give protection to Australian investors and shareholders? Mr KEATING —The Government is proposing changes to the Insurance Act to effect a number of prudential requirements, including solvency ratios and the like. What we have on our hands with the Bishopsgate company is a case of clear fraud which is now in the hands of the appropriate authorities. The Government is examining all the issues which relate to the Bishopsgate insurance fraud, and I will take aboard the thrust of the honourable gentleman's question in that examination. Mr HOLLIS —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will the Government's new steel industry plan meet its objective of maintaining the jobs of those presently employed in the steel industry? Mr HAWKE —I welcome the question from the honourable member for Macarthur and I suggest to him and to the House that the Government's steel industry plan indeed represents a landmark in the history of industry policy in Australia. All parties, governments-not only the Commonwealth but also the State governments- unions and business co-operated in a quite unprecedented way to put the plan together. More importantly, having worked together to produce the plan they have now undertaken to accept their responsibilities to make the plan work. In other words, the response to the plan has been very positive; importantly, first of all from within the steel producing industry itself as well as from the rest of Australia. Quite clearly the plan represents the complete fulfillment of the promise made by my Party during the election campaign that we would act swiftly to produce a situation in which Australia could be confident that it maintained an efficient and viable steel industry. It does so in a way that provides job security for steel industry workers who are threatened with dismissal, and importantly it does not impose undue burdens on steel users or taxpayers. Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd has agreed to adopt an investment plan which allows for a $800m program to be undertaken in the next four years. The unions, together with BHP, have agreed-this is very important-to undertakings on boosting productivity and they have undertaken strict adherence to dispute settling procedures and changes to work practice. For its part, my Government has agreed to provide up to $72m in bounty assistance. It is important to note that if this and other assistance proves insufficient and the local industry share of the domestic market in respect of certain products falls below 80 per cent, a safety mechanism is written into the plan to review assistance needs. I am pleased to say that we will introduce legislation in this Budget session to establish a steel industry authority to analyse and report on the achievement of the objectives of the steel industry plan. It would also report on the implementation of the individual undertakings of the contributors to it. Some idea of the value that we can attach to the inane interjections from honourable members opposite is revealed by the suggestion that the assistance represents socialisation. I know that this Government has almost overwhelmingly got the support of the business community in Australia but I did not know that we had reached the stage that we were in collusion with BHP to nationalise it. But apparently that is the level of understanding of honourable members opposite. The steel industry plan is a viable, co-operative, forward looking agreement. Much of the credit for the formulation of this plan must go to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, who won the co-operation and respect of industry, unions and governments with which he negotiated. Finally, may I say in respect of the honourable member for Macarthur that I am aware of his concern and of the concern-- Mr Peacock —He is not sitting behind you; he is to your right. Mr HAWKE —We have so many members it is hard to keep track of them, and after the next election we will have considerably more. The way that the Opposition is going it will not have any members left. I am very much aware of the particular concern of the honourable member for Macarthur and indeed of my colleague the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs-he is right behind me, as usual; we are shoulder to shoulder-with a transitional problem which concerns 44 electricians. I am pleased to say that Senator Button is engaged in discussions with BHP in regard to that problem. Mr MACPHEE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer to the Treasurer's Budget Statement No. 2 in which , at page 23, he said: . . . there was a large contraction in the number of juniors in employment, partly reflecting a longer-term decline in the junior labour force but mainly due to the higher susceptibility of juniors to deteriorating labour market conditions-the latter largely a result of junior wage rates which have evidently been set above the relative work value of the employees concerned. Does the Minister agree with the Treasurer's conclusions and similar conclusions of his own Bureau of Labour Market Research? If so, what action does the Government intend to take to assist young Australians to find employment by making their wage rates more competitive? Mr WILLIS —The change in the relativities between junior wage rates and those of adults occurred in the early 1970s and it has been argued by some that this has had an effect on the employment prospects of young people. It is true, as the honourable member said in his question, that the Bureau of Labour Market Research in its analysis of the situation did find that there was some reason to conclude, on the evidence that it was able to gather, that this could have been a factor in the change in the distribution of unemployment between younger people and those who are on full adult rates. We have to bear in mind that what is involved here is the relative distribution of unemployment. There has been no conclusion that I am aware of by any research that there is an increase in the overall level of unemployment created by the change in relativities of youth wages and adult wages; rather, there has been a redistribution of unemployment as a result of that change in the relative wage levels of young people. I think we have to bear that fact in mind. There is the assumption that this means that there will be an overall increase in the level of unemployment as a result of the change in wage relativities. This was mentioned in the honourable member's question. In fact, I know of no such conclusion that that is the case. As I said, the last change of any substantial nature in relativities occurred roughly a decade ago. In those circumstances we have to bear in mind that one cannot therefore say that any recent action has created that kind of unemployment problem, although the flow-on effects of what happened a decade ago obviously may have disadvantaged younger people, on the basis of the research over the last 10 years or so. At this stage we can say that any further moves to increase the relative wages of young people against those of adults would be highly imprudent. In some circles in the trade union movement I have heard suggestions that this should be done. I think it would be very unwise. The Government would certainly not support any moves to increase the relative wages of young people. On the other hand, I think that is entirely different from starting to reduce those relativities. That is a much more difficult process to undertake. The prudent step at present is to say that we will not support any further action to increase those relative wages. If that were to be done, the prospects of young people getting employment would probably be further impaired. Mr HAND —Has the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to the hunger strikes that have been undertaken by persons of Turkish origin in Sydney and Melbourne and in other countries such as Germany and France in sympathy with the hunger strikers in Turkey protesting at the denial of political and human rights in that country? Mr HAYDEN —There have been demonstrations, in the form of hunger strikes, in several countries. They have been in support of Turkish political prisoners who, in turn, have been engaged in what was described as a fairly extensive hunger strike protest in Turkey recently. The advice available to the Government is that the hunger strike demonstrations in France and Germany have been called off and, very substantially at least, the hunger strike in Turkey has also been called off. These hunger strikes are in protest at denial and abuses of fundamental human rights within Turkey. Earlier this year we were encouraged, the political parties Bill having been introduced, that progress towards the restoration of democracy was under way in Turkey. One has to put on record very clearly that there can be no enduring and convincing progress towards democratic values and practices in any country where human and political rights are being abused or denied. Since I have been Minister an approach has been made to the Turkish authorities -a little earlier this year-to protest about certain aspects of human rights in that country. I believe this is a matter which would enjoy widespread bipartisan support. I know that under my predecessor, the honourable member for Corangamite , and, I would presume, his predecessor, the Leader of the Opposition, Australia lodged protests with Turkish authorities on this matter. Finally, this Government condemns abuses or denials of human rights, wherever they are. That attitude was pursued in quite convincing practice by the previous Government. I believe it is a position that would be applauded by all Australians. Mr SINCLAIR —The Minister for Defence would be aware that, in his statement yesterday announcing the establishment of an independent tribunal on defence force pay, he said: The Government is firmly committed to maintaining conditions of employment which recognise the special demands made on Service personnel. I ask the honourable gentleman: In the light of the reduction in value of defence force retirement and death benefit entitlements to servicemen as a result of the increased tax on lump sum payments, the reduction in pay to Reserve Service personnel as a result of the removal of the tax concession on that pay, the increases in rent payments by Service personnel announced in the Budget and the increase in storage charges to those Service personnel, how does he propose to implement that commitment? Mr SCHOLES —I wonder whether the right honourable gentleman has read the Budget Papers. I note the honourable gentleman's statement this morning that the matter of taxing would affect the unemployed in the Reserve. This statement was accompanied by a statement of my own that a review of remuneration for Reserve personnel would take place to take into account the changes in remuneration. I am surprised that the honourable gentleman is not aware that unemployed persons are the ones who benefit least from tax-free incomes because they really do not have sufficient income on which to pay tax. Because the concession creates a situation in which the amounts of remuneration paid to members of the Reserve are dependent for their beneficial effect on the levels of private incomes of those persons, and, therefore, the rate of tax from which they are exempted, those persons on low tax incomes are very heavily discriminated against. The honourable gentleman would be aware that, in an earlier report, Mr Justice Coldham indicated that Reserve remunerations were fixed at a figure approximately 40 per cent below what they would be if the tax- free concession was not there. Mr Sinclair —Will you increase it by that 40 per cent? Mr SCHOLES —The honourable gentleman may care to listen. Yesterday I referred to Mr Justice Coldham the matter of CMF pay. In accordance with the Budget statements I asked him to consider the effects on CMF pay and to make recommendations taking into account the changes in tax status that had applied. Mr Sinclair —Another change in the Budget. Mr SCHOLES —If the honourable gentleman reads the Budget Speech he will find that matter referred to in it. It is unfortunate that some people do not read all the statements in the Budget Speech; they read only those things out of which they think they can make political mileage and with which they can do damage to members of the Services. The Leader of the Opposition did that recently. In respect of the DFRDB payments, the conditions of members of the Services have not been altered by changes in tax arrangements in any way which would not have occured if any other form of taxation, generally applicable to the community, were applied. These matters of retirement ages and the effects of the tax rates are currently under discussion-they have been actively under discussion-and they will be resolved before the legislation is brought into this Parliament, and, I am confident, in favour of Service personnel. The honourable gentleman has made a number of other allegations which I suggest are baseless. Ms MAYER — My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. What is the Government hoping to achieve from the forthcoming South Pacific Forum which it will be hosting in Canberra? Mr HAWKE —The Government- I am sure at least in this respect we have the support of the Opposition-places the greatest importance on relations with countries of the South Pacific region. I hope all honourable members appreciate that the South Pacific Forum provides a major opportunity for the Government to establish Australia as a valued and trusted neighbour with its fellow countries in this region. The key questions to be considered at the Forum, other than regional economic matters in the shipping and communications fields, will be the question of decolonisation and nuclear issues. I believe that the honourable member will be aware that New Caledonia is the focus of the decolonisation debate. I say to all honourable members without equivocation that at the Forum Australia will be endorsing the principle of independence for this French colony. We will do that with a full awareness of the practical difficulties that this poses in the short term. On a recent overseas visit I had the opportunity of having lengthy discussions with President Mitterrand on this issue. He conveyed to me that France has no colonial or economic imperatives to stay in New Caledonia, but that there is a very real problem with the composition of the population, and that a precipitate , immediate withdrawal by France would, in fact, pose very real problems for the Kanak population, which no one would want to see. This Government is convinced of the integrity of the intentions of the French Government in this respect. My Foreign Minister and I, in our respective opportunities, have made clear to the Government of France that we are aware of those problems and that we hope that it will be able to establish a realistic timetable which will meet the aspirations that I am sure are shared by all members of this House for the end of the colonial period in New Caledonia. In addition to the question of New Caledonia we will be discussing nuclear issues. Of course, our approach will be in two parts. We will be pressing in the Forum our concern, which is shared by so many other countries in the region, about the testing by France of nuclear devices at Mururoa. Secondly we will, of course, take the opportunity in this Forum of pressing for the declaration of the principles of a nuclear-free zone in the region. We regard this as being of paramount importance. It is a matter which we have discussed with our friends and allies. Both the Foreign Minister and I have put quite clearly, particularly to our partners in ANZUS, including the United States, our commitment to this concept and have explained to them the consistency of that concept of a nuclear- free zone with our commitments and obligations under the ANZUS treaty. Australia is the largest country in the Pacific region. It is, by its nature, often required to play a significant role in these issues. This Government will accept that responsibility. I am certainly looking forward to the opportunity of meeting some of the leaders of these countries whom I have not had the opportunity of meeting to this point and of renewing friendships with those whom I already know. As the meeting will be held here, I will have the privilege of chairing it. My colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be leading the Australian delegation. I conclude by saying-I am sure that I have the support of the Opposition in these observations-that we are proud to be hosting the meeting. We are particularly keen that it be as constructive and rewarding as possible. As chairman of the meeting, I will be doing everything to ensure that the smallest of the countries participating shall have at least an equal right as the largest to have their voice heard. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Treasurer to his earlier answer which attempted to discredit the independent assessment of the Australian Taxpayers Association that a taxpayer on $15,000 per annum faced a staggering increase of at least 56 per cent in his tax bill in 1983-84. What is the Treasurer's assessment of the increase in taxation faced by such a taxpayer? I emphasise the words 'increase in taxation'. Mr KEATING —The net increase in pay as you earn tax is 6.7 per cent, depending on the extent to which the taxpayer relies on one of the first home ownership schemes or his medical benefits arrangements. The level of tax will reflect generally the net increase in PAYE tax. I have not worked out the tax on the specific example mentioned, but I will do so. Mr Peacock —You mean you denigrated him and you did not know the answer? Mr KEATING —I have taken his example and shown where it was wrong. Mr GAYLER —My question is directed to the Minister for Health. In view of widespread concern in the community over the Government's Budget decision to impose a sales tax on cosmetics which contain sunscreen agents, can he clarify what products will attract the new sales tax and reassure the public that there is no intention to tax products such as blockouts or ultra violet lotions which are sold for the prevention of sunburn and skin cancer? Dr BLEWETT —I appreciate the honourable member's concern. I assure him and all honourable members-- Mr Leo McLeay —And the Leader of the Opposition. Dr BLEWETT —And the Leader of the Opposition that it is not the intention of the Government to impose sales tax on genuine sunscreen agents such as UV filters, blockouts or any genuine sunscreen creams and lotions. The Government's commitment to preventive health is sufficiently strong that it surprises me that there should be any doubt about the issue. The intention of the changes is to deal with certain cosmetics, particularly lipsticks and moisturisers, which have included a sunscreen agent chiefly and in many cases simply to escape the genuine sales tax on cosmetics. Indeed, the height of absurdity was reached when I was told that a night cream now includes a sunscreen agent for the purpose of escaping taxation. I make it clear that the tax will apply to those cosmetics in relation to which it was sought to evade sales tax in that way. Finally, I assure the Leader of the Opposition that despite the Tandberg cartoon published the other morning, this is not a vicious attack on him. Mr DOBIE —Is the Prime Minister aware of a letter from his electorate office sent to people in his electorate of Wills which referred to increasing the tax on beer. Is he aware-- Mr Hawke —Increasing the tax on- Mr DOBIE —Beer, ale, lager. Mr Hawke —I have forgotten what it is like. Mr DOBIE —I can understand that the Prime Minister might have forgotten what it was like. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to repeat the question. I have not heard it. Mr DOBIE —Is the Prime Minister aware of a letter from his electorate office sent to people in his electorate of Wills which referred to increasing the tax on beer? Is he aware that the letter stated that the Australian Labor Party completely opposed any increase in this tax? Does that letter also state that tax on items such as beer, tobacco products and petrol took a much larger proportion of the incomes of low and middle income earners than from others? Does the letter also state that such taxes should be reduced? Bearing in mind what the Prime Minister actually did in this year's Budget, does he still agree with what he said in the letter? If not, why does the letter bear his signature? Mr HAWKE —I have to confess that I have forgotten about beer and its price. I could not say what it costs now. I can say that it used to cost a fair bit. I assume that the honourable member is really not trying to go to the question of what I think should be the price of beer or its level of consumption but is much rather concerned with the question of principle of the place of indirect tax in the whole revenue base. I thank him for giving me the opportunity of saying what has been done by this Government in its Budget in regard to indirect taxes. The simple point, of course, is that this Budget does not impose large increases in indirect taxes. Mr Shipton —Oh! Mr HAWKE —Wait a minute; the honourable member will hear what I have to say. There has been an increase of 3c a packet in the price of cigarettes, another commodity with which I am not personally familiar, an increase of 3c a bottle, as I understand it, in the price of beer and an increase of 2c a litre in the price of petrol. I suggest that in the circumstances these increases cannot be regarded as excessive. Mr Groom —What was in your letter? Mr HAWKE —I will come to the letter; let there be no worry about that. The honourable member must possess himself with patience. The only discretionary increase was in regard to petrol. The rest of the increases in this area represent a rationalisation of indirect taxes. What has been done in regard to the indexation of excise does not represent any increase in real terms. The simple facts are, as the Treasurer pointed out in his excellent Budget Speech-- Mr Shipton —Did you write the letter? Tell us the truth. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, I can understand the concern of honourable members opposite. Their traditional constituency has deserted them, as evidenced by the reaction on the stock exchanges of Australia yesterday to the Budget of the Treasurer. They are grasping hopelessly at non-existent straws. The simple fact is that, as the Treasurer pointed out, in the last decade the share of excise to the general revenue has declined from 13 per cent to 7 per cent. This Government has done what the previous Treasurer wanted to do but did not have the courage to do; that is, to take specific steps to ensure that this erosion of the excise base by inflation would be brought to a halt. It does not represent any discretionary increase or any real increase in the important area of the revenue . Mr Speaker, the time will come at some stage during the debate on this Budget when these people opposite, who are so unthinkingly now directing criticisms to the excellence of this Budget, will have to face up to a question. The question they will have to face up to is this: In terms of getting the Budget deficit down to less than $7 billion, what revenue measures that this Treasurer brought in would they have abandoned and what services to the Australian community contained in this excellent Budget would they have cut? In particular, when the shadow Treasurer is speaking he may have to explain to his colleague sitting on his immediate left what he would have done about the Burdekin Dam, which he said he would have put into the other hotch potch of measures. It certainly was a statement that he will have to explain in Queensland over the next two or three weeks. I conclude by saying that not only we on this side of the House but also the whole of Australia will be looking forward eagerly to the Opposition telling us how they would get the deficit down to $7 billion. Of course I wrote the letter. It is an excellent letter. This Budget is not inconsistent with the principles expressed therein. Mr CAMPBELL —I direct a question to the Minister for Aviation. Do the recent well publicised light aircraft accidents indicate an upward trend in the number of such accidents occurring in Australia? Mr BEAZLEY —The honourable member for Kalgoorlie on a number of occasions has raised with me questions related to the safety of light aircraft operations, which is appropriate because his electorate covers a very vast area and his constituents probably use light aircraft with a greater degree of frequency than do anyone else's constituents. I assure the honourable member that there has been no upward trend in the number of light aircraft accidents in Australia. The feeling that there might have been no doubt has been promoted by a number of recent quite tragic accidents which have received a great deal of publicity. But the facts indicate otherwise. Based on current figures, there has been a continuing decrease in the accident rate in Australian civil aviation for some years. General aviation activity has increased at about 6 per cent a year while the total accident rate has decreased by about 5 per cent. From 1 January to 31 July this year the total number of aircraft accidents in Australia was 165. During the previous three years the average number of accidents for the same period was 162. Therefore, this year's figure is not inconsistent with the figures in previous years. Similarly, the number of fatal accidents to 31 July 1983 was 17. This compares with an average of 14 for the equivalent period in the three previous years. Far more significant statistical information is the number of general aviation accidents per 100,000 hours flown. These figures show a steady downward trend. The figures show that in 1971 there were 21.93 accidents per 100,000 hours. By 1982 this figure had fallen to 13.4 accidents per 100,000 hours. The continuing improvement in the overall accident rate during the past 12 months is, I believe , testimony to the valuable work done by my Department to make all those involved in general aviation more aware of safety. The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation is actively involved in keeping pilots informed and aware of the hazards that may arise, whether they fly for pleasure or business. Every quarter the BASI produces a publication called the Aviation Safety Digest. It contains an analysis of aircraft accidents and advice to help pilots avoid potential problems. In response to calls from the industry for further information, I am pleased to inform the honourable member that the Digest now includes a summary of aircraft accident information reports. I believe that this initiative is illustrative of the important contribution that the Digest has made to air safety education and awareness in Australia. Over recent years there has been some criticism-the honourable member has raised it with me-that the Aviation Safety Digest has not appeared on a regular basis. I am pleased to inform the House in relation to this concern, which had some relevance some time ago, that this very valuable publication is now being issued on a quarterly basis. It is my Department's firm intention that this will be maintained in the future. I congratulate the officers of my Department who are concerned with promoting air safety in Australia for their efforts. I believe that the good work of my Department and Australia's well trained pilots will maintain Australia's position as a world leader in aviation safety. Mr LUSHER —I ask the Treasurer: Will the 9c excise on oil apply to marine diesel oil and marine fuel oil for bunkering ships? Will the 20 per cent sales tax on oil apply to marine diesel oil and marine fuel oil for bunkering ships? If so, has the Treasurer assessed the cost of these imposts to the shipping industry and their impact on freight rates? Mr KEATING —As I said earlier, we have received representations from this industry along with other elements of the community which will be affected by the changes. I announced to the House earlier that we will be examining those representations and making a statement as necessary. Mr CHYNOWETH —My question is addressed to the Minister for Science and Technology. Honourable members interjecting- Mr CHYNOWETH —I hear lots of murmurs from members of the Opposition. They will be interested in the science of cloning. What provisions are made generally in the Budget for the promotion of biotechnology as a sunrise industry in Australia ? In particular, what steps are being taken towards advancing Australian research on the biochip? Is it correct that this novel device could make the silicon chip obsolete? Mr BARRY JONES —Thanks to the generosity of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and the Budget process, I am glad to announce that there is a mimimum of $12.2m available in this Budget for the promotion of biotechnology as a sunrise industry. Mr Hodgman —You robbed CSIRO. Mr BARRY JONES —At least $8.7m of it is specifically for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, you goat. As a letter from the Chairman the other day concedes, the CSIRO has had far more for the development of generic technologies under this Government in the first Budget that it had in the preceding years of the previous Government. So there are no worries about the CSIRO. Of the $12.2m, $400,000 is allocated to the Howard Florey Institute by my colleague the Minister of Health. The rest is divided among the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board, the national biotechnology program and the CSIRO. We are at the beginning of an explosive increase in biotechnology, because of all the sunrise industries, it is the one that has the greatest implications. Mr Hayden —In what way? Mr BARRY JONES —I shall return to that interjection in a moment. The question specifically raised the matter of the biochip. For example, there are genetic manipulation, cell manipulation and culture, enzyme applications, and fermentation technology. Mr Hawke —They have cell manipulation at Pentridge. Mr BARRY JONES —It is more significant, as the Prime Minister says, than the cell manipulation at Pentridge. The research areas are valuable in human health, food processing, water treatment, plant agriculture, veterinary health, and animal husbandry-about which many members of the National Party would know. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Minister that he is answering a question, not making a statement. Mr BARRY JONES —Indeed, Mr Speaker; I was asked about the implications of the Budget. I was asked specifically about the biochip. The bio-chip combines two lead technologies of our period-micro-electronics and biotechnology. Whereas conventional microchips use silicon as the semiconductor which sorts and processes information, the biochip uses organic material, particularly protein. The structure of protein is far more complex than silicon, so it can store a great deal more information. Biochips can have hundreds of times the computing power and speed of conventional chips, and a tiny biochip implanted in the spinal chord of a paraplegic could pickup electrical signals and move paralysed limbs or restore functions in damaged eyes or hearts. Dr James McAlear, from Gentronix Inc., Maryland, pioneer of this development, will be attending a two-day conference in Melbourne next month organised by the Howard Florey Institute. He will also be addressing the National Technology Conference in Canberra from 26 to 28 September. Some of the moneys available for biotechnology in the Budget will undoubtedly be directed towards developing the biochip in this country. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —I seek your indulgence, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —No. I am wondering whether the Treasurer would consent to the incorporation in Hansard of part of a table containing the calculations of Mr Eric Risstrom regarding tax increases. Given that the honourable gentleman has criticised it, I should have thought that it would help the understanding of honourable members if Mr Risstrom's table were, in part, incorporated. Mr SPEAKER —I have allowed the indulgence of the request. However, I remind the honourable member that there are limitations on the inclusion of tables in Hansard. Mr HOWARD —It is a very small table. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —I have no objection to the incorporation, Mr Speaker, but the problem with an incorporation would be that the conclusions which Mr Risstrom draws publicly from those tables are the wrong ones. I indicated that in respect of the substitution for health insurance payments which are otherwise made to a fund. I take the opportunity to indicate that payments which are now made to health insurance funds and which do not take account of income would be very much higher for such a person than payments made under the Medicare arrangements, which of course do take account of it. Mr SPEAKER —The Treasurer, I take it, granted leave for incorporation? Mr KEATING —Yes. I indicated to you, Mr Speaker, that I would give leave for incorporation. Mr SPEAKER —With the agreement of the House, that material will be incorporated in Hansard if it is suitable for inclusion. The document read as follows: HOUSING LOAN REBATE TABLE Based on Income Rise in 1983-84 of 7% Comparing Financial years 1983 with 1984 allows $830 for a dependent spouse in each year and an extra $133 (1982-83) and an extra $200 (1983-84) for dependent child. Takes into account an anticipated income-rise in the later year of 7 per cent. Incorporates loss of medical fund rebate and new Medicare levy from Jan. 1984. ALSO-in 1982-83 a housing loan rebate of $414 arising from a full-year $13 ,000 loan at 14.5 per cent. Income Tax payable Part of each $ in tax 1983 1984 1983 1984 1983 1984 Increase $ $ $ $ % % % 15,000 16,050 1,674.05 2,486.75 11.16 15.49 = 38.8 16,000 17,120 1,980.75 2,813.10 12.38 16.43 = 32.71 17,000 18,190 2,287.45 3,139.45 13.45 17.26 = 28.33 18,000 19,260 2,599.09 3,465.80 14.44 17.99 = 24.60 20,000 21,400 3,359.04 4,422.50 16.79 20.67 = 22 Mr SPEAKER —I present the report and financial statements of the Reserve Bank for the year 1982-83, together with the Auditor-General's report thereon. This action is required of me pursuant to the Reserve Bank Act. Copies are being released to the media by the Bank. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for 1982-83. Mr Hodgman —That is Malcolm's report. Mr HAWKE —Well, partly. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) -I present to the House the record of special purpose flights between 1 January and 30 June 1983. Copies will be available in the Table Office. I move: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House I present a report entitled 'Participation and Equity-Funding Guidelines to the Commonwealth Education Commissions for 1984', together with a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) relating to the report. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —On behalf of my colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) and for the information of honourable members, I present the National Energy Advisory Committee annual report 1981-82. The report was made available to honourable members during the recess. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australian Telecommunications Commission Service and Business Outlook for 1983-84. Report and Ministerial Statement Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 54 of the Wheat Marketing Act 1979, I present the Australian Wheat Board 1981-82 annual report. I seek leave to make a short statement concerning the report. Leave granted. Mr KERIN —In presenting this report I am pleased to note that the Auditor- General has reported that the Board's financial statements are based on proper accounts and records. This is the first time since the passage of the current Wheat Marketing Act that the Auditor's report has given this fundamental approval to the AWBs financial statements. This assurance confirms my confidence , expressed to the Parliament on 1 June, that the Board has adopted improved controls and procedures and increased the efficiency of its organisation and management. Honourable members will note that the Auditor-General has commented upon matters where the Australian Wheat Board had acted otherwise than in accordance with the Act. These concern the manner in which the Board paid premium allowances to growers of prime wheat, and the Board's treatment of early deliveries of wheat. I have been assured that the practices which led to the Auditor-General's comments have now ceased. I believe that this annual report is evidence that the Board is overcoming its management and accounting difficulties . Those efforts will continue and I can assure honourable members that I will continue to monitor the Board's performance through its regular reporting to me. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) —by leave- It is pleasing to note the successes which the Chairman, members and staff of the Australian Wheat Board have achieved in meeting the requirements of the Auditor-General. I know only too well the tremendous effort put in by Sir Leslie Price, the Chairman, and Mr Max Moore- Wilton, the General Manager, to ensure that the proper safeguards have been implemented and the necessary precautions taken. It has been a long hard haul for them and it indicates that where there is a determination to succeed programs can be designed to meet the requirements of the legislation. The Canberra Times today reported the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) as stating that in the Budget the Australian Wheat Board borrowing costs reimbursement had been terminated. This, of course, is a saving to the Government. The Minister approved the right of the Australian Wheat Board to hedge and to use futures trading arrangements, and I understand the Treasury has approved the controls. I ask the Minister to ensure that control procedures for currency and interest rate trading of the Australian Wheat Board are watertight and that there will be no disadvantage to Australian farmers following the Australian Government's decision to discontinue the borrowing costs reimbursement. The wheat belongs to the Australian farmer and he must be protected. Report and Ministerial Statement Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 26 of the Tobacco Marketing Act 1965, I present the Australian Tobacco Board annual report for 1982. I seek leave to make a short statement concerning the report. Leave granted. Mr KERIN —I draw attention to the qualification of the Auditor-General that during the year the Board invested in bank bills, a form of investment not authorised under section 22 of the Tobacco Marketing Act. The Auditor-General subsequently wrote to me on this matter, noting that the investment in question was no longer held by the Board as at 31 December 1982 and advising that the Board had taken action to obtain the approval of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to invest in bank bills. This approval has now been given. In all other respects, the Auditor-General found the Board's accounts and records to be satisfactory. Mr FRY(Fraser) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present the Committee's reports on proposals for variations of the plan of lay-out of the City of Canberra and its environs-the seventy-fifth series (item 2) and the seventy-ninth series, and the eightieth series. Ordered that the reports be printed. Mr FRY —by leave-The report I have just tabled on the seventy-ninth series of variations to the city plan covers 12 variations and re- commends the approval of work valued at $34.8m. The Committee, in considering these proposed variations, took evidence from several individuals and community groups and from a member of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly during three days of public hearings. The Committee approves a variation at Kaleen to provide further residential development subject to the provision of a school crossing. The Committee believes that safe means must be provided for young children to cross streets on which a primary school is located. The Committee finds unacceptable the current practice of the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of Territories and Local Government of not always providing either a school crossing or underpass at a major entry point to a primary school . Variation 7 is concerned with changes to roadways in Civic to provide a site for the proposed White Industries Ltd development of a hotel-convention centre and offices. The Committee has made approval of this variation subject to the gazettal of Glebe Park simultaneously with the approval of the White Industries proposal. Regardless of whether or not the White Industries proposal gains approval, the Committee recommends that Glebe Park be gazetted as a public park before the end of 1983. The Committee also recommends the inclusion in the park of a number of mature trees which are currently in the road reservation but do not constitute a traffic hazard. The Glebe Park area contains a number of mature elm trees over 100 years old which are an attractive and important part of our heritage and their preservation must be ensured. The urgent need for adequate retail facilities in Tuggeranong and community facilities in Kaleen which has resulted from poor planning in the past has virtually forced the Committee to approve arrangements which may prove to be unsatisfactory in the long term. The Committee is most dissatisfied with being placed in this situation. In view of the lack of shopping facilities and other services the Committee approves the proposal for 14,000 square metres of retail space and 4,000 square metres of non-retail space at Erindale in Tuggeranong. I turn to the seventy-fifth series of variations. The previous Committee withheld approval for a new subdivision of 114 detached housing blocks in Giralang until commitment was received for the construction of an access road linking the subdivision with the rest of the suburb. The Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) has now agreed to the required access being included in the forward construction program and the Committee has approved the variation. Cost of the work involved is $1.6m. The other report I have just tabled on the eightieth series of variations is concerned with the variation of the city plan to provide access to the Canberra Technology Park at Bruce. The Committee, in considering this variation, noted the sixteenth report of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly Standing Committee on Development and Planning and took evidence from the Department of Territories and Local Government, the Canberra Development Board, the NCDC and Lend Lease Corporation Ltd during the public hearing held on 11 August 1983. The development is expected to attract high technology industry to the Australian Capital Territory generating 300 jobs during the construction phase and providing 700 to 1,000 jobs on completion with a flow-on of employment in support facilities outside the park. The Committee approves the variation. However, it is concerned at the continuous lack of environment protection legislation in the Australian Captial Territory covering matters such as air and water pollution and occupational health and safety. The Committee strongly recommends the urgent introduction of this legislation. Mr Ruddock —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement on the same subject. Leave granted. Mr SPEAKER —I suggest that the honourable member for Dundas make his statement after the suspension of the sitting for lunch. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —Before the suspension of the sitting I was granted leave to speak on the report of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory on proposals for variations to the plan of layout of the city of Canberra and its environs. I want to address some comments to two variations, which have been the subject of approval by the Committee, of particular road layouts. The first one is in relation to variation 7, which relates to the road layouts necessary to approve what has become known as the White Industries development in Civic. The previous Government approved of the development of a much needed convention centre and associated hotel, office blocks and complimentary park development in Civic. It was to be known as the Tivoli gardens project. Notwithstanding that approval, the new Government has delayed that project now for some five months since the last election. There has been continued speculation in the Press about whether the new Government endorses the project. There have been suggestions about re-negotiation of the plans by the new Government. Those suggestions seem to be based more on pique than on logic. There is no reason why this project should not proceed immediately. If honourable members read the Canberra Times of 9 August they would have seen a report of a statement made by a spokesman for White Industries Ltd, Mr Paul Barlow, who said that the company had finance arranged to enable that development to proceed. I will read the first paragraph of that news report because I think it is very important that honourable members be aware of it: White Industries has formally advised the Department of Territories and Local Government that it has access to the $130 million needed to finance its proposal for a Canberra hotel-convention centre. Finance is one of those matters that some people have referred to that may have been involved in the Department having a look at whether the development project should proceed, but clearly that is not a reason. Others have suggested that it is because the Australian Capital Territory Committee had to consider this matter. That is no longer a reason. This report approves all necessary roadworks for the project. It will be a disaster for Canberra if this project is lost. It could be lost if the Government reverses its decision to approve some of the special provisions that have been made to enable this development to proceed. They include forgoing rates for a period making land available for the project without charge and the commitment on the government's part to lease some of the completed office space when it has been built. I do not regard these as unreasonable incentives to obtain for Canberra important convention facilities. These facilities will bring growth to Canberra's important tourist industry. This project-with 600 building jobs and 1500 long term jobs-will provide more jobs in Canberra than the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) dared to suggest might result from Budget expenditure on servicing land and housing and employment creating projects. Where is the human face of those who have maliciously delayed this project, perhaps out of spite because it was negotiated and obtained for Canberra by the previous Government? I submit that the confidence in the private sector is important and the Government's commitment to growth in Canberra will be sabotaged if this project is not able to proceed and if there is further inaction on the Government's part. The Government's delay and inaction has been attacked by a number of Canberra- based bodies. They include: The Canberra Association for Regional Development; the Master Builders Association of the Australian Capital Territory; the Canberra Chamber of Commerce; the Real Estate Institute of the Australian Capital Territory; the Building Owners and Managers Association; the Confederation of Australian Capital Territory Industry; the Insurance Council of Australia Ltd; the Housing Industry Association; the Australian Capital Territory Association of Permanent Building Societies; the Canberra Visitor and Convention Bureau; the Chamber of Manufactures of New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory and District Centre; the Australian Capital Territory Division , Australian Institute of Valuers; the Australian Capital Territory Committee, Australian Finance Conference and the Belconnen Chamber of Commerce. I do not think honourable members will find a more distinguished group of organisations in this capital. It would be a national disgrace for Canberra if this project were lost. I hold the Government fully accountable and responsible if this development does not proceed. I wish also to speak also about variation 11 which relates to Erindale. Erindale is a delightful centre. A secondary college has been developed in association with a number of important community facilities. In a bi-partisan way, let me suggest that it was first initiated by the Whitlam Labor Government as an experiment. I think it has proved to be a desirable experiment. The development of that project-even though the Hayden Budget put it off for a while -was ultimately pursued and completed by the previous Liberal Government. It is a very important development in the Tuggeranong Valley. The project about which I am to speak will add a shopping centre of some size to the list of community facilities. I have found it necessary-along with some of my colleagues-to dissent on one aspect of the comments that have been made by the Committee in relation to the pursuit of this development. However, I want to make it clear that I, and my colleagues who have joined me in this dissent, regard the importance of satisfying the urgent retail shopping needs of the Tuggeranong Valley as being of the utmost importance. We acknowledge and agree that the development progress in the Tuggeranong Valley has exceeded the provision of adequate shopping facilities to date. In other words, we agree that there is a shortage of adequate retail facilities in the Tuggeranong Valley. We have not dissented from the recommendation that the necessary roadworks be proceeded with to enable the retail facilities to be built at Erindale. We are of the view that those roadworks ought to be approved. We do not disagree with that. I think it is important that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and honourable members understand that there is no disagreement on the question of the urgent need for retail shopping facilities in the Tuggeranong Valley. We have not, in any way, dissented from the recommendation that the necessary roadworks for these retail facilities to be provided be approved. The disagreement is about the importance to ensure that proper, long term planning for the Tuggeranong Valley is not jeopardised by the way in which this present urgent need is satisfied. That matter needs to be understood. The reservations I have arise from the evidence. A former member of the National Capital Development Commission and a distinguished town planner, Mr Harrison, gave evidence to the Committee. I regard his comments as being very important. He commented that the development that is now proposed at Erindale is of such an extraordinary size that it will be an impediment to the proper development of an effective town centre in the Tuggeranong Valley. That was the nature of the evidence that this very distinguished town planner gave to our Committee. Honourable members will also see in the report that Mr Harrison objected to the Erindale proposal on the following grounds: it was in the wrong place, too much traffic will be generated to the detriment of surrounding areas; it will perform town centre functions such that the future establishment of a town centre will be made more difficult as it will be less attractive to developers-- Those comments were made by this very distinguished town planner which I found very persuasive. The National Capital Development Commission approved originally of a development of 6,000 square metres. That provided for the provision of immediate shopping facilities to help meet the needs in the Tuggeranong Valley. However, almost by an immaculate conception, the NCDC altered its proposal to a very much larger size. It suggested that it should be increased to 14,000 square metres with an additional 4,000 square metres that might also be used for commercial activities. No planning reasons were given but it seems to me that the NCDC's response was very much related to the sorts of pressures to which politicians are often subjected. It was almost a knee-jerk reaction to satisfy the urgent demand for shopping facilities in the Tuggeranong Valley, whether those facilities were going to be in the right or the wrong place. That is the concern that I have about the way in which this development is proceeding. We believe that, if this development were staged and if the decision were that Erindale should be developed to that very large size at this point, the NCDC could proceed with development almost immediately. But if the decision were that it was not the right place then an alternative site might be pursued. The proposal that we have made will give the NCDC the flexibility to ensure that the long term planning of the Tuggeranong Valley is not jeopardised. We in no way want to prevent the provision of adequate retail facilities in the Tuggeranong Valley. We do want a proper and natural town centre site identified. If it is identified as being Erindale and that is believed to be the appropriate decision , then, sure, we should proceed with a development of this size and magnitude now. Staging would give the NCDC the flexibility to make the right decision now. I know that some of my colleagues have, in a sense, a pre-occupation with the need for the immediate development of retail facilities on this site. I accept that there is an urgent need. But I also say to honourable members that there are urgent needs for many other things in the Tuggeranong Valley. One thing which has been pointed out to me and which I would like to emphasise is that there is no ambulance station in the valley. That might well be a cause celebre, should one want to find one. There is one fire station at the very northern end of the Tuggeranong Valley. Fifteen minutes might in fact elapse before a fire engine could reach a fire in the extemities of the Tuggeranong Valley. I do not think the provision of retail facilities is the only issue that ought to be looked at in this context with that degree of enthusiasm. Many other issues could be taken up in that way. I think it is important that all of us who are concerned about the development of this city, its future growth, and the future of the young people who will live in it, make the right decisions and are not rushed into knee-jerk reactions simply because the NCDC has not been able to develop its planning to a point where it can tell us where the town centre in the Tuggeranong Valley should be right now. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —by leave-I have been stirred to speak as a result of some of the comments made by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). As the representative of the Canberra electorate-an electorate which currently includes about 33,000 people living within the Tuggeranong Valley, the area referred to by the honourable member for Dundas-I think it essential that a few facts be brought to light in this debate. First of all, the main objection that the honourable member for Dundas and his Opposition colleagues have to the majority report concerns the size of the proposed shopping complex to be built at the Erindale Centre in the Tuggeranong Valley. The honourable member for Dundas has expressed certain reservations about the planning procedures behind the building of this shopping centre. There is no doubt that the National Capital Development Commission must be criticised for the lack of any overall plan for the development of retail space in the Tuggeranong Valley. The facts of the situation are that today, 33,000 people in the Tuggeranong Valley have hardly any shopping area at all. In total there are about 25 shops for 33,000 people. There has been a great delay in getting further retail space built simply because the NCDC has been trying to work out the size of the complex to be built there. We have ended up with this situation because of the stop-go planning procedures of the previous Government. Originally, the Tuggeranong Valley was supposed to grow at the rate of about 10 per cent per annum. Had Canberra the growth that was planned for it in the early 1970s, there would now be a population of about 70,000 in the valley. In that context it was proposed that a very large town centre, about the size of the Belconnen Mall, be built. That centre was to be built for a population of about 70,000, growing to about 120,000. Of course, after seven years of Fraser Government policy, the whole situation changed. There was a rapid downturn in growth. The NCDC just talked about what it was going to do and left the people in the valley with no retail space. Today the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory is forced to say: 'We may have some reservations about the size, but the reality is that we do not have a choice any more to argue about it. We need to get that facility now'. The honourable member for Dundas made the point that this area was not very accessible. But the reality is that the people out there are so desperate for retail shopping areas that they will not care about that aspect. They just want to have some space within the area of the valley. If the Government takes the recommendations of the honourable member for Dundas and his colleagues we will find that in two years, three years, or probably five years time, there will still be no retail shopping space in the valley. The majority report determined that we support the 14,000-square metre space simply to get something under way. As a representative of the people in that area, I believe that this Government has an obligation and a duty to provide those facilities as soon as it can. Even if the decision is made today that the NCDC go ahead with that 14,000-square metre shopping complex, it will not be up for at least 18 months. By that time the valley will have a population of 42,000. So what the Committee is now saying is that 42,000 people deserve at least the bare minimum of 14,000 square metres of shopping complex. I believe that the speech by the honourable member for Dundas is a great example of why the people of the Australian Capital Territory urgently need some form of territorial government. The day should be coming to an end when people who do not live in this Territory and who have very little to do with this Territory make the decisions that affect the lives of the people of this Territory. I hope that before the term of this Parliament is out, some progress will be made to ensure that debates such as this do not continue but, rather, that the people of the Territory make their own decisions on the facilities they need in their own area. Ministerial Statement Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Leader of the House) —by leave-In the past, members of Parliament and the people have become aware of the Government's legislation program in any period of sittings only when Bills were introduced. The Governor-General's Speech certainly provides a general guide to intentions. However the Government has decided that this is not an effective way to inform the Parliament and the public. We feel that there is no reason to hide the priorities of legislation and we are very proud of our intentions to achieve substantial improvement in the legislation already existing-certainly in the economic area. Moreover, if honourable members and senators have the opportunity early in the sitting to see what the parliamentary program is to be like, they can more easily plan ahead their own priorities and recognise that there is a substantial work load ahead of them. As I announced the other day, approximately 117 pieces of legislation are planned under this program. This is the first time a government has informed the Parliament of its detailed intentions. This will be the first full length sitting since the Government was elected. It provides the first opportunity to embark on a full range of economic and social reforms to put this Government's commitments into effect. We have not wasted any opportunities to now. During the short autumn sitting, we passed legislation to establish the community employment program-a demonstration of our first priority; that is, to put Australians back to work. We also took the opportunity to institute a number of priority welfare and taxation reforms; to protect the South West Tasmanian wilderness and to establish the Economic Planning Advisory Council and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Legislation was introduced in fulfilment of major constitutional and legal reform priorities and debate will be resumed on those matters early in this sitting. I shall now outline briefly the Government's legislation program for the sitting ahead. In regard to economic and industrial development, the Government will introduce legislation which is proposed for passage in the sitting to do the following: Implement the recent decisions on the steel industry; give the Australian Industry Development Corporation a greater role in financing industry in Australia; implement various bounty decisions announced recently; reform the operation of various primary industry assistance and inspection arrangements, particularly in the dairy products and meat areas and implement existing export inspection cost recovery policy; implement decisions on a review of the industrial research and development incentive scheme; and enable the period for which temporary assistance may be granted to an industry to be extended. Subject to resources, it is hoped that legislation will also be introduced affecting the regulatory environment within which business operates; for example , amendments to the Insurance and Life Insurance Acts to improve financial standards. These are subject to detailed planning at the moment and should be available for introduction at an early date. There will also be introduced new legislation governing cheques and bills of exchange, together with companies and securities legislation to revise the co-operative scheme in the light of experience and to implement decisions on a centralised scrip and accounting system in the futures industry. It is hoped that this legislation will be introduced in what is called the September sitting. In regard to consumer protection, legislation will be introduced to establish the Prices Surveillance Authority. Other consumer affairs legislation is also under consideration. In the industrial relations area, a Bill amending the Conciliation and Arbitration Act will be introduced for passage to implement reforms already announced, including a complementary Commonwealth-State industrial relations system. In addition, legislation to give effect to our commitments in the public sector industrial area will be developed and introduced if time permits. In the area of welfare and community development, major pieces of legislation for introduction and passage in the September sitting will include: Bills to establish Medicare and to implement other Budget health decisions and measures in the health area; a Bill to establish the new first home ownership assistance scheme and legislation associated with the Government's decision to retain the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation; a package of education Bills implementing our decisions on schools and tertiary funding and making technical changes to the student assistance legislation; and major social security and repatriation Bills largely to implement Budget decisions. In regard to electoral matters, Bills to implement our decisions on electoral reform following consideration of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform will be introduced in the coming sitting. In regard to constitutional and law reform, as foreshadowed by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), the Government plans to put referendum Bills through Parliament to enable a referendum to be held in early 1984. In addition, we propose that family law, freedom of information, archives, ombudsman and sex discrimination Bills introduced in the last sitting proceed. New legislation implementing various priority law reform commitments will include: Legislation to establish an independent director of public prosecutions; following the recent conference in the Senate chamber revised proposals in relation to investigating organised crime; a revision to the Family Law Act in relation to legal aid costs, as announced in the Budget; legislation to provide for a new scheme for transfer of prisoners between States; and legislation to implement aspects of the Law Reform Commission's report on lands acquisition and compensation, which will be for introduction only. Should time permit, major human rights legislation will also be introduced, as will a new criminal investigation Bill. Depending on the progress of discussions with the States an Australia Bill will be introduced to end the residual colonial links with Britain. A uniform defamation Bill will be introduced as an exposure draft to enable public comment. The customary Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will also be put forward in due course. In regard to migration and citizenship, the Migration Amendment Bill already passed by this House will be taken further and citizenship legislation will be introduced to remove anomalous and discriminatory provisions. In addition to the Appropriation Bill and Taxation Bills introduced on Budget night we will be introducing for passage normal States grants legislation and further income tax legislation to implement decisions from the Budget and the May statement including those decisions relating to superannuation and tax avoidance initiatives. Other Bills for passage will be introduced to implement Budget revenue decisions relating to broadcast and television licence fees, customs and excise tariffs and Budget decisions on the petroleum freight subsidy. In regard to external relations, Bills will be introduced for passage to fulfil our commitment to further Australia's contribution to the International Development Association, the Asian Development Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Legislation to implement the proposed Torres Strait treaty may also be ready for introduction. An Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill will be put forward to implement various agreements signed recently. This piece of legislation is expected to be introduced in September. Other measures proposed for passage in the September sitting include: New radio communications legislation; amendments to enable the Interstate Commission to commence operation; amendments to the Public Service Act to enable the operation of the community employment program in the Commonwealth Public Service. Other legislation which may be introduced and proceeded with if time permits includes: Bills to improve the operation of the Australian National Line and Australian National Railway; legislation to restore the courier service of Australia Post and to make other amendments in the postal law; and a Bill to implement, through an amendment to the Patents Act, Australia's accession to the Budapest Treaty. A Liquid Fuels Emergency Bill has already been introduced. As will always be the case, unforeseen circumstances may give rise to additional legislation. There will be pressure on the Parliamentary Counsel and other people to enable all matters to come forward as soon as we would hope. But what I have outlined is a major program for the House, consistent with the Government's objectives of restoring balance to the economy and establishing the basis for sustained economic growth as well as implementing priority social and institutional reforms. Obviously, making available legislation, much of which is complex, may take a little longer than normal. Some of the Bills, of course, may well be introduced into the Senate and may not be introduced in this House until October or later. The Government thought it right and proper to give honourable members advance notice of the program that we will be facing in the following months. Mr SINCLAIR(New England) —by leave-The Opposition welcomes the concept of providing a forward outline of legislation to be submitted to this House. It does so because it enables honourable members from both sides of the House to comprehend the general program ahead, its content and the directions in which the Government seeks to take us. While it is commendable to put the program in the form outlined, I hope it will be possible to follow the pattern that we endeavoured to follow when I was Leader of the House-that is, to provide in advance of each three weeks sitting period an outline of the probable legislation to be embarked on during that period. The advantage of that, as the Leader of the House (Mr Lionel Bowen) would know, is that honourable members from both sides can pick out the Bills in which they have an interest and have a chance to prepare specifically for them. While it is true that the statement generally gives some opportunity for preparation, it is really no more than a broad outline. If honourable members are to prepare for specific pieces of legislation, it is helpful to them if the general content of each of the Bills to be introduced and passed during each of the three-week sitting periods can be provided. I hope that my colleague will find it possible to follow that course of action. I recognise that it is not always easy to achieve. But if it can be achieved, I believe all honourable members would find it helpful. They can find out what is ahead from the Whip's office. Similarly, in advance of each week, it is helpful if members are advised of any revamps for the following week. The community at large needs to recognise a couple of points. While I understand the changes that inevitably follow the election of a new government, it always worries me that there is a good deal of uncertainty in the community as a result of the large number of Bills that pass through the Federal Parliament. Bills fundamentally affect the rights, livelihoods, interests and status of each citizen of this country. On each occasion that a new Bill is introduced, in some way or other most of us are affected directly or indirectly. We need to recognise that the Labor Government, as the Leader of the House has already stated, is intent on embarking on a full range of economic and social reforms. We can only be apprehensive at the implications of that course of action for society. I believe that in many ways we embark on a far too extensive legislative program. It is a pity that in this place there are too few debates on matters that are of substantial importance-matters that are not only related to legislation. But I recognise that, if honourable members receive notification ahead of time, they have some opportunity to think about the philosophic issues as well as the actual detail of any matter that might concern them. I noted in the statement by the Leader of the House that he felt that the Government had reason to be proud of its intentions and achievements, and that he believed that some of the legislation that has already been passed was a demonstration of the Government's first priority -putting Australia back to work . I suggest to him that the mini-Budget and the Budget that was introduced only two days ago seem to me to create many areas of hesitancy in the community. Certainly, subjects such as the withholding tax do nothing but generate the probability of unemployment, rather than employment. We hope that in the pattern of legislation that is introduced we will not see too many Bills that will create the same form of uncertainty among private sector employers as the withholding tax. Of course, parts of the Budget, which is to be debated later this day in this place, create that uncertainty. I will not canvass it further. I read with some interest the general content of the program. It is not appropriate that I discuss the details of each measure. But the Opposition certainly looks forward to considering them when they are presented to this House. We hope that adequate time will be given for honourable members to debate each one. Some of them without doubt have serious and profound consequences. They will affect the lives and livelihoods of the citizens of this country. It is critical that we not only be told about the legislation but also be given an opportunity at the proper time to debate it. I hope there will be an adequate opportunity to do so. The Opposition commends the Minister for the outline and looks forward to receiving detailed programs from time to time and, no doubt, to the debate that will be forthcoming. Debate resumed from 23 August, on the following papers presented by Mr Hurford: Volumes 1 and 3 of the proceedings of the National Economic Summit Conference. and on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the House take note of the papers. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Leader of the House) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure. Before the debate is resumed on this order of the day, I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this motion and the next two orders of the day, as they are associated with the same subject. I suggest, therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the three 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 three matters? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(2.53) —I am almost unique in this place because I am one of the very few people present, apart from the Leader of the House (Mr Lionel Bowen ) and, on occasions, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis)-he was not given a great opportunity to make a major contribution-who attended the National Economic Summit Conference. I attended because I was interested in defending the rights of my constituents in any activity that takes place in this parliamentary chamber. We are elected to the Parliament following great competition. An excellent democratic system operates in Australia. I sincerely hope that that performance, that publicity stunt, known as the National Economic Summit, will not be repeated in this place to the exclusion of the people who are elected under the democratic systems that apply in Australia. It was a disgraceful use of this place. It was more disgraceful because it was used as a publicity stunt. It was used by the master of publicity, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Honourable members might ask why I found it necessary to attend the Conference on behalf of my constituents. On the first day I realised that we were taking the first step towards American-style presidential politics. We are all aware how that system works and we are all aware of the ambitions of the Prime Minister in that regard. The Prime Minister, of course, is quite happy to see a republican situation. I am sure that if he could attract his close and long term friends from big business around him to run the country and completely ignore this place he would certainly do so. This morning he claimed again that those people will be right behind him at all times. I believe that those captains of industry whom he has cultivated for so many years will be behind him for some time. He invited them to this place to the exclusion of all the other people who are entitled to vote in Australia. Those captains of industry may change their minds eventually but in the meantime he knows that they are a lot easier to handle than the people the Australian public voted for to assist him in governing in this place. Consequently, it was necessary for me, on behalf of something like 600,000 proprietors of small business and some four million unrepresented Australian workers, to be in this place for the National Economic Summit Conference while the Prime Minister and his close friends had their fun. The proceedings were televised and, of course, they conducted their publicity stunt. Let us look at that in its true light. Who were the other losers in this original attempt at American style politics? What about the 30 newly elected members of Parliament, the extra people necessary to give the Prime Minister government? What was done with them? As has been the situation ever since, they were left out in the cold. They were left out in the cold yesterday morning. I think few of them yet realise, after all of their hard efforts on behalf of the former Special Minister of State, just how far out in the cold the Prime Minister's comments of yesterday have left them. He has done it to them again. He has again abrogated the time honoured method of Caucus. If honourable members want to hear what was said I will read it to them. The Prime Minister replied to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock ), as recorded on page 19 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 23 August. In talking about something we did, he said: That is what members opposite do in respect of royal commissions. Those are their standards in respect of resignations. Less than 12 months ago they followed a course of action unprecedented in the history of this Parliament by which they made a mockery of the concept of ministerial responsibility. Their own Minister felt impelled to resign as a result of their own Royal Commission. They would not accept that and they then set about attacking the Royal Commissioner. A bit further on, in talking about the Special Minister of State, he said that the Minister said: 'I put my resignation in now'; The Prime Minister went on to say: and it was accepted. In that context, and because his action is involved in the consideration of the Royal Commission, it was regarded as reasonable for this Party and this Government to decide that no further action would be taken in regard to filling that vacancy until the report of the Royal Commission came down. But I tell honourable members opposite this: He was talking to us, but I hope those behind him got the message- The course of action followed by this Government and by the honourable Member for Port Adelaide is the opposite of what they did less than 12 months ago-- Mr Keogh —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It might be appropriate to remind the honourable member that he is supposed to be talking about the National Economic Summit Conference. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! This is a cognate debate. I believe it covers a wide area of politics but the honourable member for O'Connor might keep that in mind. Mr TUCKEY —The theme of my argument in relation to the Economic Summit and the very reason that I came uninvited into this place during the Summit was to prove that an honourable member has the right to do that. I am now giving honourable members opposite some good advice and I am proving to them that they, as members of parliament, abrogated their responsibility. They did it because their own leader let them down. I believe that the statements I am now making are very much in line with that thought. I wish to say these last few words. I am only quoting from Hansard, when all is said and done. Mr Hand —But that is not in argument. Mr TUCKEY —I am not even developing an argument. I am reading to honourable members opposite their leader's words. I will give honourable members the argument when I read these last few words from the Prime Minister: . . . honourable members opposite will not find this Prime Minister acting as their Prime Minister acted less than 12 months ago when he attacked in this House the Royal Commissioner that his Government had appointed. The Prime Minister has painted honourable members opposite into a corner. He has told them that there is no way that any decision will be made about their former Special Minister of State other than the decision of the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. Mr Hand —No, you are wrong again. Mr TUCKEY —Anyhow, honourable members opposite can make their own decisions about that. The situation at the Economic Summit was the same. He pulled the rug out from under honourable members opposite. Mr Keogh —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order-- Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member does not have a point of order. He is only wasting time. He should learn a little more about the Parliament and keep his seat. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I believe that the honourable member for O'Connor is returning to the point. I call the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr TUCKEY —The principal and single point is that the Caucus, the basis of the history of the Labor Party, was ignored by the Economic Summit as it was ignored yesterday. I do not care if honourable members opposite do not want to hear that . I do not care if that is not the way they see it. I am telling them what will happen in this Parliament in some months hence. When they get up in the Caucus and try to protect their friend, those pages will be quoted to them. It is too late. They are painted into a corner. The Prime Minister is too smart for them; he is not too smart for me. The Economic Summit was a tax dodge. It was a tax dodge to get the Prime Minister out of his promises of tax cuts. He said so on the Mike Walsh Show. He said: 'Of course, if there are not to be the tax cuts that I so honestly promised'-this from the man of great integrity who never breaks his promises-'it will not be because I decide; it will be because the members of the community represented at the Economic Summit will decide. Who were the members of the community at the Economic Summit? There were 30 union cronies and 20 or 30 big business cronies, a couple of people who the Prime Minister managed to get from the Social Security field. There are many individuals who are not members of associations. I have told honourable members that only two million workers are affiliated with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and there are six million workers in Australia. All those people were not represented because he went past the normal procedures that exist for the community to be represented by members of parliament. That was what he needed. He needed someone, if only for the grand thing. But how did he structure it? When we first read the newspapers-- Mr Hand —That is not true. Mr TUCKEY —I was here. The honourable member should not deny me because he was not. The Prime Minister was going to have two days of set speeches and two days of discussion so that at least something could have occurred amongst those present. But what did he do? It might have been because he saw me sitting there and I told him that when the discussion came about that I would have some contributions to make on behalf of my constituents that in the first and opening statement he made he told those present that if they chose to make a speech to this wonderful thing they should submit their paper to a committee that would vet it. As the Summit was being televised he wanted to make sure that nothing said-- Mr Goodluck —Is that true? Mr TUCKEY —That is absolutely true. It was his opening statement. There we had this great Economic Summit at which every word was censored and checked. Of course, a delegate could submit what he liked on paper but if it was not what the Prime Minister wanted he did not get the call. Mr Hand —That is not true. That is rubbish. Mr TUCKEY —You were not there; you do not know. You were too frightened. The Prime Minister told you that you could not go. Only one person had the courage to take his seat in this place. Mr Hand —You are talking utter garbage, utter rot. Mr TUCKEY —Is that why it is hurting? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! There is too much interjecting. I suggest that the honourable member for O'Connor address his remarks through the Chair. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will follow that course. These are the situations that occurred at the Economic Summit and this is the situation that we have today. The sorcerer's apprentice, a fellow called Kelty, came along . On behalf of two million or six million workers he said: 'We do not mind if you do not give us our tax cuts. We have come to the conclusion on behalf of our two million members that perhaps we do not need them, that you could do better for us'. Who was the sorcerer's apprentice or, more specifically, who was the sorcerer? The sorcerer's apprentice, of course, was Kelty and the sorcerer, in the terminology of the day, is 'thou, our Prime Minister'. He got his closest friend to get up and say that. I want to be introduced to the workers whom he represents who thank him for that statement. But what was it worth? Who is he anyway? He is not elected to this Parliament. He had no right to make promises in this place on behalf of six million workers. These were the things that came out of the Summit. Of course, out of the Summit came a communique. One can read for pages and pages from item 15 through to item 23 that the conference had a commitment to centralised wage fixing. Item 20 states: It is recognised that if a centralised system is to work effectively as the only way in which wage increases are generated, suppression of sectional claims is essential . . . What do we see in an article appearing in the Australian Financial Review dated 23 August? We see an article headed: 'Heinz wages surrender'. What does that tell us? It tells us about sectional claims. It does not tell us only about the extra $15 to $20 a week that the workers have bludgeoned out of H. J. Heinz Co. Australia Ltd after it had made a total profit of $857,000. It is a big company. The workers have snipped $400,000 off its profits. Honourable members opposite tell me that this is the way to encourage the economy to get back on its feet. This is only the start of it. The same article states: The Heinz settlement follows the building industry agreement for allowance increases of between $14.80 and $19.90 a week . . . They are the public claims! There have also been sectional claims involving the Altona chemical complex, et cetera. So much for the Government's Economic Summit ! The whole basic issue of centralised wage fixing was forced upon the industry representatives present. Before they walked through the door of this House they knew that their invitation was conditional upon their agreeing to centralised wage fixing. That was contained in an agreement honourable members opposite signed with the unions before they invited the industry sector to take part in that wonderful Conference and the great consensus. As industry representatives went through the door they were told: 'You had better read this as quickly as you can because that is what you will decide'. Only one group of people can object to that document and that is the people who sit on this side of the House . Honourable members opposite have all had to sign that document too. I know one person in particular who was running around in my electorate saying that he was anti-protectionist. I told him that he was in breach of contract. Any honourable members opposite who break these rules will be in breach of contract. Mr Gear —What was his name? Mr TUCKEY —He backed off because he knew-as does the honourable member-that he did not have any rights at all. As a member of the Australian Labor Party he has to toe the line. Mr Gear —What was his name? Mr TUCKEY —His name was Kim Chance who opposed me, and I did him like a dinner. The Economic Summit did nothing for Australians and in the short term it has done a lot for the image of the Prime Minister. But now the Prime Minister has to stand by it. Already there is evidence that the decisions taken have collapsed. The communique is not worth the paper it is written on. Honourable members opposite know that and I know that. But I hope honourable members opposite realise what the Prime Minister's presidential style of politics is doing to them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(3.08) —I think it is probably as well if I remind the House and those who might be listening to this debate of the actual topic of this debate. Despite the quite incredible outbursts of the previous speaker, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), we are resuming the debate on a motion to take note of papers which emanated from the National Economic Summit Conference in April and of the ministerial statement which, of course, was presented by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in this chamber, the same chamber in which the National Economic Summit Conference occurred in April. That statement was made by Mr Hawke on 3 May 1983. I am amazed that the honourable member for O 'Connor has not caught up with the position his Party and his leader are adopting in connection with the significance and the nature of the National Economic Summit Conference. If he were to base his attitude and position on the position which had been adopted by his leader and other member of conservative forces in Australia, to whom I will make reference shortly, prior to the Conference, today he would have been in complete accord with them. He is not aware of the fact that there has been a dramatic and significant shift in the position they are adopting. We have heard the outbursts that he made. Let us compare that cynical nonsense we have just heard from the honourable member for O'Connor with the statement that opened the contribution by his leader and which was made following the statement of the Prime Minister on 3 May. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said: I think that all Australians have recognised that the National Economic Summit Conference was a valuable opportunity for Government Ministers, trade union leaders and the leaders of industry to exchange views, and I am certain that all participants found that that aspect of the Summit was of great value. I also acknowledge the many thoughtful, pertinent and useful contributions made at the Summit by a number of participants; in particular, some of the employers. Do we need any further evidence of the reason why the constituents of the electorate of O'Connor should be so embarrassed by their representative? Why should constituents from the electorate of O'Connor contact me, the honourable member for Hunter in New South Wales, after the Summit Conference and tell me how appalled and shockingly embarrassed they were that their representative should have taken advantage of the National Economic Summit Conference in an attempt to demand his seat in this place in order to disrupt the proceedings? How embarrassed they were. They and other constituents all over Australia know the way in which the electors of O'Connor will respond at the first opportunity to the position adopted on that occasion by the honourable member for O'Connor. If we are talking in terms of endorsement of any members in this place we should say that there will be a serious and damaging lack of endorsement available for the honourable member for O'Connor. I have said that he found himself at variance with the position that his leader has subsequently adopted. Of course, that was not the position which the Leader of the Opposition adopted prior to the Conference. All honourable members opposite attempted to discredit it. Of course they did. The cynicism of the honourable member for O'Connor's comments in connection with the communique which resulted from that Conference need to be referred to. I think we need to refresh our memories concerning the people who comprised that communique committee. They were: The Prime Minister; the Premier of Victoria; Mr Cliff Dolan, President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions; Charlie Fitzgibbon, Senior Vice-President of the ACTU; Bill Kelty, Secretary of the ACTU; Sir Peter Abeles, Managing Director of TNT Management Pty Ltd; Mr A. W. Coates, General Manager of the Australian Mutual Provident Society; and Mr George Polites, Director-General of the Confederation of Australian Industry Industrial Council. Yet the honourable member for O'Connor alone has the audacity to come into this place and attempt to influence people into his way of thinking, a way of thinking which, as I have indicated, is even at significant variance with the position his leader has adopted. No one in the Australian community with any credibility and with any intelligence would deny the fact that the National Economic Summit Conference which took place in this chamber from 11 to 14 April this year was an unprecedented initiative in the attempt to find conciliation and consensus. But prior to the Conference all the yahoos from the conservative forces in Australia attempted to discredit the Conference. There are still some who persist. What a situation! When the communique was issued all of those vast sections of the Australian community who were represented at the Conference took part in it, including peak councils of organisations within Australia, significant individual people representing significant organisations and people who, as a result of their own achievements and positions had been invited to participate in that Conference. I was present at the Conference. I did not behave in a disgraceful way like the honourable member for O'Connor and insist that I had the right to take my seat and disrupt the proceedings. I was a conscientous observer of what was taking place at that Conference. I went to observe and to absorb. Fortunately, I had the capacity so to do. The communique was formulated by representatives of the broad spectrum of Australian society. One person, and one person alone, stood aside from endorsing that communique. Who, in the whole community, would one expect to adopt such a position? The person who refused to endorse that communique was none other than the Premier of Queensland, that man renowned for his intelligence, and for his concern about national directions and national policies. The electors of O' Connor have been embarrassed about their representative, but the Premier of Queensland is the man who is causing continuing shameful embarrassment to electors right across Queensland. Joh Bjelke-Petersen stood alone. He has one supporter. Mr Goodluck —Two. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Mr Goodluck as well? Mr Goodluck —Yes. Mr ROBERT BROWN —What a trio-Joh Bjelke-Petersen from Queensland, Wilson Tuckey from Western Australia, and Bruce Goodluck from Tasmania. What an incredible trio! Now I understand the reasons which explain the position that is adopted so frequently by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), the honourable member for O'Connor and, above all, Mr Bjelke-Petersen. These statements now indicate the position adopted by some of these amazing and incredible people prior to the Summit. Mr Saunderson —What about Andrew? Mr ROBERT BROWN —No, I have indicated that Andrew-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) — Order! Mr ROBERT BROWN —I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker-the Leader of the Opposition. I was responding to an interjection, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable gentleman not to respond to interjections. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I did not intend to show any discourtesy to the Leader of the Opposition. He has adopted a much more sensible position, as I have indicated. Perhaps I may suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that he should draw the honourable member for O'Connor back into line, because he is at significant variance. The Leader of the Opposition should read what the member has said and carpet him, because he is completely at variance with his Leader. He is acting like Mr White in Queensland. We know what happened to Mr White. Before the Summit Conference, Joh Bjelke-Petersen adopted a ridiculous posture in connection with it, as he did after the Conference particularly when the communique was endorsed by everyone other than himself. Before the Conference, the Courier-Mail of 25 March 1983 said: As for next month's national summit conference, it would be a 'corroboree' . . . That was according to Mr Bjelke-Petersen, who said that he would attend it to ' have some fun' attacking the policies already emerging under the Hawke Administration. But the House should listen to this. This caps the lot. The article goes on to say: But, prior to the conference, he- that is, Mr Bjelke-Peterson- would hold his own . . . With whom? Imagine! Mr Goodluck from Tasmania would be able to tell us. To whom would Mr Bjelke-Petersen go to have his own summit conference before the main one, so that, as he said: . . . the only two remaining conservative government leaders could decide strategy. Who was it to be? Bjelke-Petersen and Robin Gray. What an awesome vision: Mr Bjelke-Petersen and Mr Robin Gray closeted together working out their tactics for how they were going to have fun at the Summit Conference, in order to sabotage it, and to betray the aspirations and hopes of all those sections of the community who were represented at it. It is a frightening vision that we should have as Premiers of two significant States such discreditable people. Is it any wonder that the electors of Queensland, in their thousands, their hundreds of thousands, will desert that shameful man, that embarrassing man, that man lacking in sense and credibility, when they next go to vote? Before the Summit, the Leader of the Opposition adopted a completely different stance from that which he has adopted more recently, when he knew that he would find himself offside with the wide range of thinking within the community which had endorsed the Conference. What did he say before the Conference? According to the Australian Financial Review of 29 March 1983, he described the Summit-in a way that the Leader of the Opposition alone could describe it-as 'a carnival of economic sophistry'. He went further in the Canberra Times of 12 April 1983, when he said that the National Economic Summit Conference was an ' unrepresentative talkfest'. What did some of the more responsible areas of thinking say when they responded ? At the start of the Conference, the Australian Financial Review of 11 April 1983 opened its editorial with these comments: This morning Australia will witness the commencement of one of the most unusual and hopeful experiments we have ever witnessed in this country. Now, after the Conference, of course, it is time to assess, in fairly objective terms, the significance of it. On 18 April the Australian Financial Review said in its editorial: The national economic summit conference has certainly served to add a great deal to the general understanding of the severity of the economic problems facing Australia, and it has drawn the representatives of employers, unions and government together in an unprecedented fashion. We all know that it was today's Prime Minister who initiated the Summit Conference. Bob Hawke, alone among so many people in the community, was the man who had the vision, the belief, the understanding and the conviction that by bringing people together it would be possible for them to share their understanding of the problems and to identify the problems and the alternative approaches which could be take in order to resolve those problems, so that as a result consensus, conciliation, understanding and agreement could emerge. The success of the National Economic Summit Conference, which is recognised by the community generally, attests to the correct judgement of the Prime Minister on that question. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(3.23) —With your leave, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall now return to the debate at hand. The honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) took us a long way away from that debate, which is to discuss the success or otherwise of the much vaunted National Economic Summit Conference. It appears that the honourable member for Hunter has an obsession with my colleague the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) as well as for the Premier of Queensland. I suspect that is because the honourable member for Hunter is in awe of both of them. You will have observed, Mr Deputy Speaker, as would all members in this chamber, that the honourable member for Hunter had nothing to say about the Summit. That is for the simple reason that there is very little that one can say about it. However, that did not disturb him from completing 20 minutes of debate in an avalanche of words and emotions somewhat similar to those of the recent Summit. It would appear that the honourable member for Hunter followed on from the Summit, in that words are very easy and very cheap but action and intellect are another matter altogether. This debate is taking place some 19 weeks after the Summit was completed. That lapse of time allows us to have a rational consideration of its success or otherwise. In other words, it allows us to separate the rhetoric from the substance. By any criteria, that Summit has failed to live up to its expectations and its promises. Indeed, it appears to be the hallmark of this Government that promises are easily made and then people's hopes are cruelly dashed by the non-fulfillment of those promises. We have certainly seen evidence of that in recent days, but it started during the election campaign and continued in the Economic Summit. I wish to speak today on the nexus between unemployment and wage rises as it was addressed by the Summit. Before getting to that matter, it is of interest to discuss the setting of the Summit and the participants involved. It needs to be said first that it is a fine idea to sit around a table, to encompass the whole spectrum of political, economic and social ideas. Indeed, that is an area in which the previous Government was very active. The previous Government set up industry advisory councils. It set up Budget consultations prior to the bringing down of a Budget. That process, incidentally, has been abolished. Further, in the field of industrial relations in 1977 it set up the National Labour Consultative Council. It also held tripartite conferences, the last one being as late as July 1982, which brought together government, employers and unions to discuss matters relating to industrial relations. Those forums were very important for consultation between Government, employers and unions. So the idea of consensus or discussion is not original, it is not new. It was practised by the previous Government in an attempt to bring about harmony in the field of industrial relations. It also needs to be said that the people who came to the Summit came at great inconvience and with the best intentions. It was not their fault that they were conned. It was not their fault that they were manipulated by the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Their intentions were honourable. The simple fact is that the Government and the ACTU had a majority at the Summit and , in the words of the former Leader of the House, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young): 'When you have the numbers, use them'. That is just typical of the bully boy tactics that were adopted at the Summit and have been adopted in this House since. A number of people were left out of the Summit, and I refer particularly to women in the community. I have had a large number of representations on this matter, as have my colleagues, who are sensitive to the matter of women's affairs, from women who felt that they were not properly represented. Certainly the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) was present at the Summit, but we must remember that she is a member of the Government and would follow the Party line. Furthermore, small businesses were disgracefully absent from the Summit. It is difficult to comprehend a government which feels it can keep wages to a minimum and create employment if it does not have proper regard to small business, unquestionably the largest employer of people in this country . I return now to the most important aspect of the Summit, that is, as the Premier of New South Wales said, jobs, jobs, jobs. That is the criterion on which we can judge the success or otherwise of the Summit. Where are the jobs? Of course, as the Premier of New South Wales realises, there is a nexus between wages and unemployment. This Government desperately needs an injection of realism, a realism that acknowledges that the competing interests of the parties at the Summit cannot just be glossed over; they cannot be swept aside. A government must weigh up the competing interests and decide what is best for the Australian economy, which is, of course, the creation of employment. Instead, the Government by its consensus approach chose to evade its responsibility for making decisions and took the easy option, which was to get people together, have a pre-set, already formulated communique, and then under the pretence of consensus and reconciliation try to market the product. It simply does not work. It fell to pieces very quickly after the Summit, as evidenced by a radio interview given by the President of the ACTU, Mr Cliff Dolan, on 18 May. On the AM program he was asked this question about the unions' application for indexation: Q. If the Commission then knocks back such a claim, will you accept it? His answer was: A. Well, they will put themselves out of business as far as I see it. There will be just no role for the Arbitration Commission because unions will seek to achieve that increase. A further question was asked of Mr Dolan: Q. Is this the industrial free for all you are talking about? A. That is right. If that definition of consensus and conciliation is that of the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) and members of his Government, then quite simply they should either go back to school or those of us on this side will lend them a very good dictionary . Mr Lusher —Only when it suits them. Mr McGAURAN —Only when it suits them, as the honourable member for Hume says, and that is absolutely so. It suits this Government to play that game to serve its own purposes. Mr Campbell —What would you do except bash the unions? Mr McGAURAN —Unfortunately and regrettably, the Government lacked the courage to stand firm against the demands of the ACTU at the Summit and it rejected the continuation of the wages pause. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) asked what honourable members on this side of the House would do. We would continue the wages pause, and we would continue it for the reasons that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) put to the Summit when he suggested that if the wages pause continued, as set out in scenario C, 100,000 jobs would be created. By refusing to accept scenario C, which recommended the continuation of the wages pause, this Government has sentenced 100,000 Australians to unemployment, because that is how many jobs could have been created with a continuation of the wages pause. Honourable members opposite have to wear that; they have to live with it. We know our position. They hide behind a barrage of words but they cannot escape the fact that they have sentenced 100,000 Australians to the unemployment lines. Scenario C, as set out by the Treasurer, was that the wages policy would continue. My friend the honourable member for Hunter referred to the Premier of Queensland in less than complimentary terms. That was certainly predictable because the honourable member for Hunter and his colleagues would not recognise a successful government if it was forced upon them. But honourable members opposite have to answer the question that Queenslanders are at the moment answering in the affirmative: Why is Queensland's population growing? We cannot give the Premier credit for everything. Why has it had an unparalleled and envied rate of economic growth in the 13 years since the Premier has been in office? The fact is that the Premier of Queensland is a man who has a total commitment to free enterprise, and the system of free enterprise is the best way of achieving economic growth which will result in jobs. We can stimulate the public sector to the nth degree but we will not create long term employment because this will not create profit and growth. I suspect that this Government is not interested in the slightest in creating profits. Again that has been made clear in the last few days. The Premier of Queensland, as I said, has presided over a decade of unending growth. He came to the Summit. He knew it was a setup; he knew the communique was already being typed, and furthermore he knew that the Summit was a cynical attempt to lock the participants into a centralised wage fixation system which, as Mr Dolan made very clear on 18 May, is to be disregarded when it suits him. The Summit was also to lock the participants into the acceptance of a high deficit which punishes the private sector because of the resultant inflation and interest rate levels. The Premier of Queensland has been proved to be right already. Mr Ian Cameron —Of course; he is right all the time. Mr McGAURAN —The honourable member for Maranoa said that the Premier of Queensland is right all the time. I accept that. The problem with Government members discussing the Premier of Queensland is that they are totally unable to explain Queensland's extraordinary growth over 13 years in comparison to the growth of the State of New South Wales in particular and the State of South Australia under the years of Labor rule. We have only to look at the present situation to know that the Summit was a total failure. The Government is agreeing to a 4.3 per cent increase before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. That increase is, of course, the increase in the consumer price index since March 1983. It is simply a farce. Every time we agree to index wages or to grant higher wage increases outside the centralised wage fixing system we cost jobs. The honourable member for O'Connor has already touched on some of the outrageous applications at the moment-for example, by employees of H. J. Heinz Co. Australia Ltd in particular and in the building industry-so there is no need for me to cover that ground. I reiterate that the previous Government brought about consultation and discussion many times. This Government elevated forgery and fraud to a new level by bringing people from all over Australia into this chamber, after pretending that it was an alternative government, and finally locking them into an inescapable communique which demanded ccentralised wage fixation and a high deficit. In other words the Summit was a cynical exercise on the part of the Prime Minister, who professes his honesty, and his Cabinet. Mr KEOGH(Bowman)(3.38) —This afternoon we are considering the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to this House on 3 May when he reported to the Parliament on the outcome of the National Economic Summit Conference. Honourable members have been supplied with and are considering information made available to that National Economic Summit Conference and the reports arising out of that Conference. We are all aware that the National Economic Summit Conference was held on the initiative of the Prime Minister. It was suggested by the Prime Minister during the election campaign, and he acted very quickly, following the election of the Labor Government, to put that suggestion into force. The decisions and recommendations which came from that Economic Conference have likewise since been acted on by the Government. Of course the idea came from the Prime Minister who saw that it was time the representatives of the Australian people had an opportunity to get together. It was time for the Australian people , who, as he knew, were tired of the style of leadership that had been given this nation in over seven years of disastrous Fraser Government policies, to be given an opportunity to get together rather than to be subject to the divisive policies of the style of government for which the former Prime Minister-the Liberal Leader, Mr Malcolm Fraser-had been responsible. Those policies set employee against employer. Those policies created deep resentment amongst the large and growing number of unemployed people-growing because of the disastrous policies of the Fraser Government. Those policies brought this country to economic ruin. They were policies that the Australian people eagerly rejected at the election. The Prime Minister on 3 May in this chamber said: The National Economic Summit Conference . . . was, by any standards, a significant and historic event. No such conference of this scale or scope had been attempted before in Australia. It represented a new beginning, a first step towards our great national goals of national reconciliation, national reconstruction and national recovery. The decisions very fittingly made by the Government, accepting responsibility for the affairs of this nation since that National Conference, have been made in an attempt to put into effect the actions necessary to bring about that national recovery. My colleague the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) mentioned in passing the fact that the communique issued at the end of the Conference was supported by the overwhelming majority of delegates in attendance at the Conference with, of course, two notable exceptions; the Premier of Queensland and his puppet Treasurer at the time, Dr Edwards. It is significant now for me to refer to the opposition by the Premier of Queensland at that Conference because he is the man who, in a self-appointed fashion, controls the destiny of the people of Queensland. He is the man who will seek the support of those people in a few weeks time to continue to control the affairs of that State. I refer to an item in the Melbourne Age following the National Summit Conference which clearly shows the people of Australia-it is well to remind the people of Queensland, particularly-just how that Conference, with the almost unanimous support of the delegates, finished. The Queensland Premier was virtually standing aside from the rest of the nation. The Summit, which ran for four days, broke up with the mutual expressions of good will from all sections represented at that Conference which had characterised its work, except for the dissident voice of Mr Bjelke-Petersen, the Queensland Premier, who said he would not put his name to the communique. What was the reaction of the Queensland people to his decision to stand aside from that communique, to reject the efforts that were clearly being made by all sections represented there to come to terms with the problems confronting the nation and to seek to put into effect solutions to those problems? The people of Queensland, as reported in the Melbourne Age the next day, had two predictable reactions, neither of which placed Mr Bjelke-Petersen's single-mindedness in perspective. An article in the Age stated: Radio station switchboards were jammed yesterday morning with calls from people saying they were angry, disappointed or embarrassed by the television picture of Mr Bjelke-Petersen, alone, sitting down while the representatives of the rest of Australia were on their feet clapping the consensus agreement. Co-operation, with any Labor government, so far as Mr Bjelke-Petersen is concerned, is just about as biologically impossible as anything one could imagine. Mr Bjelke-Petersen has made his attitude clear to the whole of the nation. He will not in any way, shape or form co-operate with the efforts that are being made by this Government and by the greater majority of governments and organisations in the nation to come together and provide solutions to the nation 's problems. He was invited by the Prime Minister to take a position on the Economic Planning Advisory Council. That was one of the decisions arising out of the National Economic Summit Conference. What was his answer to that? Once again he decided to stand apart from the attitude of consensus arrived at by the rest of Australia. He showed himself singularly concerned with his own attitudes and ambitions rather than with taking into consideration the need for everybody to work together to seek solutions to the economic problems of the country. A newspaper report of Mr Bjelke-Petersen's comments states: The members of the Federal Government's economic policy advisory committee were ''fools'' . . . Leaders of the various sections of industry throughout Australia, leaders of the trade union movement throughout Australia and representatives of various consumer organisations and social welfare groups in Australia are the people whom Mr Bjelke-Petersen tags as the fools who are prepared to sit down and try to solve the economic problems of the nation. One other decision that arises from the National Economic Summit Conference was to put into effect the decision of this Government to commence a very worthwhile community employment program to take over from the wage pause scheme that was put into effect by the previous Government and to make large amounts of money available to the various States as part of a planned program of a work creation scheme. Once again, out of step with the rest of Australia, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, assuming that he had the right to make decisions for the people of Queensland- even though at that point his Government was on the rocks; it was just about to collapse-decided that Queensland would hold out. In the dying days of the Queensland Liberal Treasurer he announced that all of the hurdles to the implementation of the community employment program in Queensland had been overcome. Yet some four weeks after the scheme has been implemented in the rest of Australia, some four weeks after newspapers throughout every other State in Australia carried advertisements heralding the implementation of that scheme, nothing has happened in Queensland. In the month since the scheme got under way in the other States, conservatively speaking, probably 500 people who have been unemployed and who would meet the guidelines of the scheme regarding eligibility for work are still unemployed. Some $41.3m which was to be available in the 1983-84 financial year to Queensland for expenditure on that scheme still remains untouched. Such is Mr Bjelke-Petersen's concern for the efforts of this Government during the Economic Summit Conference and following it. As I have said, every step of the way Mr Bjelke-Petersen is determined to see that nothing is done that will help to overcome our national economic problems. Nothing is done simply because he is possessed by an anxiety that he do nothing that can be seen as co-operating in any way with the efforts of this Government. At present he acts as a self-appointed Premier of Queensland. Yet he opposes every initiative of this Government to sponsor national consensus. His all consuming ambition is to sabotage national recovery, in the mistaken belief that by doing so he will destroy this Hawke Labor Government. I am sure that the people of Australia have news for him. His concern is not for the welfare of Queenslanders, not for the prosperity and security of this nation. His only concern, his sole ambition, is to pursue his obsession with his style of bigoted hatred as he ruthlessly seeks to destroy every political philosophy but his own. Until recently it was not clearly apparent that his obsession included his former Liberal Party coalition colleagues. His recent statements and actions since the destruction of the Queensland coalition Government and his paranoid distrust and hatred of both major political parties have been well recorded. All Australians, Queenslanders included, desperately want sound, strong, stable government-the style of government they are now getting at a national level. Most Australians now have that standard of government from their State Labor governments. Queenslanders in turn want-in fact they must have-that same stability, soundness and strength of political leadership to participate as does the rest of Australia in the national recovery being sponsored by the policies of this Government. To achieve this they must reject the Bjelke-Petersen National Party divisiveness and elect the only party that they now know can give that State stable government, a government that recognises the absolutely vital need to join their State with the rest of Australia and participate with this Government in a united national move to economic recovery and stability. I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Government on the initiatives that they have taken to date towards economic recovery. I urge the people of Queensland to get together with the rest of Australia at the first opportunity. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that we have in the gallery a former distinguished member for the electorate of Robertson, Mr Roger Dean. Debate resumed. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(4.55) —In speaking in this debate about the National Economic Summit Conference held earlier this year and analysing some of the papers that have been produced as a result of it, it seems to me that the Conference was a mixture of a blatant political exercise coupled with an excuse for a grog up at the taxpayer's expense. I will come to that matter a little later. I would like to open my address by objecting, in the strongest possible terms as a member of the House of Representatives, to this chamber being used for this type of exercise. This chamber is the forum of the people of Australia to be represented by the representatives they elect to this national Parliament. It is not to be debased by this type of political exercise by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who has obviously no respect for the institution of parliament and no understanding of what parliamentary procedure is all about. I will read from the Prime Minister's opening address to the Conference. He said: For in a very real sense, we meet here today as the representatives of the Australian people, in a time of Australia's gravest economic crisis in 50 years. That collection of people did not make up the representatives of the people of Australia. The people who were elected at the election of 5 March represent the people of Australia. This Prime Minister was using this chamber for blatant political purposes. The Prime Minister continued: So it is entirely fitting that this Conference should assemble in the House of Representatives in the national capital. I dispute that. It is not fitting that that Conference should have assembled in the House of Representatives. We are the people elected to sit in this chamber, not people who are drawn together as mates of the Prime Minister. He went on to say: So we meet not only as the representatives of our respective governments and organisations, but also as the representatives of the Australian people. This man has no understanding of democracy and certainly no respect for parliamentary procedure and the parliamentary institution. I object to this chamber being used in that fashion. Having voiced my opinion, I say that we, on this side of the House, are concerned that there should be consensus. We are concerned to see bodies of people from different sections of the economy talking together. It was for that very reason that the Fraser Government introduced the National Labour Consultative Council. This Summit Conference was not a new initiative by the recently elected Prime Minister. The previous government had a summit conference in 1976. It is unfortunate that honourable members opposite do not understand the importance of that body and the work it has been doing over the years. I have accused the Prime Minister of using the Summit Conference for blatant political reasons. It seemed to me that it was something of a surprise for the Prime Minister that he won the 5 March election. I do not believe the Prime Minister really thought he would win that election. But having won it, the central theme to his whole election campaign was the so-called prices and wages accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Prime Minister knew that if the Government were to survive and have any credibility at all, that accord had to be upheld. But he had no confidence at all that he could carry the trade union movement with him. He knew that it would not co-operate in wage restraint. I believe that it was for that reason, and that reason alone, that he called this Summit Conference together in Canberra. He wanted the views of the business community to be reinforced on the trade union representatives, that in order for the Australian economy to recover there must be wage restraint. Wage restraint, as in the prices and wages accord, is the central theme that came out of that Economic Summit. It was done purposely to reinforce the policy of the Australian Labor Party. That is fine. We all know that there has to be wage restraint. That was summarised right through the communique that finally came out as a result of the Summit Conference. I will quote parts of the communique in the Prime Minister's own words: I would point out again that all at the Summit agreed that if a centralised system of wage fixing is to work, there must be an abstention from sectional claims except in special and extraordinary circumstances. Let me say that my Government's interpretation of what constitutes such circumstances is the common -sense interpretation and leaves no room for selfish claims from Maverick sections of the trade union movement. We agree with him. He goes on: Central to the conclusions of the Summit was the recognition that the degree of restraint exercised in expectations and claims is absolutely vital to Australia' s prosects of recovery. We do not dispute that. We know that. We have been saying that for quite some time. We are delighted that the Summit Conference came about. Thankfully some very astute business people were represented at that Summit Conference who could put forward some logic in economic planning to the trade union representatives. What has come out of it? What has happened as a result? Mr Hodgman —Nothing. Mr BURR —I am sorry, I will have to dispute that with the honourable member for Denison. Some things have happened. I will quote to honourable members some things that have happened by way of wage restraint. These include the Heinz case , with a resultant $16 a week increase; workers in the building industry averaging increases of between $15 and $20 a week; and Altona Petrochemical Co. Ltd, referred to by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), where there has been a $17 a week increase. Now we have the doosey of them all; that is, a strike by the oil rig workers on the Bass Strait oil fields. They are going on strike for an increase of $100 a week. This is the sort of consensus and constraint that is coming from the union movement despite the appeals from the Prime Minister through the Economic Summit and through the election campaign with its wages and prices accord. This is the response that we are getting from the trade union movement. It is clear that the Prime Minister has no better relationship with the trade union movement than any other member of this Parliament and certainly not as good a relationship with it as the previous Prime Minister, Mr Fraser. The Prime Minister preaches to the Australian people that he has some special relationship with the trade union movement, but the trade union movement treats him with utter contempt. The Prime Minister knows full well who the powerful figures are in the trade union movement. I instance Mr Norm Gallagher. The Prime Minister knows the influence that that gentleman has on the whole trade union movement. The Prime Minister was so concerned to get him here that I think he picked him up at the gates of Pentridge Prison to bring him directly to the Summit Conference. That is how important Mr Gallagher was. Mr Fisher —He threw a ladder over. Mr BURR —I do not dispute the interjection made by the honourable member for Mallee. Perhaps he did, but he was very concerned to have Mr Gallagher at this Conference and he brought him directly here from Pentridge Prison so that he could be represented. Yet we get this sort of response from Mr Gallagher. Wage increases in the building industry have been averaging $15 to $20 a week. Quite clearly the Prime Minister has absolutely no control whatsoever over the trade union movement. It is an absolute myth that he has been trying to preach to the people of Australia that he does have some special relationship. One other thing that concerns me about the Summit Conference has been the sheer cost. Perhaps some of the honourable members on the other side of this chamber might prefer to ignore the cost of that Conference. Quite frankly, I was not here. I do not know what went on. I did not experience it, but I do know, as a result of cost at the taxpayer's expense, that it must have been a magnificent party. Mr Robert Brown —How does it compare with CHOGM? Mr BURR —Let me quote to the honourable member that the total cost of entertainment for the Conference was $46,215.07. Mr Hodgman —How much? Mr BURR —I repeat, for the benefit of the honourable member for Denison, that it was $46,215.07. That is the bill the Government ran up in four days. Let me just give honourable members a breakdown of where that $46,000 of the taxpayer's money went. The liquor charges for the Summit Conference were as follows: Monday , $818.56; Tuesday, $942.24; Wednesday, $957.86; and on Thursday-the cost was going up all the time; they must have been having a beaut old time-it was $2,018 .87. I imagine that is what the participants had for lunch. I am sure honourable members are interested in the real doozey of them all-the wind-up party. Oh boy, oh boy, I wish I had been at that one. The Prime Minister 's hospitality for the final party at the Economic Summit Conference for 320 persons was $36,411.85. For the benefit of the honourable members opposite I repeat that a total of $36,411.85 of taxpayer's money was used for a nosh-up at the end of the Conference for 320 persons. Liquor worth $113.78 was drunk by each person during the wind up party. All that was at the taxpayers' expense. I notice that my honourable friend from Hunter is very silent. But it did not finish there. We have not heard the last of it yet. The delegates had a beaut party that night. The next day, delivered to the Cabinet room-again charged to the Summit Conference-was one bottle of vodka, one bottle of scotch, one bottle of brandy, three bottles of Tyrrell's claret and-here is the doozey of them all- one packet of disprin. I am surprised that they did not need a carton of disprin . I can understand why they needed the disprin after going through all that grog . On a serious note, I accuse the Prime Minister of using this particular conference not only for political purposes but also to try to make a big name for himself and reinforce his position within the Australian Labor Party by bringing people together, at the expense of the taxpayers of this country, for blatant political purposes. The Opposition agrees that the idea of talking together is beaut. We fully endorse that idea. But we cannot see this done for blatant political purposes by the Australian Labor Party. What it was trying to do and what the Prime Minister is still desperate to do is uphold that prices and wages accord which the Prime Minister can now see falling down round his ears. If he wants to present policies to the Australian people during an election campaign that are totally unworkable that is his business. He has to wear the odium of doing that. But I cannot justify his using taxpayers' money to try to uphold policies that he knows are totally unworkable. Let me say simply in closing that honourable members on this side of the House support the concept of an economic summit conference. We support the concept of representatives from business, unions and governments getting together for this type of discussion. From my point of view I strongly dispute that that Summit Conference, or any future conference or summit, should be held in the House of Representatives chamber. Plenty of other locations around Australia are available. I am quite sure that we in Tasmania can find suitable conference rooms for any future conference. But I cannot justify the Prime Minister using that conference at the taxpayers' expense, particularly with such heavy expenses as I have explained, for the purpose of trying to bolster up his policies that he knows are not workable. Mr Ian Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I would like to make the point that this House should not be used for any purpose other than the sitting of the House of Representatives. I intend taking this matter up with Mr Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The honourable member knows that that is not a point of order. Mr Ian Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe that it is a point of order. This House should not be used for any purpose other than the sitting of the House of Representatives. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I rule that there is no point of order. I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(4.10) —Unlike the previous speaker I will address the issue of the National Economic Summit Conference. In so doing I hope to show that the completely negative approach and response of the conservatives towards the Summit is mistaken. But also mistaken is the view which was put forward in a kind of indirect way by some of the conservatives that the Economic Summit itself and the consensus achieved automatically solves the economic crisis which has gripped this nation under the direction of the conservatives. It certainly was not the intention of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to imply that the Summit in and by itself would have achieved some magical transformation of Australian society and economy. The resolution of the economic crisis and its attendant social problems can only come about with the transformation of social and economic values and structures. This is indeed the essence of the democratic socialist philosophy of the Australian Labor Party, and it is recognised by all. The value of the Summit and the consensus achieved depends crucially, therefore , on what actions are taken by the three major participants-the employers, the unions and the Government. Unless each group conforms with the undertakings made at the Summit the long term goal will be difficult to achieve. The Economic Summit can therefore be regarded as a success if three conditions are satisfied. Firstly, the employers must be convinced and continue to be convinced that a substantial expansion of the economy is in their interests as much as it is in the interests of employees and the unemployed. They must therefore be supportive of increased levels of government expenditure and-I will emphasise later-public participation in industry. This will mean also that employers must be persuaded to go along with substantially greater budgets than in the past, certainly greater budgets than have been the case under the quasi-monetarist policies of the conservatives. In this regard, the rejection of conservatism was quite specific as is underlined by the following clauses of the Summit statement: Participants in the conference recognise the importance of tackling the problems of unemployment and inflation simultaneously. The conference agrees that to achieve the necessary rates of growth in activity and employment will require the maximum fiscal stimulus consistent with the need to reduce inflation and to avoid upward pressure on interest rates. Monetary growth should be adequate to support real growth in activity and employment without being inflationary. There were other important agreements on the part of employers. I refer to the introduction of the Economic Planning Advisory Council which will be a step towards more rational, cohesive, systematic and less wasteful economic decision- making. There was also broad agreement on the introduction of a prices surveillance authority as part of the prices and incomes policy. The latter is a welcome acknowledgement that monopoly pricing is an important element in the inflationary crisis. Together, these and other agreements are a tacit recognition amongst governments, unions, and many employers that the monetarist policies of the previous Government were totally inadequate in the face of deep- rooted, persisting, economic problems. However, the issue on which the employers did not wholeheartedly agree was the role of wages and wage indexation. Although the employers were persuaded on the need for a centralised wage fixing system-that was an important achievement- there was little agreement on indexation of wages for full consumer price index increases. Indeed, the remarks of various employer groups and organisations regarding wages clearly indicate that much conservative thinking still prevails. The familiar, outdated arguments about the wonders of the market were all too apparent; that is, the greater the wage restraint the greater the level of private investment and the greater the level of output and employment. As we are all aware, this dogmatic and supposedly logical chain of events is based on ill- conceived, unfounded faith in the so-called market forces and has, I believe, been refuted by recent experience all over the world. Wage freezes will not necessarily raise the level of profits. Although in some cases it will cut costs of production significantly it will also undermine the level of aggregate demand since this restraint means cuts in the workers real, disposable income. This was emphasised by John Maynard Keynes during the Great Depression. Keynes traced the sources of unemployment to a deficiency of effective demand whereby economic agents, considered collectively, were not spending enough on the output of the economy to employ fully its work force. If only economic agents could be induced to spend more, output would rise, leading to a rise in employment. In this context it is easy to perceive the arguments against continuous reductions in real wages which, by the way, this Government has accepted and is beginning to reverse through its actions in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Businesses do not invest in new productive capacity if they do not see a growing demand for their products. Having spoken to many industrial groups in the last three months, I might say that the paramount problem which they focused on all the time was the deficiency in demand, a deficiency created by the policies of the previous Government. Although it is desirable to increase profitability, if profitability is increased private investment will not automatically rise. One needs only to see the predictions about profitability and private investment for the forthcoming year to see that point. It is important to prevent practices such as the automatic flow of profits off-shore and to encourage in a very dramatic way greater investment in manufacturing industry in Australia. The Government will adopt a series of measures in its industrial policy to encourage that trend so that the gains in profitability that are made as a consequence of the recovery do in fact remain in Australia and go towards creating jobs. Mr Aldred —There were no incentives like that in the Budget. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I will deal with that on another occasion when I give my speech during the Budget debate. Let us look at the arguments which were presented. In an attempt to ruin the understandings of the Summit, some employer organisations -not all-argued before the Arbitration Commission for a continuation of the wages freeze. That could have meant the ruination of the understandings of the Summit and of the prices and incomes accord. The previous speaker argued that one of the aims of the Summit was to fulfil the obligations of the prices and incomes accord. The Government is not ashamed of that situation. It is part of the very essence of our economic strategy. The important point is that large sections of the community, including, I might say, the majority of employers, were aware that that was part of the understandings of the Summit and agreed with it. That is why the conservatives have been left with nothing else to say. They have no wages policy. They have no solution to the economic crisis in this country. They are left simply holding the baby, so to speak, without being in a position to put forward any constructive proposals-unlike the approach of the Australian Labor Party. Let me consider the second factor in the success of the Summit; that is, the union movement must be in a position to abide by the prices and incomes accord. As I mentioned a moment ago, any attempt to destroy the indexation system would in fact have destroyed the accord and led to a disastrous situation. I now turn to the agreement which the unions saw as part of this overall package. I read again from the Summit communique: The unions recognise that urgently required improvements in the social wage can be achieved through government expenditure on essential services. To this end the union movement will pay regard to such expenditures in determining any claims. This is the inner meaning of the prices and incomes accord between the Government and the unions and indeed a major aspect of the Labor Party's whole economic strategy. The following extract from the accord illustrates this point: The government will aim to eliminate poverty by ensuring wage justice for low income earners, reducing tax on low income earners, raising social security benefits and making other improvements to the social wage. Urgently required improvements in the social wage will be achieved through expanded government expenditure on essential services and the social infrastructure as indicated in Labor Party policy. It is acknowledged that the extent to which such expenditure will be able to be increased will depend considerably on the government's success in achieving a non-inflationary expansion of the economy, which in turn will be substantially influenced by the extent to which the prices and incomes policy is successfully implemented. So the unions' commitment to the accord is conditional on the Government continuing to fulfil its obligation. But the unions also have expectations of employers and professional groups, as specifically outlined at the Summit. The accord states: But employers, for their part, recognise that during the period of wage restraint, dividend increases should also be restrained, and they will so recommend to their organisations and will expect the government to so recommend to all public companies. If restraint is to be exercised, then such restraint should be exercised universally. As such, it is important that non-wage incomes are not increased faster than movements in wages. This principle should be followed where there are existing authorities in this area and where there are no such authorities, groups should be encouraged to agree to have their fees determined on a voluntary basis by members of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Surely these are historic agreements, because they provide the basis for a negotiation process between the various groups in the community-the union movement, the employers, professional organisations and the Government-to achieve economic recovery. It is important that all groups, including the union movement, fulfil their obligations under these requirements. In that respect I am certain that, while the Government proceeds in this way and while employers proceed in a responsible fashion, the accord will continue and economic recovery can be achieved in this country. The third condition for the success of the Summit has already been alluded to; that is, the Government must be prepared to go ahead with a continuous expansion of the economy. Of course, this must be done in such a way that employees, the unemployed, the needy and other groups in the community will gain something as a result. Indeed it is difficult to over-emphasise the importance of the Government's continuous action program for the success of the accord. Furthermore, the greater the impact of the fiscal stimulus, the greater the chances of success of the prices and incomes policy. I know that the conservatives opposite seem to take some delight in the suggestion that the accord will fail. They may be trying to create, through nuisance value, a situation in which it may break down. Let me assure them that while the Government lives up to its part of the bargain the union movement will also continue to act responsibly, with restraint and in accordance with the provisions of the accord and in so doing will continue, I am sure, to provide the basis for long term economic recovery. We should also recognise-I cannot go through all of them-that there were a large number of specific commitments within the agreement. Perhaps I can indicate to honourable members the most important of them; that is, the one which refers to the redistribution of income and wealth in favour of the poor and the disadvantaged. The accord states: While the Summit recognises the difficulties for Australian society in meeting the increasing social security costs, deprived groups must not be subject to the restraints mentioned above. It remains the overwhelming desire of the nation to ensure that those in genuine need are fully supported, whether they be the sick, the aged, the disabled, the unemployed-- MR DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.25) —The honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous), who has just resumed his seat, has always very frankly and openly conceded that he is a committed socialist. Indeed, he and many of his colleagues on the other side of the House-members of the Hawke Government-repeatedly say, when they think it is appropriate, that they are very proud to be members of a socialist government. We are debating today an economic summit which was heralded by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) as the pathway to economic recovery. We are debating it two days after one of the most expansionary, non-productive and harmful Budgets ever presented in this Parliament. I am well aware that I cannot debate the Budget. I will not say anything which will pre-empt that debate. But to put in context the remarks I wish to make about the National Economic Summit Conference and the statement of the Prime Minister to this Parliament, I will read a very short statement made on 4 September 1972-I have no doubt the Prime Minister would not object to my reading it-as it is relevant to what I will say about the National Economic Summit and the manner in which it was conducted. In a statement reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 4 September 1972, under the heading 'Labor is Socialist Hawke Says' the following appears: The Australian Labor Party is a socialist party, ACTU President Mr Hawke says. He had no respect for anyone who denied this, Mr Hawke said last night. Mr Hawke was speaking at Belmont a Newcastle suburb at the opening of the federal campaign for the seat of Shortland in support of Mr Peter Morris. Mr Hawke said the Labor Party was a socialist-based organisation. 'I have never at any time tried to walk away from the fact that I am a dedicated and convinced socialist myself', he said. He believed that overwhelmingly his colleagues within the Parliamentary Labor Party were convinced that the best way to run Australia was by organised socialism. But he warned that Australians were not yet ready to vote for a program of socialisation. 'If you went out tonight or between now and the next federal election-- that was in 1972- and said you were going to bring in socialism, you would not get in because for too long the people of Australia have been brainwashed into believing socialism is something evil', Mr Hawke said. He said people had been brainwashed into believing-- Mr Chynoweth —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Is this relevant to the debate? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —There is no point of order. Mr HODGMAN —I have nearly finished. The article continued: people had been brainwashed into believing there was something undemocratic about socialism. The relevance of that statement is that in 1983 we have a Prime Minister who acknowledges that he is a socialist and leader of a socialist government. When he brought together the delegates from all over Australia to the National Economic Summit he should have known, and I believe he should now know, that the road to recovery of this nation is not by following a path of socialism, but by doing what we can to restore the private enterprise sector, which is that part of the economy which has made this country great, which is the nation's largest employer and which holds the key to the future of Australia. I turn now to the communique of the National Economic Summit Conference and ask honourable members on both sides of the House to consider what has been done to implement the stated objectives. I also invite all of the delegates of the National Economic Summit who attended the Conference in this building as representatives of the Australian community, as the Prime Minister put it, and at his invitation, to consider now what advice they tendered and which of their contributions have been taken up and acted upon by the Government. It is significant that two of the fundamental principles which the Prime Minister outlined in his statement of 3 May 1983, in response to what he said was the purpose of the National Economic Summit have been honoured more in the breach than in the observance. The statement reads: Central to the conclusions of the Summit was the recognition that the degree of restraint exercised in expectations and claims is absolutely vital to Australia' s prospects of recovery. . . . . Let me say that my Government's interpretation of what constitutes such circumstances is the common-sense interpretation and leaves no room for selfish claims from maverick sections of the trade union movement. The Prime Minister made it very clear that the basis of the Summit and the basis of the communique was that there would be a universal degree of restraint exercised in expectations and claims. He said that that was absolutely vital to Australia's prospects of recovery. He said: 'My Government will not permit selfish claims from maverick sections of the trade union movement'. Is it not sad that from the day the National Summit closed until this day we have been bedevilled by selfish claims from maverick sections of the trade union movement and, unfortunately, in many cases they have been urged on, and encouraged by, members of the Hawke socialist government. What a pity it is that members of the Hawke Government did not have the aspirations to which their Leader aspired and which the delegates to the National Economic Summit endorsed. Delegates to the Summit told the people of Australia: 'We will hold back'. They even said that the Government would hold back. I refer honourable members to section 25 of the communique in which the following words appear: In like fashion, Governments agree to exercise, as far as possible, restraint in their charges. Mr Deputy Speaker, as nearly the father of the House, as a former Minister and as one of the most experienced parliamentarians in Australia, what do you think of the proposition of restraint in government charges when we have seen a 16 per cent increase in income tax between May and August? The ordinary Australian, the average Australian, has been hit with a tax hike in two bites. I refer to the mini-Budget as well as what happened this week. There has been a 16 per cent increase in taxes. Mr Deputy Speaker, with your breadth of experience, what do you think of a proposition for automatic indexation of excise? It is almost unbelievable. This measure does not have to return to the Parliament. Mr Robert Brown —Sound. Mr HODGMAN —It is sound socialism, my friend. It is not the sort of medicine that the economy of Australia requires for recovery and not the sort of medicine that will permit the economic recovery that we are all looking for. I ask quietly and calmly-without any anger because many millions of people will be much more stirred up about this than I can be in this debate because I must make my main remarks during the debate on the Budget-what happened to the promise which excited many people around Australia of immediate tax cuts for 96 per cent of Australian workers? Where has that promise gone? When the National Economic Summit was held private enterprise, over and again, said: 'If you want the economy to regain its strength, don't impose heavy government charges; don't get into the market place and borrow; let the private enterprise sector have a go; in other words, hands off'. What do we find today? The personal income tax cuts have evaporated into thin air. They have gone in the wind. What has happened in relation to interest rates? Mr Deputy Speaker, with your experience, particularly your ministerial experience, because you held the key portfolio of housing in the Whitlam Government, you know the impact of interest rates on the home building industry. I cannot refer to the Budget. But I must say that as a result of what happened last Tuesday, interest rates will go up. Why will they go up? Because the members of the Hawke socialist Government have intruded into the market-place with an expansionary Budget which will apply great pressure on interest rates to move upwards. Unfortunately, one of the best initiatives of the previous Government, the home mortgage rebate, has now been taken away. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am delighted with the friendly and happy atmosphere in the chamber from colleagues from both sides who are gathering to hear the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock)-the next Prime Minister of Australia-who will speak at approximately 5 p.m. I return to my fundamental points. The National Economic Summit Conference was one of the most first rate exercises in political public relations that I have ever witnessed. Like the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr), I must record my protest that this chamber was used. I say no more than this: The Parliament is the Parliament of the people, and the people who sit in this chamber are those who have been elected by the people of Australia to represent them in the national Parliament. As to the question of alcohol, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not one of these breast beating reformed alcoholics or whatever. I concede that I enjoy a drink. But the expenditure of $46,000 of the worker's money over three days and $36,000 on one night is very close to a record. I think the Guinness Book of Records could be interested in this one too. The National Economic Summit unfortunately did not produce the consensus, the results which it was supposed to produce. There was con, but it was not consensus. One of the Premiers of the Commonwealth made a comment at the conclusion of the National Economic Summit which is worth looking at it again to see what it means. He said that his State would not accept the blank cheque approach. He said: It is as simple as that. Clearly our responsibilities as a State government demand full details of the proposed policies before we can offer a considered opinion of their practicability, cost and suitability for the people of Queensland. He concluded his remarks by saying: For these and other reasons the Queensland Government does not commit itself to the document. Queensland is not prepared to put its foot on the sticky paper and be stuck with it. It is a matter of fundamental significance and importance, despite the glow and the euphoria of the alleged consensus, that as the Prime Minister himself admitted, the Economic and Planning Advisory Council, the organisation set up by the Prime Minister, the body which came out of the National Economic Summit Conference, was neither consulted about nor involved in the framing of the Budget. So much for the consensus. So much for the Summit. It was something in Australian history that has come and gone, leaving nothing behind but, tragically, the sound advice that was given to the Government by the representatives of private enterprise, who have been ignored. Their fundamental propositions put to the Government were: Keep taxes down, keep charges down, do not go for an expansionary Budget and do not bring pressure into the market place which will push up interest rates. Those were the four fundamentals. None of them have been acted upon. If I had been a delegate to the National Economic Summit I would be wondering now, having read a document that came into existence on Tuesday night, why I came here in the first place. I would be wondering where the Hawke Government took up the advice that it was given. It is only through the private enterprise sector and through individual achievement and initiative that Australia will get itself out of the mess in which it currently finds itself. Honourable members opposite are committed to a course of socialism. I say to them with the greatest frankness I can that that is exactly the policy that Australia does not want. Socialism is bringing a great nation such as France to its knees right now. I do not want to see a socialist Australia. I want to see a strong and vital Australia with jobs for all Australians provided by the private sector. What honourable members opposite have done over the last few days demonstrates beyond doubt that they did not even take note of the National Economic Summit. To that extent they let it down. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(4.40) —After hearing the words spoken by Opposition members during this debate I can see precisely why we needed the National Economic Summit Conference. People like that, who are meant to be representing the public in this Parliament, do not understand the value of getting together and talking to each other. They do not understand that there is a need, if we are to get a recovery under way in Australia, for people in the three sectional power groups- government, unions and industry-to get together, not to shout at each other in an adversary situation but to talk to each other. That was the real basis of the consensus-a much abused word-which issued out of the Economic Summit. In speaking to the motions to take note of the papers issuing from the National Economic Summit Conference, I wish to pay attention to the enormous significance of that Conference when considering the way in which Australia will develop in the future. History of most civilisations has shown that an economy can grow in an ad hoc manner, swelling to meet needs as they are pushed on to it, or in an ordered fashion, adhering to a plan. The immediate post-war experience in Japan shows the manner in which a society can adapt to meet change thrust on it. Its planned operation since early 1970, when it had to bring in extensive legislation to turn back the clock on previous bad decisions, exemplifies that planned society. It has been successful in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China and Israel. Australia has grown like Topsy. We have devoured our national resources during the good times and smiled in contentment when we should have been planning for the future. As a result we are in crisis. We must get together and plan so that those who are missing out on any shred of material comfort in this once affluent nation will miss out no longer. The Summit Conference was a necessary starting point to this forward and co-operative planning. My honourable colleagues have capably outlined the ramifications and success of the Summit in setting the foundation for economic and societal recovery. Of equal importance to the future of Australia is the manner in which this recovery is effected. To endure, it must be built on a sound base of values rather than a power base, which may corrupt. I believe that the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) in initiating the Summit Conference was aware of the need for a shift in values in Australia. Past governments and power bases in Australia have displayed a brick and mortar mentality when considering courses of action. That was the whole problem with the Fraser Government. That Government thought that money well spent must be money spent on impressive structures only. Education to that Government meant large school blocks in comfortable areas but without good programs or enough teachers and with parents and citizens associations and parents and friends associations working year round to get the necessary equipment. It meant poor Catholic parish schools where children did not get the educational support which is the right of all children in Australia. We needed a change of values in Australia. More, we needed an end to the confrontationist policies of the past. We need to get together and talk. We do not need the hot air which expands this chamber to breaking point but real communication between young and old, black and white and government and governed. It is important when evaluating the success of the National Economic Summit to understand that the only basis for national economic recovery is sectional reconciliation within our nation. The National Economic Summit provided the basis for that reconciliation by drawing together sections in our community who had not met in the past and who had not had the opportunity for personal discussions on matters affecting our nation-industry, government and the unions. It is important that other community groups be represented. There has been criticism to the effect that they were not fully represented, but those groups will be represented by this Labor Government. They have access to us in pre- Budget discussion. It is the barons of industry, the leaders of unions and Ministers of government who need to communicate. That need was reflected in the comments of the leader of industry after the Conference. Mr John Uhrig of Simpson Ltd, speaking of unions, said on the Nationwide program: I'm surprised that they- that is, the unions- are so aware of some of the problems and problems I would have thought they appeared not to be aware of and I'm also surprised at the extent to which they behave as normal Australians in dealing with those problems in this discussion. That is what the Summit was about. People who previously did not have the opportunity to understand the other viewpoint have now been given that opportunity. When we consider the confrontationist policies of the past Government, the attitude that existed up to the time of the Summit is not surprising. It has been part and parcel of the manner in which the Fraser Government strived to sell its policies and keep power for so long. Social security beneficiaries were set at each other's throats. It was a matter of who was getting the most-a supporting parent or someone on an age pension. The biggest scandal I have seen in this Parliament during the time I have been in this House since 1980 was when I saw members of the Fraser Government encouraging a viewpoint which branded unemployed people as dole bludgers. That has happened in this Parliament. In my first couple of years in this House-1980 and 1981-I was outraged to hear that viewpoint. Those barriers were put up. They were to the detriment of the unemployed. That was done merely to cover the lack of any policies-and any shift in policy-put forward by that Government to try to meet the needs of the unemployed. Members of that Government have no right at all ever to criticise any other government which is trying to do something about that matter. In regard to the sex discrimination legislation, women again are being encouraged to attack other women, as people listen to a distorted viewpoint on that legislation. Women in the home are told by politically motivated people that if the legislation goes through so that others in the work force and in other areas of society are not discriminated against, in some way the women at home will be hurt and will have to go out to work. Of course, this is misinformed and mischievous nonsense but it is part of that confrontationist attitude which has existed in Australia. We must break down these barriers. Today members of the Opposition have been busily building them with their jaundiced viewpoints of the Summit. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) saw the Summit as a publicity stunt. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) thought it was a matter of people getting together to talk about a soft option. The honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) thought it was a grog up at the taxpayer's expense and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) thought it was merely a political public relations exercise. But delegates at the historic Conference did not share these viewpoints. I will mention a couple of them who attended this encouraging meeting of people from different sectional interests. The Prime Minister said: . . . I believe having and sharing knowledge, factual knowledge, is the indispensable condition of allowing people to resolve problems and to make correct decisions. Sir Roderick Carnegie of CRA Ltd said: I think it's a great learning experience for everyone that's privileged to be there. I think it's been great for all the information to be shared and the points of view, and I'm learning a lot. Sir Eric McClintock from Woolworths Ltd said: I think it's a major conference . . . it's been more a process of turning leading or influencing . . . Australians-turning them round making them face each other and stand and listen to criticisms of themselves, suggestions without having the luxury of flouncing out in a fit. Alan Coates of the Australian Mutual Provident Society said: . . . I think the greatest advantage from my point of view is that I don't have a great deal of contact with people in the industrial relations or in the union movement and it's a marvellous opportunity for me to hear and learn about their point of view. Following the Summit Simon Crean from the Australian Council of Trade Unions said: I congratulate the employers in terms of their attitude . . . today. Even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said: I think that certainly it was of some good by providing more information than before . . . In this context we must consider the refusal of the Premier of Queensland, which has been touched on today, to endorse the joint communique. One would have thought that it was some nasty, destructive document rather than a document formulated by people who were working together. They were people from varying interests who wanted to do something about the unemployed and to get Australia moving again. Before the Summit began the Premier of Queensland said that he expected it to be a load of hoo-ha. When asked to endorse the communique he said : The Queensland Government does not commit itself to the document. Queensland is not prepared to put its foot on the sticky paper and be stuck with it. Thank you . He was heard in silence and at the end of his speech he returned to his seat in silence. He was the first and only speaker during the four days of the Conference not to be applauded. The other gem of misinformation spoken by him occurred when he criticised the acceptance by business delegates of a Commonwealth price surveillance mechanism. He said: We cannot allow the spirit of co-operation evident here to submerge reality. His reality was the protection of those who have a power base in our society against the exploitation of those who do not. This confrontationist attitude of the Premier and the Queensland Government is typical. It was displayed at the Adelaide Australian Constitutional Convention where again members of the Queensland Government refused to co-operate with delegates to have passed good motions regarding the need for constitutional change in the area of family law, an area which that Government had endorsed in the past but which it then voted against at that Constitutional Convention in Adelaide. That confrontationist attitude of the Queensland Government was shown again when all of the States rose to meet the call by this Government to get together and get jobs for our young people in the community employment program. Millions of dollars were ready to be poured into that program. Two weeks after the program had been announced officially and had started across Australia it still could not be announced in Queensland because the Queensland Premier refused, with his usual self-interest, to sign the necessary papers and to allow jobs to flow into Queensland. The Summit succeeded despite the tantrums of the Queensland Government and its representatives. But that success can flow only if people such as those in the Opposition who have spoken today, people with a one-dimensional viewpoint, strive to enlarge that viewpoint, to look beyond the spending of money simply for buildings-just for brick and mortar-and to realise that sometimes a bit of organisation and money has to be spent to get people together so that they can talk to each other in the way that happened at the National Summit Conference. That conference succeeded because people of good will in government, unions and industries, in a week long moment of sanity, submerged self-interest for the benefit of the future of their nation. It was a worthwhile exercise. Some people do not have the mentality to understand that in this world we must get together and talk to each other about world peace between nation and nation and about peace in Australia between one sectional interest and another sectional interest. If that does not happen it will not matter what good policies are implemented or what money is spent; we will not succeed. We need the sort of initiative shown at the time of the Summit Conference. We need the sort of leadership we now have in government-imaginative leadership under the Prime Minister. We need people of good will such as I believe those of my colleagues in government to be, as well as those in unions and the representatives of business who are concerned about the growing number of the unemployed in Australia and who are willing to act on their behalf. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Ministerial Statement Debate resumed from 3 May, on the following paper presented by Mr Hawke: National Economic Summit Conference-Ministerial Statement, 3 May 1983. and on motion by Mr Young: That the House take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 21 April, on the following papers presented by Mr Keating: Government documents submitted to the National Economic Summit Conference and volume 1 of the proceedings of the National Economic Summit Conference. and on motion by Mr Young: That the House take note of the papers. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —I have received a request from the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O'Keefe), who wishes to make a person explanation. Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson) —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the State Parliament of New South Wales, at Question Time this morning, 25 August, the Hon. Terry Sheahan, MP, Minister for Finance and Energy in the New South Wales Government, made a statement to the effect that a petroleum distributor trading as F. L. O'Keefe Pty Ltd of Gunnedah made four purchases of petroleum products from Queensland, the company being South Coast Oils. No such proprietary company exists, but Mr F . L. O'Keefe trades under his own name, the business being conducted by his nephew. During August and September 1982, owing to normal suppliers of motor spirit and distillate being unable to fulfil normal orders, it became necessary to purchase from South Coast Oils, just over the Queensland border, to hold business in the Gunnedah district, otherwise farming and industrial clients would have been denied supplies and service and would have had to look elsewhere for fuel. The allegation that a cheque supposedly was made out on a farm account is incorrect. All cheques for fuel were made out on business accounts with no reference to a farm account. No farm account exists in the name of F. L. O'Keefe . All purchases of fuel from whatever source go through the proper books of account. It is incorrect to say that false information on three separate occasions was given on dealings in petroleum products. This is completely refuted. If there is a liability for duty, when the account is rendered it will be immediately paid. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.57) —I move: Customs Tariff Proposals No. 11 (1983). The Customs Tariff Proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. Proposal No. 11 (1983), which operates from tomorrow, contains tariff changes resulting from the Government's decisions on recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission in its reports on canning fruit and certain iron and steel products and certain alloy steel products. In respect of canning fruit the Government has decided that, except for pineapple, the rate of duty will be 10 per cent, as recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission. Pineapple will be dutiable at 15 per cent until 30 June 1985 and then will be phased in two equal annual steps to 10 per cent. As already announced by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) , the Government has decided to extend the current tariff quotas on certain hot- rolled flat steel products and stainless steel pipes and tubes to 31 December 1983. These proposals contain the changes required to extend these quotas to the end of the year. On and from 1 January 1984 the steel industry plan is to take effect and further tariff changes in this regard will be introduced later. Three administrative changes are also contained in the proposals. A redundant quota provision relating to plywood is being removed; three amine-function compounds are now being described in their chemically correct names; and tariff sub-item 82.05.4 relating to sockets is being re-expressed to clearly define its scope. A comprehensive summary setting out the nature of the changes has been prepared and is being circulated to honourable members. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(4.59) —The true measure of this Budget is whether it puts Australia back to work by turning the opportunities of an emerging world economic recovery into sustained economic growth in Australia. By that measure, this Budget clearly fails. It is a human tragedy for nearly 900 ,000 Australians out of work and the many hundreds of thousands more who live in fear of losing their jobs. Not only is the Budget a disaster for the unemployed; it is a disaster for the elderly, it is a disaster for the business community, it is a disaster for families, it is a disaster for interest rates and, by the Government's own admission, it is a disaster for the Australian economy. The Government has been handed an economy showing signs of an emerging recovery . Thanks to the tax cuts in last year's Budget, thanks to the success of the wages pause, thanks to the ending of the drought, and thanks to the emerging international recovery, it has been given the chance to lay the foundations of a sustainable recovery; but it has blown it. It has gone on a wild spending spree, with the biggest real increases in spending since the irresponsible and devastating Whitlam 1974-75 Budget, leaving the private sector no room to grow. Just under 50 per cent of the nation's income is now passing through the hands of the Government. It has gone wild, on a wild tax grab, taking from Australians the money they need to stimulate consumer spending. It has failed to resist general and sectional pressures from the union movement for economically irresponsible wage increases, further reducing the competitiveness and the profitability of business and further reducing the incentive of business to invest and to create jobs. To turn the emerging recovery into sustainable growth and renewed job prospects , what is needed is not fiscal recklessness but rather fiscal responsibility, leaving to the private sector the space to grow. What is needed is not increased taxes to finance the Government's own massive spending increases but, rather, money left in the hands of consumers to spend. What is needed is not higher wage costs and taxes on the struggling business sector, but, rather, maintenance of the wage pause and tax relief to enable business profitability and competitiveness to be restored. The Labor Government has consistently stated that central to its strategy is the prices and incomes accord. Mr Burr —That is shot to bits. Mr PEACOCK —Well, the Government says that its accord is a risk. There is no risk. It is doomed to failure. Through the accord, the Government claimed that it could engage in expansionary fiscal policy to reduce, simultaneously, unemployment and inflation. We on this side of the House have never believed that this strategy could work, and we have consistently made that plain. Such a strategy will not improve profitability, it will not improve competitiveness, it will not get the private sector going again, and it will not get Australians back to work. But the Government just does not have any understanding of the world as it is, or the needs of the business community. The Government's Budget Speech and the associated statements, for which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) himself has clearly accepted full responsibility, confirms our worst fears. By the Government's own admission, even if its prices and incomes accord were to hold-and it is clear that it will not hold- unemployment will continue to rise, the underlying inflation rate will remain high, especially by comparison with the rates of our overseas trading partners, interest rates will rise, and business fixed investment will fall sharply. Let us look at the Government's own words. Budget Paper No. 1, on page 65, states clearly that there will be 'an edging up in the rate of unemployment'. Indeed, it implies that the dole queue in 1983-84 will be on average 26 per cent longer than in 1982-83 and that unemployment will approach 11 per cent or higher . Is that what the Government means by 'edging up' in the unemployment rate? On page 33 of the Budget Speech, the Government states: 'The Consumer Price Index could rise by 7.5 per cent. That is after the effects of the Medicare scheme are taken into account, which on the Government's figuring will artificially reduce the CPI by 3 per cent. On anyone's arithmetic, that means an underlying rate of inflation of around 10 per cent. This sustained inflation strikes not only at the purchasing power of the pay packet but also at the competitiveness of our industries in world markets. Again, the Government's Budget statements tell the real story on this issue: At present . . . the Australian economy is not well positioned to improve its share of world trade. In particular, our inflation rate is currently more than twice that of our major trading partners. Prospects for 1983-84 are for no more than some narrowing of that gap. This is to be found in Budget Paper No. 1 at page 62. So much for preparing the economy to take advantage of the emerging world recovery. Budget Paper No. 1 states categorically at page 70. The forecasts assume that, in 1983-84 at least, it will be possible to finance the resultant public sector borrowing requirement without significant increases in the general level of interest rates. In anyone's language that unambiguously means that interest rates will increase, further discouraging investment and recovery. Indeed, Budget Paper No. 1 also states completely unambiguously: Business fixed investment is projected to fall again in 1983-84 at about the same rate as the very sharp decline of 14 per cent recorded in 1982-83. In anyone's language that is a devastating indictment of the Government's claim to be able to stimulate private sector recovery. No wonder the Government is obliged to admit that sustained recovery remains a hope for the future rather than a present reality. What hope is there with this Government's strategy? The reality is that there is no hope because this Government does not understand the world as it is. It is lost in its own dreams. The Government tells us that these results, devastating enough in themselves, depend crucially on the accord holding and on 'strictly limited sectional claims'. That aspect of its strategy is already shot to ribbons. Far from limiting sectional claims, powerful unions have already bludgeoned more money from the building industry, the oil industry, the petrochemical industry, and now the food industry. All are outside the national wage case. Some claim to be special cases, others offer no justification whatsoever, but all in reality are part of an organised grab by the powerful unions, and all are establishing norms that the whole union movement will seek to achieve. That point is well made in the editorial in yesterday's Australian Financial Review, which states: Already there is clear evidence that the union movement has no real intention of sticking to centralised wage fixation which delivers only indexation. The H. J. Heinz settlement reached this week is one indicator of this. Rather the unions are already moving towards using indexation only as a way of generalising wage increases to weak unions while the stronger ones bargain for sectional increases outside indexation. On the same day, as if determined to prove the Australian Financial Review right , Mr Dolan publicly supported the flow-on-they are his words-of some of the benefits of the building industry allowances deal. That is clearly only the beginning. The accord itself is threatened not only by these pressures but also by the Government's actions. Last night the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said: The Government is meeting its commitments under the accord . . . The truth is vastly different, as he knows, though he will not state it. Contrary to its own part in the accord, the Government has not reduced or restructured income taxes to reduce the burden on lower and middle income earners, and that was its part in the accord. The working man on average weekly earnings will be paying 46c tax in every extra dollar he earns by early 1984. Again, contrary to the Government's part in the accord, the Government has raised, not lowered, the relative incidence of indirect taxes. Indeed, it has put up excise taxes on beer, cigarettes, spirits and petrol. With indexation they are on an ever-increasing spiral. How can the Government now seriously expect the unions to stick to their part of the accord when the Government is not dinkum itself and breaks the accord, in regard to both taxes and the matter I mentioned earlier? Already a number of unions, including the Amalgamated Metal Foundry and Shipwrights Union, the Federated Clerks Union and the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union have said that the heavy increases in indirect taxes have put the accord in doubt. According to a report in the Age today, a spokesman for the meatworkers has said: I don't think the Government has taken up what is accepted as its responsibilities concerning the Accord. Then he correctly added, in relation to this Government, that its handling of the accord has brought into question the integrity of politicians who make promises. We all know of the integrity of the person who claims to lead this nation. We know how he claims to wear his integrity on his sleeve day after day, though it is getting muddier and dirtier and dirtier as he conducts the affairs of this nation. What hope does it give the accord when the unions are calling into question the very integrity of the Government, recognising that it has broken its part of the deal? Let the Government's own words describe the further devastating consequences of the looming failure of its wages policy. The Government has said: A wages outcome higher than currently assumed would have an especially damaging impact on business confidence and private sector spending propensities. The renewal of pressures on corporate profitability, together with a consequent slackening in private demand, would be likely to manifest itself in a further round of labour shedding and another sharp ratcheting up in the rate of unemployment. Those are not our words; they are the Government's words, to be found in Budget Paper No. 1 at page 70. In the Government's own words we have the clearest possible forecast of what the future holds for Australians as a result of the economic strategy embodied in this Budget-frankly, a future of economic devastation and social despair. Little more could be expected from a government with no understanding of the world as it is. This most serious prognosis for the Government's economic strategy is a particularly bitter one for a community which is being asked in this Budget to sacrifice so much. If the Government really understood the community it would not hit it at a time when it is so vulnerable. Australians are being asked to make sacrifices, but those sacrifices, according to the Government's own estimates, will be in vain. The Australian Labor Party promised lower taxes. It promised more money in the pay packets of families. Ninety-nine per cent of Australians were to get reduced taxation. In fact, 100 per cent of Australians have got increased taxation. Labor promised that over six million Australians would receive 'immediate tax cuts'. The contempt that the Prime Minister showed for this nation in disowning a letter that he wrote is the contempt with which this Budget is riddled, particularly when one considers the promises that were made that are now being shredded week by week. The contempt of the Labor Government for Australians is exposed by this Budget. Every taxpayer will pay higher taxes. In the mini-Budget superannuation tax was increased, the home loan interest rebate was abolished, the health insurance rebate was abolished, the dividend rebate was scrapped, and the over-70s pensions were means tested. Now in this Budget the excise has gone up on beer, cigarettes, spirits, and petrol, putting up the price of petrol by 2 cents a litre. New excises have been introduced on heating oil, on fuel oil and on kerosene; and all these excises are to be indexed. In addition, sales taxes are being introduced on a number of previously exempt goods. These increases in indirect taxes will directly raise the cost of living for the average Australian family by $2.20 a week, according to the Australian Taxpayers Association. The Medicare levy on top of that will cost on average a further $3.70. Indexation of excises will add a further dollar. Those increases are on top of the $8 a week increase which hit families in the so-called mini- Budget. So the total burden on a typical family over the course of a year will be $15 per week-from a Government that told them they would get reduced taxation . That is the impact of only the Federal Government's policy. Honourable members will recall that Victorians had $12 taken from them in the last State Labor Budget. The Labor Government in South Australia has already announced that it will confiscate $12 a week. So the bill South Australian and Victorian families have received from Labor governments is $27 a week, or over $1,400 a year. Looked at another way, the Australian Taxpayers Association claims that a person earning $15,000, receiving a 7 per cent increase in earnings, will suffer a 38 per cent increase in tax this financial year caused by the Hawke Government policies alone. That is a vicious slug for families. It is an incompassionate grab. It is an outrageous and ill-considered confiscation. Within 24 hours of the Budget being brought down the Prime Minister foreshadowed, first of all on the A.M. program on Wednesday morning, still more new taxes to be introduced. Who will be hit next? Who, when and how? It has not been spelt out. The Budget was not 24 hours old before we were told that more taxes were to be introduced. Money is being confiscated from families so that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer can enjoy themselves with large scale spending in this Budget. Let us not forget that this is obviously a government with no understanding of the real needs of the community. What is particularly pernicious about the excise increases is that by indexing them they will come back and hit the community every six months, so the burden will get heavier and heavier. There will be three increases in the next 10 months imposed by a government that was going to reduce taxation. This measure institutionalises inflation, and by indexing excises gives the Government an interest in sustaining inflation. Still more seriously, it pushes families into an inflationary spiral. The excise increases will push up prices which in turn will mean more excise increases. Once more, families are hit; and it is the poorer families who are hit the hardest. To make matters even worse, while the Government applies the principle of indexation to excises, it will not apply the same principle to income tax. This financial year some 300,000 to 400,000 Australians will be forced into the 46 per cent tax bracket. In fact, anyone on average weekly earnings will, during the year, be forced into the 46 per cent tax bracket. These people-ordinary, middle-income-earning Australians-are caught in a taxation vice which is squeezing their prosperity from them so that the Government can go on a spending spree. If the Government understood the world as it was and not as it might dream it to be, it would not damage the community in this way. It is a sign of the Government's total lack of compassion that, in addition to hitting middle income earners with a massive tax slug, it has hit the elderly. Already they have been sent reeling by the enormous increase in the tax on lump sum superannuation and by the means testing of the over-70s pensions. That burden will now be exacerbated by an assets test on age pensions. We do not know when that assets test will be introduced; we do not know any of the details. The Prime Minister has said that it will take around a year to finalise the details. This is like the superannuation issue-the Government bringing it into the House and then having to tack like a yacht as it at last recognises the concerns when it hits individuals or, like its withholding tax issue, not thinking through the consequences of its actions. What we know about this tax is that it is an ill-considered, incompassionate measure which will cause vast uncertainty and already is doing so amongst older people. As one pensioner spokesman has said, the Federal Government wants to ' squeeze every possible ounce out of pensioners'. As a representative of the Australian Council of Social Service said, the most objectionable feature of the assets test is that it is focused on only one group of the population, and here we have a form of capital tax on pensioners. Let us make it quite clear that we will not stand idly by and allow this Government to grind down the elderly. The current occupant of the Prime Ministership says both in this Parliament and elsewhere 'Let us not politicise the matter' as though one can govern by prime ministerial decree. To grind down people in the community, to come into the Parliament and then to say 'Let us not politicise the matter. We do not want any debate. You are not to criticise it' is the way in which he sought to muzzle people elsewhere. He seeks to muzzle people on matters that go to the heart of the very compassion and, indeed, livelihoood of certain people in the community. But there is a distinctly different approach by this quasi-emperor in his own dream world-we are not to have any debate or politicise this matter. We will not stand idly by and allow that to occur without criticism and action. We will not allow this Government to grind down the elderly. If any group in the community needs compassion, assistance and certainty from a government, it is the elderly; and every move this Government has made in their direction has had the completely opposite effect. It is a classic example of our old friend Hawkespeak : Say one thing and do another. As a result, the Opposition will move in the Senate that the whole issue of pensions and benefits be referred to a committee for detailed and comprehensive examination. Any government which places these sorts of burdens on the families and the elderly of Australia has totally lost touch with community concerns and needs; but this is characteristic of Labor governments all over Australia. They repeat again and again, with tiresome self- righteousness, their commitment to compassion; and then they hit the community with tax bills which slash standards of living. It seems to us to be a very curious way of helping Australians. This demolition of prosperity is not confined to families. As is well known, businesses will now suffer even more. The indexation of excises, coupled with the indexation of wages, means that these tax increases lock industry into ever- increasing cost structures. It became clear a few hours after the Treasurer presented the Budget that his estimates of revenue from the new excises on various petroleum products were seriously understated. He could not even do his sums. What sort of government is it that presents a Budget and says 'We will increase defence expenditure by almost 4 per cent' when, on looking at the tables which contain the implicit price deflator to give us the real increase, we see that the increase is 2.2 per cent? The Treasurer probably thinks that 2.2 equals 4. That is probably why he put 'about 4 per cent' in his Speech. I would like to know how 2.2 per cent is about 4 per cent. This is the man who has totally miscalculated his revenue. The excise on fuel oil will cost the aluminium industry alone $135m. The Treasurer has indicated to us that the total amount to be received will be $122m but the aluminium industry alone will get $ 135m. These increases, in difficult market conditions, could unquestionably put some alumina producers right out of business, as the Treasurer knows only too well. This is the incompetence of a government which imposes job destroying taxes, without knowing that it has done so! The Government had no knowledge that it had done it until the industry notified it. What does the Treasurer do? He gets officers from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Industry and Commerce together to try to sort it all out for him. Yet Australians everywhere are working on the figures that he has given them. As if those new taxes are not enough industry will suffer from a cut of about 7 per cent in real terms in industry assistance. How can industry be expected to become more competitive if it is caught in this sort of pincer movement? How can industry be expected to become more profitable? How on earth can industry be expected to increase investment and how can industry be expected to create more jobs? These are the measures which work against recovery. If the Government understood the realities of Australia today, if it were not in its own dream world, it would have acted to help, not hinder, industry. The Government is claiming that these sacrifices-they are real sacrifices indeed-are an integral part of its determination to share the burden equitably and fairly, to achieve, as the Government puts it, social justice. Is it social justice to thrust the greatest burden on the unemployed and hundreds of thousands of Australians living in fear of losing their jobs? Is it social justice to impose an additional tax burden which hits those on the lowest incomes hardest? Is it social justice to hit the elderly with measures which cause untold anxiety? Is it social justice to grab a total of $15 a week since 5 March from families trying to make ends meet? Is it social justice to increase by 38 per cent the tax burden of someone on $15,000 a year? What has transpired is that the Government has turned this Budget into a scoreboard of winners and losers, and the losers have outscored the winners by an appalling margin. Just as this Government has no political morality, to talk of social justice reveals it to have no social morality whatsoever. These sacrifices have nothing to do with social justice and tragically they have nothing to do with economic recovery and the creation of jobs. The sacrifices are made totally in vain. They will not bring down interest rates. They will not create permanent, secure jobs. They do nothing to reduce interest rates because the spending policies of this Government have led to a massive blow-out in the Budget deficit. The Government, for reasons of its own, seems proud of its deficit. It boasts that it is responsible. A different and very disturbing view is hidden in Budget Statement No. 2, and it is hidden from the Treasurer. He claimed he had read Budget Statement No. 2 line by line but the next day, when he went to the National Press Club, he had to admit that he did not agree with every word that was in it . He had read it line by line and had accepted responsibility for it, but when he was nailed with its consequences he said: 'I could not agree with every word of it'. It is fair dinkum Alice in Wonderland stuff. The Treasurer says one thing in this place and something else at the National Press Club. He takes a line from the Prime Minister who said one thing in New York but came back here and practised something else. This Budget is the antithesis of all that he told the American investors he would do. It is the old classic Hawkespeak again. Why is the Government so proud of its deficit? Why does it boast that it is responsible? I have said that hidden in Budget Statement No. 2 is a quite different and very disturbing view. At page 69 the document states: Net borrowing by the public sector in 1983-84 could increase by around 2 percentage points of GDP, to about 8 per cent, more than offsetting a likely further decline in net corporate borrowing. Even with a further rise in household net lending, such large shifts in sectoral funds flows might not be achievable without some pressure on interest rates. At page 70, the document states: The current fiscal stimulus is large by any standards. The forecasts assume that, in 1983-84 at least, it will be possible to finance the resultant public sector borrowing requirement without significant- I emphasise the word 'significant'-- increases in the general level of interest rates. At a time when families desperately need lower housing interest rates to maintain their standards of living and businesses need lower interest rates to become more competitive and to increase investment, this incompetent Government has introduced a Budget which, by its own admission, will do nothing to bring down nominal interest rates and will actually increase real interest rates. We always knew there would be an increase in real interest rates but now we learn that even nominal interest rates will rise. Let there never be any doubt that high interest rates cost jobs. The Budget deficit of $8.3 billion, representing 4.7 per cent of gross domestic product, nearly reaches the disastrous Whitlam Government's record. It is even higher than that of France at the height of the Mitterand folly, a self-admitted folly. What is still more serious is that the deficit will not go away. The Government admits that when it states: . . . the structural component of the 1983-84 Budget deficit will increase substantially . . . * * * * Structural Budget deficits . . . provide an indication of the prospective size of future deficits after the economy has emerged from recession. We know that the big deficit is here to stay; we know that high taxes are here to stay; and we know that high interest rates are here to stay. The Hawke Government is creating the same growing deficit which was the hallmark of the Whitlam years and it will remain like an albatross around the necks of home buyers and small businessmen. A government which understood their needs and understood the needs of the community would not cause this hardship. How high will the deficit be next year or the year after? We can be sure of only one thing. The philosophy of the Labor Party, not to mention the power brokers of the Caucus, will ensure that the deficit will grow and not shrink. That famous figure of $8.3 billion was not achieved as a result of a careful assessment of spending priorities; it was not the result of a considered assessment of the degree of fiscal stimulation needed at the time of the Budget; it was set months ago as a result of negotiations between the numerous factions of the Labor Party . The Government showed a quite extraordinary preference for doing a deal with its own left wing before doing a deal with Australia. The Government named it months ago when the growth rate was allegedly 0.5 per cent and sticks to it when it admits that the growth rate is 3 per cent. The Treasurer knows the truth, and that is why he squirms right now. On 24 June he admitted that. He stated: . . . the $8.5 billion illustrative deficit I used in the Summit-- This is the Treasurer speaking- would be far more stimulatory in the context of a more strongly growing economy than it was at the time I presented it. That is straight talking from the Treasurer. As I have said, at the time of the National Economic Summit Conference his growth forecast for 1983-84 was 0.5 per cent. Now it is 3 per cent. If the Treasurer thought $8.5 billion provided the right balance of positive stimulation in April, I wonder whether in his heart he really believes that $8.5 billion is dangerously excessive now. If intellectual integrity is our guide, he has to admit that the figure is too big. While all Australians are having to make sacrifices under this rapacious Government, their sacrifices unquestionably will do nothing to reduce unemployment. This Budget fails totally to raise the hopes of the nearly 900,000 men, women and young Australians-including over 100,000 discouraged workers-who will be out of work this year. It can only exacerbate the fears of the hundreds of thousands of Australians who live in fear of losing their jobs. The Age editorial of 24 August stated: This Budget offers no early return to the dignity of secure employment. Yet reducing unemployment was the solemn commitment of this Government before the election. The creation of 500,000 jobs over three years was the commitment of the Treasurer at the Premiers Conference. That promise was just a cruel trick on the unemployed and a cheap electoral gimmick to deceive those who believed the false promises of this Government. As I have already pointed out, the Government now admits that unemployment will 'edge up' by half a per cent in 1983-84 and that the numbers in the dole queue will increase by 26 per cent in 1983-84. It now seems possible that unemployment could be 90,000 higher by mid-1984. This is the Government that associated itself with a Premier who said: 'What we have to be about is jobs, jobs, jobs'. The only person who has been dinkum about this has been the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who said that unemployment would continue to rise. The Prime Minister takes the opposite course and continues to deceive. The Government knows that to create 500,000 permanent jobs over three years would require growth rates of over 5 per cent per annum, it knows that it would require increases in employment of over 200,000 per annum and it knows that only once in the history of this country has the economy been able to generate over 200,000 jobs in one year. That promise of 500,000 jobs is now exposed as a blatant fraud. To cover up the fraud the Treasurer has tried, in the Budget, to juggle the figures. He knows that, at the very least, 50,000 of his alleged new jobs in 1983-84 are temporary jobs in job creation schemes. Yet he persists in the misleading impression that these are lasting jobs. This Government knows that if the economy and employment are to recover Australian industry has to be made more competitive. Yet the Government seems more intent on making Australian industry even more uncompetitive than it already is. It supports a 4.3 per cent wage increase this year in the face of the 70 per cent of Australians who support the continuation of the wage pause; it supports full wage indexation, whereas other countries continue to moderate wage demands. Key industry organisations have given the Government very clear warnings indeed. The Metal Trades Industry Association has warned that tens of thousands of jobs will be lost in the rest of this year and that the only road to recovery is through becoming more competitive. But the Government chooses to ignore these business realities. It has never recognised the importance of competitiveness to industry generating more jobs. At the national wage hearing the Hawke Government's counsel made the following extraordinary statement: In any economic circumstances marginal firms or industries will experience economic difficulties. This is part of the normal process of growth and re- adjustment within the economy. The Government sees no compelling reason why these firms or industries should be subsidised by a wage system. The Government gives these so-called marginal firms no chance to compete; it attacks their viability and survival with wage increases and higher taxes and charges. So much for a government which claims to understand business in a competitive world. I have said time and time again, the reality is that we will not get more jobs unless we get back to allowing industry to make more profit and become more competitive. Honourable members opposite have always regarded profits as some accountant's form of leprosy. The Government will screw them down even further. It puts to one side, as a consequence of its own dogma, the profits-jobs nexus. Unless business can become profitable again, it cannot take on more employees, let alone keep the employees in its own ranks. This Government talks of creating jobs. It lifts a small number of people out of the dole queue, returning them again some six months later. The Government keeps alleging that it is creating permanent jobs, but they are only temporary jobs. What is required is a return to a competitive environment so that this country can get moving in conditions of growth and conditions of develoment with a government that openly espouses and acknowledges the need for the creation of wealth rather than a government that, through a Prime Minister, says it is going to tax wealth. At the time of one of the worst economic recessions, when every encouragement should be given to people to improve their lot, he is to do yet another examination to slug them further. Let us not talk about further taxes aimed at wealth at a time when what we really need is a government creating a climate for the very conditions to create wealth. It is no wonder this Government has demanded sacrifices and yet done nothing to solve our fundamental economic problems. Its total incompetence is a clear product of the totally inadequate way the Budget has been formulated. First, there has been a very serious lack of effective consultation within the community. The previous Government each year consulted over 100 different groups or organisations before putting together its various Budgets. It did this for very good reason. The Budget is the Government' s most important economic statement. A government genuinely sensitive to the concerns of the community as a whole consults the community before determining its economic policy. A government which professes to be bringing Australians together would consult Australians before determining its economic policy. The Labor Government has abandoned those procedures and replaced them with its Economic Planning Advisory Council. There was no consultation with the young, with women or with Australian families which have to pay the bills for the Government's spending programs. Until recently there was no consultation with small business which provides over 70 per cent of Australia's private sector jobs. The Government has turned its back on all these people. What is more, the Government's consultations with EPAC which, I might say, came before its all important first Budget, were absolutely perfunctory. The Economic Planning Advisory Council met little more than a month ago. It first met after most detailed decisions on the Budget had already been taken. It first met long after the Government had committed itself to a $8.3 billion deficit and a return to full wage indexation made retrospective to January this year. Secondly, Ministers, and in particular, the Prime Minister, have been totally preoccupied throughout the budgetary gestation period with crises of their own making. When they should have been developing an integrated approach to economic management the most senior Ministers have been before a royal commission explaining their involvement in a government scandal. The result is a Budget which lacks coherence, detailed consideration and necessary sensitivity to its impact on both business and families. No wonder the former Labor leader, the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and a member of the Government' s Cabinet committee on the economy has said with characteristic candour: To the extent I've understood what's been going on I support pretty much what's being done. It is little wonder, if a senior Cabinet Minister and former Treasurer is unsure of what has been going on, that the rest of Australia is absolutely bamboozled. Our own Treasurer cannot even get his sums right. I have already said that this Budget ignores the real needs of the Australian economy. Our basic objective must be sustained economic growth. That is the Liberal and National Party approach. Only through growth will jobs be created. Only through growth will we be able to generate greater prosperity to help the needy. To achieve higher growth we must create a flexible economy in which Australians are able to respond to new and ever-changing opportunities. We must reduce both inflation and inflationary expectations to levels which do not threaten our international competitiveness and investment. We need wages growth which is consistent with industry's capacity to sell, not consistent with this Government's capacity to sell out. This means short term restraint in exchange for greater sustained growth and greater long term prosperity for all Australians. We need a resurgence in consumer confidence and, therefore, spending and economic growth. This will require lower interest rates, more secure employment prospects and lower, not higher, taxes. We need a resurgence in business investment. We will not get it through this Budget. This will require expectations of increased returns on investment-that is, profits based on expected higher consumer demand and lower costs, especially wages and interest rates, and confidence in responsible economic policies. If we get these five factors right we will be able to build on the brighter prospects for growth which, honourable members should remember, have appeared because of a resurgence in economic activity in the United States of America; because of the breaking of the drought; because of the impact of the wages pause; and because of the impact of last year's tax cuts. This Budget and the Government's other economic policy initiatives in no sense provide a coherent strategy capable of achieving these objectives. It does nothing to get the vital engines of growth into any gear let alone into top gear . The Labor Party talks about economic growth but it does not seem to understand that there cannot be any growth if Government insists on taxing ambition, enthusiasm and achievement-the very things which create growth and greater prosperity for community benefit. If we want to go forward as a country we need to focus on the creation of more prosperity. If we want to stimulate the Australian economy we have to provide incentives for Australian people. Yet in this Budget the Government has done the exact opposite. It has killed incentive by heavy taxation. But, of course, that is the Labor approach. It does not understand the basic principle that, if an economy is to grow, people have to be given a chance to get ahead. They have to be given a chance to take advantage of the opportunities we have for sustained recovery. A good Budget would have made the most of those opportunities. This Budget ensures that they are missed. This Government just does not understand the needs of the community; it does not understand the needs of families; it does not understand the needs of businesses; and it does not understand the very real needs of Australia. What is required is the very reverse of what has transpired through this Budget. We need increased consumer spending, increased confidence, increased profitability and an increased awareness by the Government of a need for compassion towards those in real need. Instead of the taxing, the slugs and the constant breaking of promises we want a return to programs that will look after the needs of the community, the families, the businesses and the very real needs of Australia. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(5.53) —We have just seen an example of desperation politics at its worst. Let me just take up one of the most recent points that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) made when he said that what this Government was on about was taxing enthusiasm, initiative, excitement and enterprise. If we were interested in taxing those particular commodities and if we applied that tax to the people who sit behind the Leader of the Opposition , we would have to give them all a rebate. Indeed, the desperation of the Leader of the Opposition's speech was matched only by the dispirited appearances on the faces of those-in those non-seried-ranks that sit behind him. But, of course, unlike most of his colleagues, he is very practised in recent times at criticising Budgets. This is the second Budget in three years that this man has taken to task. This is the second Budget in three years that this man has tried to attack and demolish. On the first occasion a couple of years ago it was because he was interested in scurrying into the office of the Leader of his Party. He wanted to become Prime Minister without any concern at all for the fortunes or unity of his own party or, indeed, for the fortunes of the Government of which he was often a member. Now he is trying to demolish this Budget at a time which is calculated to destroy the emerging recovery which is so apparent within the economy, and which this Leader of the Opposition so dislikes, because he knows that as this Government will bring about a recovery he and his colleagus will spend an increasing amount of time on the Opposition benches. Of course, this is the man who has the support of 25 per cent of the Australian people. One in four Australians believe that this man ought to be the Prime Minister. That is hardly even a pig in a poke. This man has no credibility. The reason he has no credibility is that he is seen by everyone in Australia as nothing but a political butterfly. He has dabbled in one area or another. He spent years dabbling in foreign affairs. More recently he decided to dabble briefly in industrial relations until he was out of the Government altogether. He then came back to dabble briefly in industry and commerce. Tonight we have seen him dabbling unconvincingly in economic policy, in fiscal policy, which underlies this Budget. What one has to remember is that the Leader of the Opposition's former dabbling , his former flitting from policy area to policy area and his history over the last seven years, has meant that during those seven years he was either not in the Government or not in the country. He has had very little to do with the important task of putting Budgets together. In fact, his most distinguished contribution to the Budgets of his own party was, in fact, to attack its penultimate Budget. In the context of attacking that Budget one of the points which he made repeatedly was that there was a need to introduce a means test on welfare entitlements. What a conversion we have seen in the last two years. Two years ago he was urging upon his party-the Government of which he had more or less been a member from time to time-the need to introduce means tests on welfare benefits. But tonight he spent an inordinate amount of his speech attacking the fact that this Government has had the political courage and the commitment to social equity and economic responsibility to move in the direction which a couple of years ago he thought was so commendable-that is, to ensure that where the Government is involved in extensive and increasingly large payments of welfare benefits, those benefits go to the areas of greatest need. It is not a question of taking away benefits from those who do not need them, although we have done that and will continue to do so. If people do not need the welfare benefits they should not get them. But more importantly, the Government has moved in a very decisive and significant way to increase the benefits of those who desperately need them-the ranks of the unemployed, which swelled so alarmingly and monstrously under the policies of the former Government. They are in greatest need and are to be the first recipients of the reallocation of priorities by this Government. The unemployed will receive the first substantial increases in welfare payments under this Government. One of the very first acts of this Government was to increase the payments to single, unemployed people. In November we will do it again. Indeed, that is one of the hallmarks of this Budget. We are involved in a very serious re-ordering of priorities to ensure that where there is a need for governments to provide assistance to those in need we will provide it. Mr Hodgman —What about what you have done to superannuation for airline pilots. Mr DAWKINS —The honourable member for Denison apparently seems to have some hang up about airline pilots. He apparently wants to cosset the airline pilots, one of the most privileged groups in the community. This one-in-four leader of the Opposition realises, of course, that he is no longer directly able to wreak the sort of havoc which he and his colleagues were able to bring about in the economic destruction of this country over the last seven years. So he has decided to embark on a policy of economic scare tactics. We saw it before the election, when he started predicting a devaluation. One of the most economically irresponsible acts of anyone involved in public life is to predict a devaluation under circumstances where there was already a run on the dollar, when there was already a massive outflow of foreign transactions and when our overseas reserves were being plundered. Yet at that time, when what was needed was a period of political stability and calm, it was the Leader of the Opposition no less who was exciting anticipation of a devaluation. Of course, we saw what happened as a result of his actions. Tonight we see him making other predictions about what will happen in the future. He is predicting higher inflation, unemployment and interest rates. What that can only be designated to do-the only aim is those sorts of predictions-is to abort the emerging recovery which is occurring in this country. This Leader of the Opposition has absolutely no commitment to this country or to its economic welfare. Of course, the major reason for that is that he does not understand the first thing about it. In making those predictions about higher inflation rates, he said: The Budget Papers state that 'the consumer price index could rise by about 7.5 per cent'. That is after the effects of the Medicare scheme are taken in account , which on the Government's own figuring, will artificially reduce the CPI by 3 per cent. By anyone's arithmetic that means an underlying rate of inflation of around 10 per cent. I do not know whose arithmetic it is. The former member for Macarthur must have had a part in putting together those particular statistics. They are about as shonky as his own record in Sydney business. The point is that the Leader of the Opposition has a fundamental misunderstanding about the effects on the consumer price index of the Medicare changes. Those changes to Medicare will impact so late in this financial year that the cost will not be anything like that predicted. Instead of being 3 per cent-as he added on to the consumer price index implicit in the Budget Papers-it will be something like 0.5 per cent. That was only one of his grosser inaccuracies. He also talked about defence spending and how the real rate of defence spending would not be as high as had been indicated in the Budget Papers. What he fails to understand is that of course there is a different inflation rate and deflator used in relation to defence spending. Because our defence spending is mainly on overseas purchases, the prices of which are affected by inflation rates overseas , of course a different deflator will have to be used. In relation to his predictions about growth, the honourable member said at the time of the Economic Summit that a 0.5 per cent growth rate was predicted. The Economic Summit scenario which the Government favoured at that time predicted a growth rate of about 2.7 per cent. Now we are predicting a growth rate of about 3 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition seems to have a fundamental incapacity for grasping the most simple economic realities. But, of course, he is undeniably desperate. He has had to contend with the crescendo of accolades which have screeched from the headlines of major newspapers, from comments by business, unions and so on. This Budget has been acclaimed overwhelmingly as appropriate for the circumstances of the Australian economy and the sort of Budget which is most likely to lead to the economic recovery which we all-except apparently the Leader of the Opposition-so desperately seek. The one discordant note upon which he was able to grasp in order to criticise the Budget was that of Eric Risstrom. Eric Risstrom has built up in years gone by a very distinguished reputation as a commentator, particularly on taxation matters. Unfortunately on this occasion Eric Risstrom got it wrong. But Eric Risstrom remains the one source of authentic critique upon which the Leader of the Opposition was able to rely in relation to his attack on the Budget. Apparently he had not realised that at 1.17 this afternoon Eric Risstrom ate crow by stating: I did calculate incorrectly a 16 per cent increase for a particular man on $15, 000, the example I homed in on . . . I am extraordinarily sorry about it. It is a pity that he has apparently been so busy since he discovered his computing error that he was not able to call the Leader of the Opposition and say: 'Hang on a minute, I would not rely on my assessment of the facts of this Budget if I were you, beause I have had to climb down; I have had to admit I was wrong'. Despite that, Eric Risstrom remains the one authentic, although, unfortunately on this occasion wrong, source of support for the Leader of the Opposition in his attack on the Budget. We would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would have spent some time telling us how he would have put together this Budget. He spent a lot of time telling us that we did not consult with the business community. I must say that that is a bit of a joke. Never in the history of this country have so many people been assembled in this chamber who were representative of all aspects of the Australian community. In fact, the report of the National Economic Summit Conference was debated in this place this afternoon. Never has there been such a systematic, effective and acclaimed attempt by any government to consult with all interested areas of the economy before putting together a Budget. Not only do we have the advantage of the advice we received from the National Economic Summit; we now as well have in place the Economic Planning Advisory Council which provides a permanent source of advice to the Government from the very areas of the economy which the Leader of the Opposition said we had spurned on this occasion. It is just as well that we did not ask him for his advice on how to put together this Budget because he is bereft of ideas, as was amply demonstrated by his speech today. At no point in his speech was an indication given of the alternative policies which he thought should be pursued in relation to the dificulties which confront the Government. He seems to have an extraordinarily selective memory. He was able to remember what happened in the Whitlam days. He was able to search his memory and grasp a more or less irrelevant statistic from the collection of spaghetti which exists in his head in order to make an apparently unfavourable comparison about the outlay side of this Budget. The Leader of the Opposition must realise that many honourable members, and many people in Australia, have a much better short term recall with regard to the economic fortunes and the performance of government in this country. The people of Australia know what a hopeless inheritance we accepted at the time of the election in March this year. We were prepared to take up the challenge which was presented to us on that occasion. The inheritance was dishonestly portrayed before the election by the now discredited former Treasurer who stated that the projected deficit for 1983-84 would be about $6 billion. In fact, the most recent estimate of what that deficit would have been, had no changes been made by this Government, was a figure of over $10 billion. That was the inheritance of this Government; an inheritance which had seen the economy going backwards; an inheritance which had seen unemployment and inflation growing and government spending ballooning out of control. I will give an example of what happened in the last Budget-a Budget for which the present Opposition is totally responsible. On Budget night 12 months ago the projected deficit for 1982-83 was a little over $1,600m. By the end of 1982-83 it had grown to $4 1/2 billion. Defence outlays increased by $160m, unemployment benefits increased by a staggering $680m, and public debt interest payments increased by $130m. Pay-as-you-earn tax payments fell by $130m on the estimated figures. Attempts to recoup evaded tax had fallen by $175m on the estimates that were made in the context of that Budget or shortly thereafter. That Budget fell to pieces before it had even passed through the Houses of this Parliament. We had to pick up and run with that inheritance. Somehow or other we had to hone it into a form which would do something useful for this country and which would bring about the sort of recovery which we sought. In fact, notwithstanding a deficit of over $10 billion staring us in the face, we were able to introduce programs of our own worth nearly $2 1/2 billion-programs which were a direct result of the policies we had made at the time of the election, the implementation of which we knew was crucial to the fortunes of economic development in the ensuing 12 months. In the short time we have been in government we have been able to put into effect our employment creation scheme. We have been able to put into effect a greatly expanded spur to the housing industry by supporting first home owners and by directly providing additional funds to the home building industry through the States and in other areas. We have been able to put into place our Medicare arrangements which will come into effect on 1 February next year. Those are three major commitments, all crucial to the objectives of this Government and the Australian people and all absolutely in line with the promises and undertaking we made at the time of the election. We were able to do so by re- ordering the shabby priorities of the former Government. We were able to cut $1.8 billion out of the former Government's expenditure in order to make room for our own programs. Therefore, for a net increase in total outlays of a little over $600m, we were able to bring into effect those very important-crucially important-reforms in the areas of job creation, housing and the provision of health care. As well, in the Budget context, we have been able to provide substantial additional support for those people who are so desperately in need, the real victims of the seven years of Fraser-the unemployed-who for the first time for a long time will receive a real increase in payments. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(6.13) —The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) thinks he is still in opposition because instead of defending and promoting the Budget, he spent 95 per cent of his time digging up slurs against other honourable members in this place-people who have a great deal more experience and ability than him. I will begin by looking at his contribution to this Parliament in the time that he has been here and the judgment of his Leader of that contribution. I refer in particular to two Bills he has brought into this Parliament, both relating to taxation. They were so good that his Leader took taxation administration from him, and no wonder. He showered on this side of the House all the hate and all the retribution he wanted to visit on the taxpayers of Australia-those people whom Cliff Dolan says have all these hidden profits. In relation to the first Bill, when the evidence of the jobs he was going to destroy hit the world his Leader and others were praying that Brian Harradine would throw that legislation out of the Senate. They breathed sighs of relief when he did. They were in big trouble with it because the Minister does not interest himself with legislation but with retribution. Having done that and having had the current Treasurer (Mr Keating) bring that legislation back in now that the Ministers tail is tucked between his legs, now that he has showed his total incompetence, what was the other piece of legislation he gave us, with the claim that it was all the idea of honourable members on this side of the House? If it was our idea we sold him a pup, but he brought the withholding legislation into this House. He was the author of the withholding legislation. In fact, he did as his colleagues have done with all these things in the Budget. They took the total advice of the bureaucracy because they cannot understand. Even when persons in this House, myself included , said to him, 'As it now appears, if you bring this legislation in a person who has a contract is a tax risk and a person who handles numerous small amounts of cash he is not' he did not take any notice of that. What has happened to his legislation? Firstly, the Government is highly embarrassed. Secondly, it has had, day by day, to change its opinion. Day by day the Commissioner of Taxation who wrote the legislation for the Government has had to bring out new interpretations that no longer reflect what was included in the legislation that the Minister brought down as the grand scheme to catch tax loaders. Not one piece of that legislation will catch tax evaders. As I said, the only people to whom it will address itself are people who have a contract, people whose remuneration is clearly documented. That is how smart this man is. I do not know what is in his head but I have come to one conclusion: He talks so fast because the air runs backwards to fill the vacuum behind his eyes. That is about where we go with him. He got his reputation as a talker and as a destroyer of people's reputations. Mr Dawkins —I have not finished with you yet. Mr TUCKEY —I have not finished with you. I have a beauty for you before the season is over, so do not let us worry about it. We have got to know a little bit more about you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The Minister will cease interjecting and the honourable member for O'Connor will address the Chair. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let us look further at the Minister's reference of just a few minutes ago to the re-allocation of priorities. There is a simple definition of the re-allocation of priorities in this Budget-pensioners are bad and the unemployed are good-and the Minister went to great lengths to tell us all about it. The pensioner is to be persecuted. He will be persecuted by this Budget and by the mini-Budget. He will be persecuted by income tests and asset tests. The income test was in existence before for those under 70 years of age. They had enough difficulty with it as they saw their fringe benefits disappear because they had an increased, inflated, created dollar or two of investment. We all knew about it; we all knew that it was wrong but this Budget has made it worse. It has now created a situation in which a person can have non -income producing assets, not by contrivance. One would think that a student of the Roseworth Agricultural College would know something about the agricultural sector. He would know of the situation of the owners of highly valued farms-farms they have cleared and created with their own efforts but which have now achieved high levels of value, mainly through inflation, and on which they do not want to realise; they do not want the money because they are family farms-who are precluded by their age from gaining a living by their efforts from their farms and who have gone away and retired to a modest home. Their names are still on the title deed and their children are now attempting to earn a living from that property. In recent times, as we know, because of both seasonal and economic conditions that has not been easy. Many farmers have had difficulty in feeding their immediate family, their own children, and seeing that they gained an education. But under this new deal, contributed to no doubt and supported moments ago by the student from Roseworthy , what do we have? Those people must starve because they will no longer qualify for a pension and there is not enough income from the property to assist them or to allow their children to feed them. If that is a wonderful idea and if that is the Government's re-ordering of priorities, let us talk about it. The Government has handed out about $14 for the unemployed. I too sympathise with the genuine unemployed, but let us think of the opportunities for abuse in the area. I checked the situation today with the Department of Social Security. As under the old arrangements under these new arrangements an employed person who earns $40,000 in a financial year, if he still has it and choses not to make it an income producing asset, can still get unemployment relief. I can give the House example after example of young people employed by businesses that I own purposely leaving that business after nine months. They have added their savings from that period of work to the unemployment relief they know they can get for the next three or four months. They can live very well, thank you. I do not say that those circumstances should be the basis for taking unemployment relief away from those who genuinely need it. What I am saying is that when the Government re-ordered its priorities it might have thought of the abuses that can be practised by young, able bodied people for whom work exists in many places. But, no, the Government had a shot at the pensioners. The Minister had a little talk about it and he said: 'Well, I do not think many of those pensioners with assets vote Labor. Why should we worry about them? There are more votes to be obtained cynically by paying out to the unemployed'. I doubt that the Government had any true intentions of helping people. It needed some money to buy some votes and it took it off the pensioners. Not too many Australians would approve of that action. The Australian people still believe that the aged of our society have made their contribution and are entitled to help. Mr Cunningham —You are misleading the public. Mr TUCKEY —I am not misleading the public; I am laying out the situation as it exists. The honourable member is a farmer and he tells me that he does not know what will happen to these people. How much income comes off a million dollar farm in bad years? A farmer may well have $1m. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said: 'We will be very generous. You can have assets worth up to $170,000'. In times of inflation a farmer would not get much income out of that when there is nothing growing on the ground. But that is the Minister's contribution. That is his re-ordering of priorities. What is this Budget all about anyway? Someone called it the Clayton's Budget-the Budget you have when you are not having a Budget-but I think a few people are starting to back off that position as they start to read the fine print. There are plenty of bad messages for the rural sector. The mini-Budget was brought in in an effort to take some of the less popular things away and out of the public mind. The Government rushed it in in May and closed down the Parliament so there could not be proper discussion and questioning of those decisions. One of them, of course, the superannuation decision, was another attack on the thrifty. Those people who do something for themselves in terms of their retirement came round to haunt the Government a little. I had a bit of a laugh when the pilots put on a strike because for the first time in the Prime Minister's career he has discovered that a strike may be an inalienable right for a builder's labourer but it is not for a pilot. I just do not know how the Government comes to differentiate between those people. Let us get down to the issue. What did the Government do with its mini-Budget? It brought down most of the unsavoury things and hoped they would go away. But where are they? They are in this document. There are revenue items and cuts of expenditure within this Budget. Mr Bilney —Hear, hear! Mr TUCKEY —I am pleased to hear that from a farmer. I hope the honourable member publicises that view in his own electorate. The facts of life are that the burden to the rural sector is about $400m. One can make that calculation fairly easily. I wonder how anybody on the Government side could believe he or she understood the Budget when the Government is about $3m out in collections in one area, namely, fuel excise, which has been a favourite area for excises. What has the Government done with fuel excise? Firstly-this shows a total misunderstanding of the problems in rural areas-the Government has decided, so that it can claw back $2m, that the fuel freight subsidy will now stop at a retail outlet. Retail outlets in some remote areas can be 200 or 300 miles away from the point of consumption. In fact, retail outlets often are not in existence to the extent of, say, wholesale outlets. But the Government does not understand that. That simply means that obviously people, in remote places will be the most disadvantaged. They are the ones who will be hit. The city mentality comes into this. One never hears the Prime Minister talk about distillate. The Prime Minister talks about petrol. That is all he knows. He has forgotten the price of distillate because since he was elected Prime Minister he has never bought a gallon of it and he does not care. He never talks about tractor tyres or truck tyres. He talks about Falcon tyres. That is the limit of his urban mentality. In fact, he says that $3 sales tax on a Falcon tyre does not matter. The $33 sales tax on a truck tyre means the difference between somebody making a living and going broke. That is not all that has happened with fuel. The Government has slipped in a beauty. It has said-it is a catchy phrase in the context of a Budget Speech-that it will not increase the rebate. The suggestion is that somebody will not be charged more. The fact is that, as of this morning, farmers will now pay 1.5c a litre in tax for the distillate needed to run all their agricultural equipment. This fuel has always been free of excise. One can add to that the fact that the farmers who use all that equipment, which never uses the road, are already contributing 2c a litre to the Australian bicentennial road development funding, which is at least returned to the community by way of road improvements because we locked those funds into a trust fund. Let us face it; if we have not we could have relied on the Government whizzing that off too for its welfare budget. The facts are that the Government's welfare budget will consume almost exactly the entire amount of income tax revenue. I do not know, but it appears to me that there will not be much money left for all the productive and constructive things that might get this country going forward in a way that would help us all. That is not the end of the situation as it affects the rural sector which is one of the few sectors that will get the Government out of its trouble, if it has not destroyed its chances completely with this Budget. Honourable members opposite tell us about increases in employment. They say what a wonderful job they have done. They know they have done nothing with their damp squib Budget. In fact, the last promise which has been broken was probably the classic. The Government did not even keep its promise to make the Budget tough. Mr Cunningham —You made up that statement. Mr TUCKEY —No, I did not. I am quoting the Prime Minister, who said that the Budget would be tough. The Government did not even take the really tough options . It did with the rural sector because it knows the rules there. Country people do not support the Labor Party and they do not trust it. They remember what it did from 1972 to 1975, so the Government has just written them off. That was about the only area in which the Government was tough. As I have said, it could not even keep its promise of a tough Budget. This Budget is the breaking of the ultimate promise. Where is the brave new world? How is this Budget any different in any significant, macroeconomic way? Where is the new direction? There is no direction. No great macroecnomic decisions have been made by the Government other than a decision to buy its way out of trouble by borrowing $8 billion against the future of those kids to whom honourable members opposite took the time to talk to yesterday. One day all those young people will have to pick up the $8 billion tab and the $20 billion tab the Government will have next year. Let us look at the percentages of gross national product. What are we up to? Something like 31.6 per cent of gross national product will be consumed by this Government. When do honourable members opposite think that will finish? The deficit, in terms of percentage of gross national product, has been exceeded only once and that was by Gough Whitlam. It was exceeded by only about 0.1 or 0. 2 per cent. That means that this Government is starting where he left off. It will have all the same results for Australia in time. The Government cannot do that. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8.30 p.m. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, I now continue and complete a speech that I commenced before the sitting was suspended. I have only five minutes in which to complete it but I have not yet addressed myself to some of the things in this Budget. It is a Budget of the super-salesman; the super-salesman who dreamt up the National Economic Summit Conference, and who has yet to learn about after- sales service. This Budget is now in the arena of after-sales service. I do not think that he knows how to deliver. Who did he choose as an assistant? He chose someone who stuck with one shadow portfolio for seven years and took all that time to learn it. He is showing absolute and total inadequacy in his new portfolio. He is totally committed to the bureaucracy. He has no chance. This morning he was asked a Dorothy Dix question and had to read the answer. He read it word for word. He got someone to write out the words for him. He cannot cope. He does not have the necessary six and a half years that he had with minerals, energy and resources to learn about it. That is the other message for the taxpayers and people of Australia; we have a super-salesman who knows nothing about after-sales service. He did not have a very good product to start with. He marketed it excellently, but it is falling apart and he does not know how to look after it in this environment. The burden of an $8,000m deficit on our children and grandchildren is no way to do it. What is that deficit all about? We heard it this morning. The name of Keynes was raised. Honourable members should remember one thing about-- Mr Barry Jones —It is pronounced Kaynes. Mr TUCKEY —The honourable gentleman can have him as Kaynes or Keynes; I do not care. Mr Barry Jones —There is only one way. Mr TUCKEY —I will tell the honourable gentleman this: He knew who I was talking about. Mr Keynes was offering theories in relation to the economic problems at the time when our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was born, and our Prime Minister is fast approaching the age when most people retire. I hope that he is approaching an age when he will retire, because I do not think that Australia can afford him for very long. Keynes and other such people had those sorts of things-- Government members interjecting- Mr TUCKEY —I am not worried about the label; let us forget that. Honourable members are making a big fuss over nothing. We are talking about the future of Australia, and they want to talk about how one should pronounce a name. It is typical of the mentality of the academics that now run the Australian Labor Party, because they deserted the working man years ago. We found one working man on their side of the House the other night. We have two tonight. Things are looking up. Let us look at the other issue that seems to be a matter of great pride with the Labor Government-its job creation schemes. One of the most remarkable things I have seen in this place was when the honourable member for Wills, the present Prime Minister, entered the chamber one day and would not respond, as he normally does to my interjections. He was making a speech on job creation. I thought that I was teasing him and holding up to him one of the great tragedies of the Whitlam Government. I said, 'Why do you not return to the regional employment development scheme', and he would not bite. That was because three- quarters of the way through his written speech he said he was all for the RED scheme. The difference between the Labor Government's policies and our policies is the difference between job creation schemes and job creation projects. We were going down the track of giving people jobs and things that they could use afterwards. Labor members will have little bus shelters and goodness knows what around the place. They will all fall down, as most of the RED scheme projects did. That is all we shall get from their type of job creation. They have thrown out the water schemes. They want to have water in urban areas and country towns, but they do not know how they will get the water there because they will have no water storage. They will not have a railway line that might revolutionise transportation throughout Australia. No, they want their tuppenny-ha'penny little job creation schemes. That is what this Budget is all about. That is why it will fail, as it will fail in so many other ways. It is an attack on pensioners. It is an attack on young people who have to pay the debt of $8,000m. If that is all the Government has to offer Australia, we shall see how the people judge it in a very short time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! Before I call the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman), I remind the House that the honourable member is about to deliver his maiden speech and, as such, he is due for the usual courtesies. Mr STEEDMAN(Casey)(8.35) —I thank you for that courtesy, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have the honour of representing the electors of Casey in this Parliament. Casey is an electorate on the outer eastern fringe of Melbourne. It has been called a litmus seat, and since its inception in 1968 it has always been held by the Government. Since Casey goes to whichever party forms the government of the day, I envisage a long parliamentary career for myself. The seat of Casey was held with great distinction between 1972 and 1975 by Race Mathews, currently a Minister in the Cain Labor Government in Victoria. I hope to be able to change the record of the last seven years of inactivity under the Liberals, and I thank the electors of Casey for their support. Casey is an electorate that has suffered from what I call the second wave in terms of economic casualties. The unemployment boom under the Fraser Government' s disastrous monetarist policies first affected the blue-collar working class areas in the west of Melbourne, but as the malaise grew and the economy slumped, the unemployment base widened. Unemployment moved into areas that until then had been relatively unaffected by the social changes occurring in the industrial suburbs. Casey has a high proportion of the educated white-collar managerial class within its boundaries, and it was these people who began to feel the pinch during the 1981-82 recession. They began to understand directly the full meaning of the policies of the Liberal Government. The nightmare had become a reality and the rhetoric of a Prime Minster lashing out and blaming everyone except his Government for the disaster was not acceptable to the people of Casey. The McCarthyist scaremongering that the then Prime Minister substituted for a campaign only insulted the intelligence of these people and they rejected the man, his divisive policies and his discredited Government in their thousands. For the first time, the dominoes really did fall, and with the loss of Casey, Diamond Valley, Deakin, Chisholm and Flinders, the Liberals were left with only four metropolitan seats in the State once called the jewel in the Liberal crown. I now move on to a subject close to my heart-the trade union movement. I believe that those people in our society who are obliged to rely on the mass media or the statements of the Opposition for their knowledge of industrial relations might well be forgiven the impression that the average Australian employee spends more time in disputation than in work. They may be forgiven for thinking that a small group of union officials has absolute power over our economy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that the vast majority of union officials spend long and hard hours looking after the needs of their membership and trying to save them from the exploitation of some of our born-to-rule opponents who consider that the greatest evil to have befallen our society was the abandonment of the serf system. My occupation immediately before coming to this place was as an official with the Municipal Employees Union, often known affectionately as the garbos union. These are the people who know what it is like to be at the bottom of the socio- economic ladder. These and other workers are the people who know what it is like to pay a high rent or mortgage repayments and still try to bring up a family on a gross weekly income of $220. These are the people who in the country areas feel the lash of the cockies who control the councils and treat them as a sub- human species. These are the people fighting for a just and reasonable share of the resources of our society. These are the people who have been so cruelly brutalised and sold down the drain, and who have had their expectations shattered by successive Liberal governments. The sorts of conditions that workers had to endure before the advent of the union movement is a matter of record. I remind all honourable members here today , and Australian society in general, that the work conditions that they accept now as their right were fought for with great courage by the union movement in the face of fanatical opposition by conservative governments, the owners of capital and the media. The gains of 40 hours or less for the working week, holidays, holiday pay and loadings, health and safety conditions, and recreational facilities, are only a small part of a lifestyle which we now accept as our right. All of these measures had to be fought for by the unions- against people such as the honourable member for marihuana here. The union movement started in Australia in the 1930s, but it was the latter half of the nineteeth century that saw real growth in union membership and a demand for an eight-hour day. It was the political impotence of the trade unions that led in the 1890s to the formation of the Australian Labor Party and soon after, in 1904 , to the election of the world's first Labor Government. I now wish to look a bit more closely at the demonology of the union movement as propagated by our opponents and aided by a hostile Press. It should first be said that the media is not just on the side of business; it is big business. It takes its stand against the just claims of the union because its role is to maximise profits. The major shareholders in the media are the large conservative financial institutions, the banks and the insurance companies. The role of the media is to sell advertising space and time to advertisers. Its programs are designed to attract advertisements from big business. It obviously can also be affected by demands for wage increases and strike action. It is interesting to note that most people in our democratic society believe that a person has a right to withhold his labour; it is just that he is not allowed to strike. The perfect strike, of course, according to the media and the Opposition, should be held in the striker's own time rather than in the employer's time. It should be pointed out that, contrary to these distortions, the overwhelming majority of industrial disputation is solved within a day by consultation. Occasionally we have temporary stop pages for half a day to debate the issues, but rarely is there protracted action. Such actions, of course, are the ones that make newspaper headlines. These are the disputes that allow the media to squeeze the last drop of pathos by a selective portrayal of those inconvenienced . We read of a family, group or individual undergoing great hardship because of the actions of unionists. We do not hear about the plight of the unionists and their families. No one wants an industrial stoppage. The people who are hardest hit are the workers and their families. We hear of lost production and lost man hours, but it is interesting that large scale unrest in areas such as car manufacturing always seem to coincide with production gluts. Statements by motor manufacturers display surprising optimism in their calculation of the production which would have been achieved but for a stoppage. In setting a cash value to this lost production they tend to forget that they have been saved such costs as wages, materials and components. The cynic might suspect that in some circumstances a strike could even be provoked, for example, when an employer is faced with production difficulties such as dwindling orders on the books. It has long been noted that our political opponents, when in government, attempt and sometimes manage to provoke industrial action by the transport or power unions immediately prior to an election. It is also interesting to note that millions of working days are lost because of industrial accidents, often caused by the refusal of management to introduce even the most basic safety equipment. This also causes sharp increases in workers compensation premiums, an area of concern in many small businesses today. It is these issues that management and its advisers would do well to consider. It is also necessary to counter the mistaken belief that the unions actually cause disputation. Statistic after statistic proves that the majority of disputes are caused by management's inability to negotiate with the work force. In fact it is managerial incompetence. A glance at the latest statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics will confirm that it is management policy that is often at fault. It is impossible in this speech to cover properly the range of distortions that have been put about by conservative governments and the media in relation to the union movement. That will have to wait for another day. The reality is that in my lifetime we have not had many Labor governments. Apart from the war years and the period following that conflict, Labor has been in power for only three years since 1949. The burden of opposing the repressive conservative governments from Menzies to Fraser fell upon the union movement. It was the union movement, not the Parliament, which fought and achieved the conditions of work and wages of which Australians are so proud. The people of Australia owe a lot to the union movement and they should not be fooled by the continuous union bashing indulged in by the puppets of big business and the multinational interests. The working people of this country have a right to a good secure job, a decent wage and the expectation of a tranquil and productive retirement. I believe that a Labor politician should say straightforwardly to the electorate that industrial action is often the only defence workers have. We must let them know that a strike by labour is nowhere near as crippling to the economy as a strike by capital, and that social welfare for the poor costs much less than handouts to the rich. I now wish to make some comments about the way in which members of this Government can support workers and their representatives in a practical way in a time of economic recession and mass unemployment. The first thing that must be emphasised is that, far from being all powerful, trade unions in Australia suffer from a lack of resources and need considerable support simply to conduct the defence of their members' interests. Those interests do not stop with the conventional forms of industrial dispute or the understandable priority given to the maintenance of real living standards. As the Labor Party policy makes clear in many different areas, the interests of workers and trade unions extend to the controls they experience in their own working lives. They focus upon the powers that are exercised by management without democratic control. Industrial democracy is more than a paper commitment; it is vital for a decent life for Australian workers. Although the media may sensationally highlight strikes and work to rule actions, there are many other issues of corporate management and control that trade unionists need to understand and influence. In order to understand the work environment the trade union movement requires government assistance with the longer term problems of trade union education and research. As part of the prices and incomes support policies, the Government can show its commitment to industrial democracy by instituting an inquiry into industrial democracy and the barriers to its implementation. Such an inquiry requires the widest terms of reference. The greatest priority should be given to affording trade unionists at all levels an opportunity to contribute from their own experience and knowledge of working conditions. In this inquiry every attention should be paid to unions' needs for education officers and research facilities. Senior Labor Ministers have complained about the quality of Australian management. It is time we heard from the mouths of those who are subjected to the orders and directions of management. Then we may be given a perspective on industrial life in this country that we would otherwise never see or hear, let alone believe. Australian workers suffer from one of the least healthy and least inspected work environments in the Western world. The loss of days from industrial accidents and illness is often commented upon. What is less commented upon is the impact such an environment has on people's lives. ALP policy on these matters needs the most urgent efforts for implementation. In order to obtain union support there is no substitute for a display of immediate and effective action. In summary, as a Labor Government we have immense obligations to the people of this country to provide jobs and security and to ensure that all Australians have equal access to those services that only governments can provide, such as education, health, transport and housing. It is our obligation to provide the legislative framework to ensure that the men and women of this country can work in a safe and healthy environment, and that they have a meaningful participation in the decision-making processes at their place of work. It is our obligation to ensure that all members of our society have an opportunity to work, and I can only pray that the recent Budget will assist us in attaining our goal of full employment and equal opportunities for all. Finally, I wish to mention the obligations that we as Labor politicians have to the rank and file of our Party. For many years in the ALP the political process has been a frustrating and soul-destroying experience. We have not had the opportunity to sit on this side of the House for most of the years since Federation. The branch members of our Party have spent many years initiating, discussing, arguing and refining policies based on their experience and knowledge as working people from all walks of life and all levels of society. They have fought continuously against formidable odds to achieve one goal, control of the Treasury bench and a Federal Labor Government. Their faith in the parliamentary process must be renewed and revitalised after the scurrilous events of 1975 and seven years of Fraserism. This will be done only if we as a government implement the policies they have laboured so long and hard to formulate and if we use our powers as the elected Government to redistribute the wealth and resources of this country in favour of those whose need is the greatest. The people in the Labor movement have great expectations of their political representatives, whom they pre-selected for the Parliament and for whom they have worked so hard. We must not fail them nor fail the philosophies and aspirations of our Party. As members of Parliament we are only a small part of the political process, and we should note that the great figures from the Labor past are remembered because of their dedication to the policies of the Party, their ability to keep in touch with the rank and file, and their commitment to the principles of Caucus consultation. In this Parliament I am proud to join colleagues on this side of the House, who are worthy representatives of the labour movement. I am particularly proud of my female comrades, who have once and for all laid to rest the myth that women candidates cannot win mass support from the electorate. The blatant sexism that has existed in the past and resulted in many people of great talent being denied the same career opportunities as their male colleagues is, I hope, finally breaking down. Their contributions to the cause of women and the cause of peace have been amply demonstrated in the early months of this Parliament. Had they been in a position to implement the sentiments expressed in many of their maiden speeches about peace and arms control, we certainly would have seen fewer working class men marching off to battle to become fodder for the capitalist war machine. Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope those of us who have strong ties with the union movement and the working people of this country do not forget why we were elected to this Parliament. We will not turn our backs on the men and women of this country who have placed their lives and futures in our hands. Together with my parliamentary colleagues, I intend to continue the struggle on behalf of the men and women of this country who have been so disadvantaged by the last seven years of Liberal rule. As a Labor government we will work for the benefit of all Australians, not just for the benefit of large companies, tax avoiders and multinational interests. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(8.50) —I congratulate the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman) who has just made his maiden speech. I wish him well in his endeavours to rectify all those wrongs. I just hope that he can do it in three years. If this Budget were subject to the same scrutiny that any private enterprise prospectus or annual report is subject to-that is, by the National Companies and Securities Commission-I suspect that the whole of the Cabinet would be in gaol. I wish to put this Budget into some sort of perspective. Mr Steedman —Do I have the right to interject now? Sit down, you mug. Mr LUSHER —You are welcome. I have taken on better than the honourable member. I wish to put this Budget into some sort of perspective because it is Act IV in the Labor tragedy. Act I was the scene setter. The incoming government picked up the bogus forward estimate of the deficit and, at the same time, attempted to discredit the former Government and to condition the electorate to a large deficit. It was a tolerably good performance and the audience was dazzled by the new superstar. The Government obtained community acceptance for the big spending policy that it wanted and it succeeded in transferring the political odium to the former Government. Act II was the National Economic Summit Conference. This was the climax but it broke all the rules of good drama because the climax came too early and the Government had nowhere to go but down. But it served a short term purpose; business was flattered, consensussed and outmanoeuvred into endorsing the prices and incomes accord, including centralised wage fixation based on full indexation plus productivity increases, and into accepting a $8 1/2 billion deficit. But the more time passes, the clearer it becomes that the Summit was a total sham. It was wonderful short term theatre but disastrous for Australia. Each of the two central features of the Summit will have significant long term effects that will drag the Australian economy back into the mire and destroy what international competitiveness we may have left. The rejection of scenario C which was the high growth, low unemployment, low inflation option was a tragedy for Australia. The Summit was told that this was an industrial relations impossibility, and weakly accepted that proposition. The decision to reject scenario C has committed Australia to long term high unemployment, high inflation and low growth. All this is in the interests of industrial peace, in the interests of powerful, sectional interests and certainly not in the interests of a strong competitive Australia. Act III was the May economic statement; and this was to lay the framework of the priorities of the new Government. What were the priorities? The first was to belt the incentive of the thrifty-those who were doing their best to provide for themselves in their old age-by the introduction of the iniquitous superannuation tax, then to wipe out the two best job creation, national infrastructure programs in the form of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway project and the national water resources program, and then to knock the heart out of the rural sector by destroying the income equalisation deposit scheme and tax averaging, on top of cessation of drought relief. Yet the Government is relying on the rural sector to provide one-third of the growth that it is estimating will occur in the economy this year. The Government's priorities emerged in the form of Medicare and the community employment program-tired socialist priorities! We now come to Act IV, the Budget. Mild, the critics called it, after the first night; but already the performance is starting to fall apart. The Budget confirms the priorities of the Government: Big spending, higher growth, more welfare, more borrowing, and no regard for growth, investment, profits or jobs. So we have the perspective. We have seen the four acts in the Labor tragedy. What will Act V when it arrives hold for Australia? Having established a perspective of the events which culminated with the Budget we can examine the reality and effect of Labor's economic priorities. The first point is that this is a high spending, high deficit government. It is a government that is prepared to mortgage the future heavily and to build up debts for future taxpayers. I mention in passing that public debt interest this year is estimated at $4.1 billion. Mr Anthony —At $4.1 billion? Mr LUSHER —At $4.1 billion, or 17 per cent of total outlays. It is one of the biggest single outlays. In fact, it ranks fifth after defence, health, education and welfare. There are already $39 billion worth of Commonwealth and State securities on issue, equivalent to about 70 per cent of Government spending this year. The Caucus debate about the economic irresponsibility of a high deficit was as much of a sham as the Summit was. There was never any question of a low deficit. It was simply whether it would be very high or ridiculous, and very high it turned out to be. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) himself has acknowledged that, in the Budget-making process, a total of $1.8 billion was carved off the spending programs of the former Government. Even on that basis, we could have had a significantly reduced Budget deficit. But no; having reduced expenditure by $1.8 billion, the Government has increased it by $2.5 billion. Without that $2.5 billion of extra spending, we might have had a deficit of around $6 billion-and that is a figure we have heard before. But what is worse is that the $8.5 billion includes a significant addition to the structural deficit, and the Department of the Treasury acknowledges that this will make it all the harder to get the deficit in future years down. It is worse than that because so much of that structural deficit increase does not start until later in the financial year and will impact only for a couple of months, but the impact will really be felt next year and in the years ahead. If we are stuck with big deficits, we are stuck also with big interest rates, big taxes, low profitability and high unemployment. The Government is taking 32 per cent of gross domestic product this year-a huge grab. The deficit is a huge 4.7 per cent of GDP and the public sector borrowing requirement will be up by one-third, from 6 per cent of GDP to 8 per cent of GDP . But it is all somebody else's money and, according to the cerebral giants on the Government side, it does not matter. This huge deficit will have an adverse effect on interest rates. Even the Budget statements acknowledge that fact. The statements use words such as 'some pressure on interest rates' and 'there should be no significant increase in interest rates'. Let us not forget that, by the Treasurer's own admission, $2.5 billion of the $8.5 billion represents this Government's own spending additions-this Government's priorities-and that fact should put an end to all the nonsense about an inherited deficit. This is a Labor deficit. This Government made all the decisions, and the Budget represents the priorities of this Government. Mr Barry Jones —What would another Fraser Budget have been like? Mr LUSHER —The honourable member was not able to enjoy the pleasure of another Fraser Government Budget. This country was saddled with the first Hawke-Keating Budget, and what a disaster that will turn out to be for all Australians. The projected $8.5 billion deficit remained the same over the last six months when we had a whole range of gross domestic product growth forecasts. Different growth estimates were made for 6 March, for the National Economic Summit and in the Budget. The range has been between 0.5 per cent and 3 per cent, which is a significant variation. I want to know how good is the 3 per cent that we are using at the moment. Will it prove to be any better than the earlier rubbery estimates? Whatever the ultimate result, growth will be too low. The reality in Australia is that we need GDP growth of at least 4 per cent before we have any impact on unemployment, and the converse is that anything less than 4 per cent will result in higher unemployment. The Budget Papers acknowledge this. Budget Paper No. 1 says that there will be an edging up in the rate of unemployment. My guess is that it will be far more than an edging up, and my reasons for this are based not only on low growth but also on the wage increases. I want to dwell for the moment on the implications of centralised wage fixation because I am of the opinion that this is the most critical area facing policy formulation in this country. Centralised wage fixation operates for the benefit of the industrial relations club-the high priesthood-particularly the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and other institutionalised participants in the industrial relations process. Mr Campbell —Don't tell us, tell Macphee. Mr LUSHER —The honourable member should listen to me and see whether he can get what I am saying through his thick head. Wage fixing is fundamental to the Australian economy and to the people he is supposed to represent who will lose jobs as a result of the policy of this Government. He should listen to me because he may learn something. If centralised wage fixation were to become institutionalised in this country it would raise questions about the longer term role of State and other industrial commissions and tribunals and what would be the role of individual unions that are seen to be superfluous or ineffective as far as the individual needs of their members are concerned. In order to be seen to be effective it is often necessary for union officials to be seen to be disagreeing with centralised wage fixation. Centralised wage fixation does not require the principal parties to take any responsibility for decisions. That falls on the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Nor does it require the parties to defend decisions. It is easier for individual unions to break away from decisions because they were not specifically involved in the process. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is becoming an instrument of economic policy through the application of centralised wage fixation. This is not and should not be its role. The former Government took the view that it had no more right other than to go to the Commission and put a case before a national wage hearing, and this Government has been conned into the same sort of ridiculous proposition. The longer we all go on with this situation of saying we have no say in wage fixation and that the Arbitration Commission will lay down how much money will be paid to workers regardless of the profitability of particular industries and sectors the worse off we will all be. The alternative is to reduce the importance of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission by decentralising its wage fixation function and weakening its economic role. Government members ought to appreciate that fact. Only 57 per cent of the labour force is unionised and most of those employees are in low growth industries. Yet centralised wage fixation extends to all industries and certainly acts to the detriment of emerging growth industries, export industries and import competing industries. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), who has just left the House, is concerned about technology and sunrise industries. He ought to have some concern about this matter because those industries will be saddled with wage rates that bear absolutely no relationship to the conditions or profitability of those industries the longer the Government sticks with this centralised wage fixation stupidity. It can be argued that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is irrelevant because in good times unions will always move ahead quickly, if not through wages then through conditions, over-award payments and the like. The Commission cannot stop the market place working. However, in bad times the Commission puts a floor on wages and creates distortions. Therefore the unions get it both ways. Centralised wage fixation works to the detriment of the export industries which are exposed to world fluctuations. Centralised wage fixation takes no account of conditions in those industries which must remain competitive and bouyant if our economy is to be healthy. I repeat that the Government is relying on the rural sector of those export industries to provide one third of the growth that it is looking for this year. Unions are unresponsive to high unemployment. It has been demonstrated amply that they continue to pursue high wage increases even when unemployment is high. Centralised wage fixation does not encourage a breakdown of this insensitive approach. We must get away from centralised wage fixation and as long as I am in this place I will argue for that. Wages are the critical area of this Budget. If the prices and incomes accord does not hold up, neither does the Budget. I believe that a 4.3 per cent wage increase will add to unemployment but if the increase goes beyond that unemployment will be much worse. The fundamental reason why recovery is starting to take place in this economy is that the wage pause that is still in place six months after the election of this Government-the wage pause that was put in place by the previous Government-has worked. That, together with the tax cuts of the last Fraser Budget, the end of the drought and the emergence of recovery in the United States of America are the only reasons for some hope of recovery in this economy. The Government cannot take the credit for any of that. What it has brought down in this Budget will undo the good work that has been done. It will put this economy back on the road to ruin in the same way as the unions blew the last boom by grabbing the benefits before they materialised; so they will blow the recovery by exactly the same means. Budget Paper No. 1 states: . . . sustained recovery remains a hope for the future rather than a present reality. The Department of the Treasury has been through it all before. It put together the document of which the Treasurer read every line but never wrote a word. This Budget is a Budget of lost opportunities. This Government had an opportunity to do something about sustaining the recovery that may be emerging in this country, of taking advantage of what is going on in the world and of being able to provide some increase in the standard of living for Australians by getting back some growth into the economy. But what has it done? It has squibbed it. The $8.5 million proposition that was floated through the Summit and was conned on to the Australian public included all the soft options. There was no need for any hard options in the Summit. This Government did not want to consider hard options; it wanted acceptance from the Australian people of a big spending policy, and the Government got it. Mr Campbell —We inherited it from you. Mr LUSHER —I have dealt with your inheritance argument, my son. It is absolutely a shallow argument. Mr Campbell —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is an outrageous assertion. The honourable member suggested that in some way we are related. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr LUSHER —There is $2 1/2 billion-worth of new expenditure in this Budget that the Treasurer freely acknowledges he added to the deficit. If we knock that off, there is a deficit of $6 billion in my language. Honourable members can argue with me about that if they want to. This is a Budget of lost opportunity. There was an opportunity to do something that would have progressed this economy, which would have done something for the citizens of Australia, and the Government has blown it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the House to extend the usual courtesies on the occasion of a maiden speech. I call the honourable member for Macarthur. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(9.11) —I should like to add my voice to the chorus of congratulations, sir, on your election as Deputy Speaker of this House and ask you to pass on my congratulations to the Speaker. I rise to speak in this chamber with pride-pride in representing the people of Macarthur and pride for the many people who worked so hard to put me here. The electorate of Macarthur is named after one of the capitalist rogues in Australian history, appropriate perhaps given what many consider today is a crisis of capitalism. It is not every member who shares this building with two of his predecessors. The honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin) ably represented the people of Macarthur between 1972 and 1975. Consequently many of my constituents feel pride in his position in the Ministry. My immediately predecssor is also in the building as an adviser to the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). I only hope his advice in opposition is better than when he was in government, but I suppose he has to be seen to be doing something. I believe it is traditional in a maiden speech to extend thanks to many people-family, friends, political acquaintances, indeed all. I extend my thanks to the working class who put me here, for I am working class and proud of it. I come from no privileged background of wealth or position. I come from the working class that has built this country and my commitment to their cause is total. I am here as a voice for the unemployed, the retrenched, those whose fear is of losing their home and those for whom the lucky country is no longer so lucky. I have listened with interest to the many maiden speeches made in the chamber and most mention unemployment. I invite honourable members to visit my electorate to see for themselves the result of this depression caused, in no small measure, by the wrong economic policies followed by those who now sit opposite. The proud Illawarra region has been brought to its knees through no fault of its own. I do not come here with a begging bowl, but I come to ask that this region that has given so much to the lucky country, that has helped build this country with Illawarra sweat and tears now receive consideration to help the region through its current economically difficult period. A start has been made with the recently announced steel assistance plan, but much more will need to be done for Australia's depressed industrial regions. No sector of my electorate has been more devastated than the coal industry. It was only a couple of years ago that the resources boom was heralded as the solution to the economic problems of aging industrial regions like the Illawarra and the Hunter. New leases were granted to large energy corporations, governments were castigated by the coal companies for not constructing new rail links and coal loaders quickly enough and workers were attracted from other regions and sectors of the economy to the coal industry. It is obvious that the attempt to transform Australia from an industrial and post-service economy to a pre-industrial economy has been a disaster. Since 1982 there have been massive retrenchments in the coal industry and a number of pits have been closed or rationalised. Most retrenchments in the coal industry in New South Wales have taken place in the southern coalfields where 1,100 jobs have been lost in the industry since last year. There are now fewer miners in the Illawarra than at any time since the beginning of the resources boom. One cannot underestimate the effects of these sackings on miners and the population of the south coast and the Burragorang Valley and towns such as Camden, Picton and Tahmoor. I am particularly concerned about the future of the Burragorang Valley. Only a few years ago, the Burragorang Valley mines were the most productive underground mines in Australia, with high output per manshift. They employed over 1,500 miners. Now the spectre of mine closure and massive retrenchments hangs over the valley. In the last year, till the end of June, coal production in New South Wales increased by 8 per cent, a significant increase given the severity of the current recession. Whilst open cut mining increased by a massive 33 per cent, production from underground mines actually declined by 2.3 per cent in New South Wales and by 10 per cent in the Burragorang Valley. By encouraging open slather in open cut production, which is short term and environmentally damaging, the long term existence of underground mining and thousands of jobs are threatened by the lack of a proper planning framework for resource development. The situation today is worse than in the 1930s. It is virtually impossible to re-open underground mines once they have been closed. This was recognised by the small producers at the time, who carried losses until the industry was put back on to a profitable footing. Today, the large energy corporations that dominate the coal industry can switch their activities from industry to industry, region to region, and country to country. When difficulties are encountered with one group of activities, they can quickly close or rationalise the operation and shift elsewhere. The irony of the current situation is that, having encouraged multinationals to take great slabs of Australia's energy resources in the name of efficiency, the sterilisation and closure of productive underground mines will produce a wasteful and inefficient industry. The resources boom panacea, with its promise of increasing the dependence of regions like the Illawarra on their traditional heavy industry and natural resource base, concealed the underlying structural problems confronting these regions. In the meantime, aging manufacturing plants were being shut down, small businesses were going bankrupt, and the service sector was being affected by the economic downturn. Whilst there was hope for employment growth by reverting to a pre-industrial raw material economy, debate on alternative strategies for employment generation was deferred. Despite the warnings of resource development expanding too rapidly and the consequences of regional dependence on a narrow economic base, there are still those who argue that the present overproduction crisis in the coal industry is a small hiccup and we must concentrate our investments on preparing for the next resources boom. This is nonsense. If resource development is to bring opportunities for all Australians, there needs to be a detailed reassessment of the prospects of the resources sector, of the relationship between Australia, major international energy corporations and major customers, and of the mechanisms to share the benefits of resources development with all Australians. As one of the few countries in the world without a national energy plan and direct public participation in resources development, Australia has been considered a pushover by energy multinationals. In the past decade, all the export pits on the southern coalfields have come under the ownership and control of multinational oil and mineral corporations. Although there has been increasing investment, management expertise and technology, multinational domination of the southern coalfields has also increased the vulnerability of the local coal industry to fluctuations in the international market and to the rapidly switching investment priorities of companies whose activities straddle State and national boundaries and involve interests in a wide range of industries. I was very concerned that British Petroleum Co. of Australia Ltd, one of the largest corporations in the world, was allowed to take over 100 per cent of the Burragorang Valley mines. This contradicted all Foreign Investment Review Board guidelines and demonstrated the Fraser Government's concern with putting the short term interests of large energy corporations before that of miners and long term national interests. BP acquired half of the Olympic Dam project in the Roxby Downs from Western Mining Corporation Ltd to develop uranium reserves. On the other hand, Western Mining Corporation did not take out an option to buy 50 per cent of Clutha Development Pty Ltd from BP and this contributed to the financial problems of the Burragorang Valley. I believe that the problems of the Burragorang Valley are yet another cost relating to the development of the uranium industry where the high rate of return lowers the attractiveness of other viable energy projects. BP was more concerned with its oil market, getting into uranium with Western Mining Corporation and its open cut interests in Australia to worry too much about guaranteeing the long term employment security of its underground mining work force and contributing to regional development. To divert attention away from its poor management, BP attempted to blame the New South Wales Government's rail transportation policy-despite the fact that local charges are about the cheapest in the world and 80 per cent of Burragorang Valley coal was transported by road- and trade unions at Port Kembla, despite the fact that, until the commissioning of stage 1 of the Port Kembla coal loader, there was a lack of capacity at the old loader. With the early completion of stage 1 of the coal loader, as a consequence of the commitment of the New South Wales Government and the co- operation of the trade union movement, problems of congestion at Port Kembla were quickly cleared. My major short term concern in relation to the coal industry is to ensure the viability of the industry and stability of employment both in the Illawarra and nationally. The immediate establishment of the Coal Consultative Council by the Australian Labor Party on taking office demonstrates its commitment to becoming an active participant in the coal industry and to providing a framework for government, companies and trade unions to address the pressing problems facing the industry. I have recognised for a long time that a resource rental tax is the most appropriate tax regime for an industry with a wide differential in costs and quality. By providing a cushion for more marginal pits with higher costs of extraction and increasing taxation on low cost, highly profitable pits, a resource rental tax would be an important contribution to stabilising employment in the coal industry, encouraging a better balance between open-cut and underground extraction of coal and ensuring that benefits of extraction of our greatest natural resource will be shared with the Australian people. In addition to moving to a thoroughly thought-out tax regime in the coal industry supported by the industry, the Australian Treasury and most academic economists-in fact, by everyone apart from the Opposition-the Labor Government would avoid the blunders of the corporate handouts of the previous Government. Today we are faced with the most series crisis facing the coal industry since 1945. The Liberal-National Party Government, by giving away cheaply Australia's natural resources to every multinational that wanted a piece of the action, by encouraging destructive interstate competition, by plucking figures out of the air about future demand for coal and by refusing to involve itself in price and tonnage negotations with Japanese customers, facilitated an overproduction crisis of unprecedented proportions. This has benefited the Japanese and has not harmed the multinationals which have switched their attention to other activities, but it has done enormous harm to miners and the Australian people. In response to the post-war crisis in the coal industry, the then Commonwealth and New South Wales Labor governments established the Joint Coal Board with wide -ranging powers over the coal mining industry. The public sector, under the auspices of the Joint Coal Board, became the vehicle for modernising the New South Wales coal industry and making the State's underground mines the most productive in the word. Unfortunately, over the years of conservative government , unfettered free enterprise became the order of the day and the Joint Coal Board became a shadow of its former self. Despite the fact that the legislation and the agency are still in place, given the dimension of the current crisis in the coal industry, there is now an opportunity to reconstitute the Joint Coal Board with broader representation from the community and trade unions and an assertion of powers over production and new leases. With the co-operation of the States and co-ordinated by the Federal Government, statutory coal authorities could impose rationality on the development of the industry and avoid the overexploitation of the industry as has happened in the past. The events of the past few months have demonstrated the need for the Federal Government to intervene in price and tonnage negotiations, particularly when dealing with our major overseas customers. The queue of Australian companies lining up to deal with centralised Japanese customers and undercutting each other is a source of embarrassment and has done enormous harm to the Australian coal industry. In addition, we have often been told by our conservative counterparts that we must be more competitive with coal producers in other countries. However, it must be pointed out that, in many cases, the same multinationals are involved in different countries. The Australian coal industry is highly productive and a reliable supplier to world markets, but we must remove some of the uncertainty from the marketing of Australian coal. We need better guarantees of long term contracts with major customers before committing large funds to expanding industrial infrastructure for resource development projects. Coal resource development involves a lot more than pulling coal out of the ground and marketing it. It is our most valuable natural resource and we must ensure that wastage from present extraction is minimised. The closure of pits, with potentially recoverable reserves, imposes severe long term costs on the community. Open-cut mining has a very limited life in Australia and within 10 to 15 years, open-cut mining will have passed its peak. The open slather given to open-cut operations is of immediate concern. The rip it out philosophy of the previous Liberal-National Party Government may lead to the sterilisation of millions of tonnes of valuable coal reserves. We have a responsibility, not only to present generations but also to future generations that finite natural resources are used wisely and not squandered. I share the dream of a great son of the Illawarra, the late Rex Connor. Rex Connor had a dream of a national energy plan for Australia, of Australians owning and controlling the resources of this great country which are the birthright of every Australian. But we have seen our resources controlled not by Australians but by those who sit in the boardrooms of London, New York and Tokyo . We must claim our birthright. We must control our own resources for the betterment of all Australians, not to increase the profits of foreign multinationals. I make no apology for committing myself to this task. The Illawarra has an underdeveloped services sector and a long-standing backlog of social infrastructure. There is a high proportion of low skilled workers and education levels are low by Australian standards. Youth unemployment in Dapto and Warilla Commonwealth Employment Service offices has been the highest for any major centre of population in New South Wales since the mid-1970s. Many have grown to adulthood without ever having regular employment. These are the young Australians who have been put on the scrapheap by Malcolm Fraser and his Government's disastrous management of the economy. This Federal Labor Government is determined to give these young people the opportunity to lead fulfilling lives and to find socially useful work. The immediate problem facing the Illawarra is that, even if national economic recovery got underway within six months, the region would remain heavily depressed. There is no resources boom, high technology, or tourist-led recovery around the corner capable of creating the 25,000 jobs over five years that would bring unemployment in the region down to 5 per cent of its work force. Stimulation of the housing and construction industries will bring benefits to the region in terms of employment and housing. The steel industry plan will go a long way to stabilise employment in the region. But, in the longer term, there needs to be an economic program to revitalise the region, creating new jobs and new industries. Australia owes a debt to the people of the Illawarra. Last year the working people of the region called to their fellow Australians: 'We want jobs'. They resisted the sack, stormed Parliament and marched on Sydney. They, through their actions, articulated the aspirations of millions of Australians-the right to work and live in dignity. The determination to make unemployment the major issue contributed to the defeat of the Fraser Government and its disastrous economic policies. In conclusion, the Hawke Labor Government was elected to bring about a fair, just and humane society. The Australian people, and especially the people of Macarthur, gave us that mandate and we will carry it out. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(9.27) —At the outset I congratuate the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) on a very genuine speech. We all share his concern for the unemployed in his area in particular. As far as the Budget is concerned, there is no doubt that the public's first impression on hearing Tuesday night's Budget, was initially one of relief after the horror stories leaked by this Government. By the following morning leading commentators were saying that it was a steady Budget and no great damage had been done. However, the reality is that, as the days have passed, people are beginning to see the hidden implications of this Budget which poses a considerable danger to the economic recovery of this country. I listened with interest to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on Tuesday night as he rationalised the Labor Government's reasons for embarking on a massive spending spree with money that it does not have. He has, on his own admission, embarked on an expansionary course which will inevitably prove inflationary. The simple fact is that this is a socialist Budget giving massive support to the public sector of Australia and doing absolutely nothing to encourage the private sector . It is a savage assault on the private sector, despite the Treasurer's statements that the private sector is the key to long term recovery. In that at least we agree. But he is not backing his words with action and the Budget clearly shows it. The private sector creates the wealth of this country and provides employment. It is, therefore, reasonable to ask why this Government does everything in its power to make life difficult for those who constitute the private sector. Why does it continually bash business over the head. Why does it not give some incentive for the country to get out of this economic malaise in which we find ourselves? Let me turn to the reasons I believe this Budget is dangerous. Firstly, there is a massive budgetary deficit of $8.3 billion. The Australian Labor Party has been extremely clever in conditioning the public to accept this deficit. Who would have ever thought just a few months ago that such a deficit could have been almost gratefully received by large sectors of the Australian population? We are tired of hearing this deficit blamed on the previous Government. The Treasurer boasted on Tuesday night that the Government, in arriving at its budgetary decisions, carefully combed through all the previous Government's programs and pruned them to the extent of $1.2 billion. It then put in place some $2.4 billion of its own programs and had the hide to blame the previous Government for the deficit. It just does not stand up. The size of the deficit is clearly in the hands of the present Government. It is the left wing which ensured that the deficit was extended to the absolute limit in order to get its precious programs accommodated. The reason the deficit is so dangerous for the private sector is that it will inevitably put pressures on interest rates and costs. The fact is that this Government is the biggest spender of any Australian Government in our history. No amount of clever publicity will disguise this massive deficit. Certainly, the private sector will not be fooled when high interest rates start to bite. The second major assault on the private sector is the blind Labor adherence to the so-called prices and incomes accord and to wage indexation. Again, there is absolutely no recognition of the cost pressures this will create on business and the subsequent unemployment that will be produced. The Government's encouragement for wage increases will create massive pressures on the private sector. It is an absolute joke to think that wages will be contained to an increase of about 7 per cent in the coming year. The Government is already advocating a rise of 4.3 per cent in the first quarter of this year, so what hope has it in trying to maintain a limit of 7 per cent for the total year? In addition, claims for increased wages outside the guidelines are already building up. I quote from today's Australian: The president of the ACTU, Mr Dolan, said last night it would be a 'recipe for disaster' if workers allied to the building industry did not get a flow-on of the industry's new pay deal. This deal is already outside the guidelines. The third but by no means the last assault on the private sector in this Budget is the blatant disregard for the election promises to reduce taxation. Far from not giving reductions, taxation has already been increased in this Budget by the indexation of prices. Inflation will certainly take care of the rest. There is more to come. I quote again from today's Australian an article headed: 'PM warns taxes may jump again next year': The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, indicated last night taxes might have to be increased again in next year's Budget if economic recovery was slower than expected. What a prospect we all have to look forward to. Of all the incentives and promises which this Government has made, tax relief is one which would give the private sector the most hope that there would be some reward for its effort in very difficult times. That hope has now certainly been dashed. I quote from the election speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of 16 February: Increased growth will be restored by tax reductions for low and middle income earners. That is not the end of it. I quote from the same speech: Labor's program of tax relief and tax reform is a crucial element in our program for recovery. . . . . Its key elements include immediate reductions in income tax. Mr Lusher —Who said that? Mr WHITE —The Prime Minister. He went on: A taxpayer without dependants earning $225 a week will get a tax cut of $4.75. In February tax reductions were central to the Labor Party's platform. By August they have been abandoned. The reality is that none of these promises have been kept. Honourable members can rest assured that this lack of faith on the part of the Labor Government will not be forgotten. I turn now to one or two items in the Budget where I believe the Government has its spending priorities completely wrong. The one that causes me most concern is the area of defence. In the last few months we have seen a continual and successful assault on the armed forces of Australia by the Government. I quote again from the Prime Minister's speech of 16 February: The defence and security needs of Australia must remain paramount. Labor is committed to the re-establishment and maintenance of a well equipped highly trained and mobile defence force. Quote that to someone in the Services. It is becoming something of a very sour joke. If honourable members need some more proof let us look at what has happened to the Forces since 11 March, just in the last few months. A decision was made not to replace the aircraft carrier Melbourne. The Fleet Air Arm has been abolished. Mr Chynoworth-A good move. Mr WHITE —Interjections such as that I welcome because I would like it to be widely known that at least some members on the other side of the House believe it was an excellent move to disband the Fleet Air Arm. I would not like that to go unnoticed. It is a tragedy of immense proportions compounded by the fact that many of the highly skilled personnel in that branch of the Services have either gone or are planning to go to join overseas forces. It is a tragedy to think that the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) said: 'Well, we will just transfer them to the Navy, the Air Force or the Army'. That is about the limit of the Government's imagination when it comes to dealing with the Forces. In addition to all this, fuel cuts to the Services have made a nonsense of reasonable exercises in Australia. We have only to see the cutback in the participation of the Forces in exercise Kangaroo 83 to see the effect this is having. Mr Charles —The defence Budget went up 10 1/2 per cent. Mr WHITE —I will get to that in a minute. I am glad the honourable member has raised it. The lack of consideration in superannuation matters is having a major effect on morale. The Budget allocates an extra $497m to defence, which is an increase of about 10 per cent. The honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) is absolutely correct. The Government talks about a 4 per cent real increase, but the catch is that it has allowed an inflation factor of 6 per cent, an impossible figure. More to the point, most of that extra money will be spent on new equipment for the Navy and the Air Force. The Government was committed to the purchase of that equipment by the previous Government's decision. This means that there is virtually no increase in funding for the operation and maintenance of the armed forces. With regard to Army mobility, from 16 February the Army was virtually confined to its barracks due to lack of money. With regard to personnel in the Services, the Government is planning to reduce the highly mobile Services by 700 people in the next 12 months, while an extra $3.9m has been allocated to increase the civilian component of the defence forces. It is madness. The reason for this policy escapes all of us. Who can follow such reasoning? I assure honourable members that the significance of those figures is not lost on uniformed personnel. The Army has been stretched to the point where it is seriously considering reducing our one division from three brigades to two. The Budget decision to tax Army Reserve pay will obviously have widespread effects in the Reserve coupled with the stated intention to reduce even its training time. So much for the $14m recently spent on a most successful recruiting campaign which boosted the strength of the Reserve. What is the Government's intention with regard to our forces? We have a population of 16 million and a huge country to defend. We now maintain in this country one under strength division. In a bipartisan way, I ask the House: What has happened to the dictum that a government's first responsibility is to protect its territory and its people? What sort of a country and what sort of a government would allow the state of our defences to run down to their present condition, in the sure knowledge that the day will come when they will have to be built up, and that will take years and years? The Government has learned nothing from the message of the Whitlam years. I was in the Services in those days. When I retired I immediately joined a political party so that I could do my bit to get rid of the previous Labor Prime Minister. I am very glad that I am here to do my bit to get rid of the present Government as well. The Government has no intention to understand the message from previous years. It does not understand the defence requirements of this country or the motivation of the men and women who serve in the forces. I turn to another matter which may be more familiar to honourable members-that is, the coastal surveillance system in this country. According to the Budget Papers there will be an increase from $20.9m to $21.2m for coastal surveillance. Some increase! Coastal surveillance in the north of this country is nothing but a joke. It is manned by civilians in daylight with no radar. They report what they see and their position on the hour over an open air system. It is nothing but a joke. I say to those people who were keen to see the Fleet Air Arm run down that the tragedy is that many of those aircraft could well have been used in an effective surveillance system in the north of Australia. I will refer to a few other Budget anomalies. The Prime Minister, on 16 February at the Sydney Opera House, stated: Labor will reduce the price of petrol. What have we seen in the Budget? The price of petrol went up and will continue to do so. In the area of health, this Labor Government has maintained a dogmatic approach to the introduction of Medicare. Again, this is an assault on the private sector which will destroy thousands of jobs in the private health fund area. Such is the price of blind dogma. With regard to Medibank and Medicare, the Prime Minister further stated: The last thing the Labor Government wants to do is to create more unneccessary bureaucracy. One wonders what it would be like if it did set out to create an unnecessary bureaucracy! In education, there have been cuts in funding to private schools, despite this pledge by the Prime Minister: We will show that our national Government is concerned about the educational opportunities available to all children in all schools. So what did the Government do? It immediately slashed funding to some of the private schools. Let no one be fooled that that is not the thin edge of the wedge. Mr O'Neil —Extremely wealthy ones. Mr WHITE —That is a very good comment. How does one judge a wealthy school? Is a school wealthy because it has saved some money for a building program, because someone has left it some money or because the school was careful with its money? How does one judge what is a wealthy school? Mr Newman —Are there not any wealthy schools in Queensland? Mr WHITE —The honourable member for Bass referred to Queensland schools. It is strange-I would appreciate an answer from a Government member-that no Queensland schools were listed among the schools which had cuts in their funding. An election is to be held in Queensland. Also, no Catholic schools have been disadvantaged at this stage. Government members should answer that if they can. Queensland schools, as honourable members know, will get the chop next year after the election, as will the Catholic schools, in this futile attempt to divide the educationalists in this country. This Budget must be judged against what it set out to achieve: Firstly, a framework for economic recovery; secondly, increased employment opportunities; and, thirdly, containment of inflation. It will fail because it fails to support that sector of the economy which could make the objectives possible-that is, the private sector. By the Government's admission, unemployment and investment will be down in a year. It is a poor way to encourage Australians to get on with the job. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —I remind the House that an honourable member is about to deliver a maiden speech and therefore should be afforded the usual courtesies. I call the honourable member for Maribyrnong. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(9.47) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to offer to you my somewhat belated congratulations on your election to the office of Deputy Speaker. I would be pleased if you would convey my congratulations to Mr Speaker on his election to that high office. At the outset I make a brief comment in terms of the attitude of some honourable members opposite to the conventions of this House. They have been reminded on a number of occasions this evening that when a maiden speech is being made it is most improper, in terms of those conventions, to interject. I can safely say that so far there have been continuous interjections during the previous two maiden speeches. I hope they have a higher regard for convention during my time in this place, than they have shown for many years. History was made when during this Parliament and for the first time since Federation a woman presided over this House. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to pass on my congratulations to our colleague the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child) for setting a fine example not only to the women of Australia but to the people of Australia. On behalf of my Party, the Australian Labor Party, and the electors of Maribyrnong I also pay tribute to my predecessor in this House, the former member for Maribyrnong, Dr Moss Cass. As the member from 1969 to 1983 Dr Cass served in the Whitlam Government as Minister for the Environment and Conservation, Minister for the Environment when his ministry was restructured and, subsequently, as Minister for the Media. Dr Cass is held in high esteem for his sense of compassion. I certainly wish him well in his future endeavours. I record my personal appreciation to my family and certainly to my friends in the Australian Labor Party and the trade union movement, of which I have been a long time member and a very strong supporter. I thank them for giving me the opportunity to hold this position of trust, if I may put it that way. The obligation is mine to further our shared objectives in the future. I must take this opportunity to pay tribute also to two very well known Australians who, perhaps more than any other contemporary Australians, provided me with the motivation and inspiration that eventually brought me to this House. Those people are the New South Wales Premier, the Hon. N. K. Wran, and the former Prime Minister of Australia, the Hon. E. G. Whitlam. First, let me place on record my appreciation of the person whom history will regard as the single most important catalyst for the post-1975 renaissance of the Australian Labor Party. I speak, of course, of the Premier of New South Wales, Neville Wran. He is a man of great personal, probity and exceptional ability, with whom I have had the very high honour of working. I thank him for the opportunities he has extended to me in the past. Secondly, and somewhat circuitously, I place on record my gratitude to another giant of the Australian Labor Party, E. G. Whitlam and, through him, to the Labor Government of 1972-75. The former honourable member for Werriwa came into this House shortly after I was born in late 1952. No doubt my fate concerned him little at that time but he was certainly soon to have a significant impact on my life. To the best of my recollection, it was the requirement to register for national service in 1971 that began the politicisation of the current member for Maribyrnong. Rather than canvass the merits of that particular issue, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me assert that there would be very few people indeed who would not now concede the moral bankruptcy and the strategic futility of our involvement in that war. The Labor Party, to its very great credit, acted swiftly to end that sorry involvement. Vietnam was of itself a necessary, although not sufficient, catalyst to my involvement in the political process. The major factor was my response to the sacking of the Whitlam Labor Government on 11 November 1975. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, Whitlam changed very much the nature of the Australian Labor Party. However, he still inherited leadership of a fairly demoralised party, a party that had long since forgotten the taste of political power. His greatest contribution to the Australian people was his part in the long haul to bring his party to the position where it offered a credible and preferred alternative to a tired conservative coalition. Having achieved office, Whitlam's approach was a political program based upon the central tenet of equality of opportunity. His great initiatives in housing, education, social welfare, transport and urban and regional development, law reform and so on were all predicated on the great underlying objective of giving all Australians what might colloquially be referred to as a 'fair go'. It was a vision that invited and, indeed, received, the full force of a backlash from the privileged and powerful in our society. Mr Deputy Speaker, like most Australians, I benefited from Whitlam's vision in the areas that I have outlined. However, I particularly benefited from his policies in terms of education. Family circumstances did not avail me the opportunity of more than a very basic secondary education and certainly tertiary education was simply not a realistic goal. Whitlam's initiatives in abolishing tertiary fees and implementing the tertiary education assistance scheme, combined with the initiative of educators at Monash University in establishing a special entry scheme for those who had not completed formal secondary education, allowed me a much appreciated opportunity of further education. It was an opportunity that for me, as for so many others, lifted the veil of frustration that so often accompanies a degree of educational or social disadvantage. It was an opportunity for which I will forever be indebted to Whitlam and the Labor Government from 1972-75-a government, I am bound to say, the sabotage and dismissal of which still fills me with a sense of some outrage. The major issues of nuclear disarmament, the economic crisis with its resulting unemployment and consequent misery, the continuing failure of our economic system to provide adequate food and shelter for many Australians and a range of other issues have been addressed by the many maiden speakers on this side of the House who have preceded me. One issue that has not so far been addressed and upon which I wish to comment is the failure of taxation policy as a redistributive tool at the revenue, rather than the expenditure, end. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget Speech on Tuesday, indicated that certain measures announced represented a start to, rather than a fulfillment of, the Government's tax reform objectives. There has been much debate about our taxation system. It is often said that Australia is a high tax country. It is worth noting in this context that Australia has a relatively low level of overall taxation by comparison with other countries within the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development. In terms of total tax revenue as a percentage of gross domestic product, Australia went to 16 among the 23 OECD countries during 1981. Of similar importance to the overall quantum of taxation revenues is the redistributive impact of particular taxation measures in terms of both vertical and horizontal equity considerations; that is, how the money is collected can be as important a consideration as how it is spent. As a redistributive mechanism, our current taxation system has failed the lower income earners in our society. The progressive aspects of personal income tax have largely been cancelled by the increasing use of regressive indirect taxes. Since World War II, the Commonwealth has dominated revenue raising in this country. Today it raises approximately 80 per cent of the total tax revenue. When one compares the revenue raised with gross domestic product, the importance of taxation in terms of its potential for redistribution becomes apparent. Recent studies have shown that total taxation at all levels of government increased from some 23 per cent of GDP in 1964 to approximately 30 per cent of GDP in 1979. This dramatic increase is largely attributable to a steady increase in the relative importance of personal income taxation as a component of revenue . The relative contribution of company tax has declined steadily, as has the incidence of indirect taxation although, regrettably, the latter is once again finding favour with policy-makers. A number of studies have confirmed the regressive impact of the total taxation system upon lower income earners whilst enabling a steady improvement in the relative position of higher income earners. The end result has been that a potentially useful tool for the redistribution of resources in our society has become almost totally ineffective for that purpose. In my view, we should not rely almost totally, as we now do, on the allocation of resources to bring about redistribution in our society. A whole range of reforms to our taxation system may be suggested to assist in the redistribution process from the revenue end. For example, lower single income earning families may be assisted by the provision of family income supplements; but, if policy-makers were of the view that the problem should be addressed in terms of taxation policy, the end result might well be achieved by providing for income splitting arrangements. Before any fundamental reappraisal of our taxation system can be made, it is, of course , important to have sufficient data upon which to base one's judgment. To this extent, and notwithstanding the conceptual and methodological difficulties involved, I believe it will be necessary to complete a comprehensive inquiry into wealth in Australia before any significant restructuring of our taxation system can be achieved. The electorate of Maribyrnong comprises part of the western region of Melbourne . Whilst it certainly has its own character, many of the problems confronting the electorate are shared by other parts of the western region. In this context, many of its problems are best addressed on a regional rather than a more parochial basis. Like its sister region in Sydney, the western region of Melbourne cannot claim to have been accorded very high priority by past Federal governments. An exception to this rule was the period between 1972 and 1975 when , under a Labor Administration, the region benefited from an unprecedented level of Federal Government involvement. Programs such as the area improvement plan and the Australian assistance plan have had a lasting impact on the area. Whilst many physical changes are evident from this period a more important result of the Whitlam Government's initiatives has been their effect as a catalyst for a changed self-perception of residents within that region. The Labor programs encouraged and nurtured a philosophy of greater involvement by individuals and community organisations in the decision-making process. A decade later the region can boast a rich diversity of community organisations actively pursuing a better quality of life for its residents. There is now a strong feeling of confidence in the great potential of this unique area of Australia. However, some residual cynicism remains about the desire of government to provide the west with a fair share of available resources. A report prepared as a result of the western suburbs planning and environment action program, an inintiative of the Victorian Cain Labor Government, found: There is an essential pride, loyalty and commitment within the resident community, but little expectation exists that governments (Federal, State or local) can or will do anything to help improve its living conditions. In some cases there is considerable cynicism about the role and performance of government and its agencies. I would submit that this cynicism is well placed. Our political process has acted as a positive disincentive to an equitable allocation of resources to the region. It is self-evident that the region has been relatively disadvantaged in terms of the disbursement of Federal and State government resources relative to other more politically sensitive areas. The socioeconomic profile of the region has led to the Labor Party dominating its political representation. Governments have deemed it unlikely that there would be any political return on the investment of resources pursuant to the politics of the pork barrel. An obvious temper to this highly political allocation of resources would be to legislate for multi-member electorates. However, I agree that the disadvantages of multi- member electorates can outweigh their one great advantage of creating marginal political seats across all regions. In the absence of multi-member electorates, the temptation by government to allocate resources on political rather than equity considerations will continue; nor is this temptation confined to conservative administrations. If the region is to achieve its potential it is essential that the relatively unfettered role of political decision making be tempered by some form of independent assessment in the allocation of government resources. The Victorian Grants Commission may provide some useful ideas in terms of how this objective may be addressed. Of course, the Commission is responsible for the allocation of general revenue grants received by Victoria from the Federal Government under the income tax sharing legislation. In determining its allocations to particular municipalities, the Commission has regard to a set of principles encompassing criteria such as a general 'as of right' entitlement and, where necessary, further funding based upon fiscal equalisation criteria taking into account revenue raising needs and expenditure needs and disabilities. Accordingly, in coming to its determinations, the Commission uses needs or equity criteria as an important determinant when allocating resources. It would be interesting to imagine how these funds might have been allocated had the previous State Government had carriage of that responsibility. In my view it is more than likely that a more highly political allocation may have resulted. Certainly that would have been to the detriment of the western region municipalities. The concept of an independent statutory body, analysing the disbursement of Federal and State government monies on a regional basis may provide an institutionalised disincentive to governments making allocations purely on the basis of political rather than equity considerations. For example, were such a body charged with the responsibility of analysing the equity or otherwise of particular patterns of disbursement and providing an annual report, governments would certainly take into account the political damage that might be occasioned by an adverse finding. Whilst I strongly hold the view that the western region will be offered a far better deal under Labor administrations, I believe that some such mechanism should be established so that the Government and the community can properly assess the desirability or otherwise of patterns of funding. I shall be recommending to the Government that such a body be established to carry out the role I have suggested. I conclude by expressing my thanks to the constituents of Maribyrnong for giving me the honour of becoming the fifth member since Federation to represent Maribyrnong in this House. I thank the House for its indulgence. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.06) —I begin by congratulating the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) on his maiden speech and wish him a long, distinguished and satisfying period of service in this place. I turn to the Budget brought down last Tuesday night. It has been variously described in the Press as mild, mild mannered, gentle, steady and such-like terms. I am sure that the majority of the Australian people do not see it that way. I suspect that some of the journalists who wrote in those terms would see it differently now. I can suggest only that there had been so many inspired leaks predicting substantial further taxation changes, a surcharge on income tax, the introduction of a more thorough going capital gains tax, an estate cum death duty tax, and talk by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of a tough Budget, that when all these expectations are built up that the worst will happen and then it does not turn out to be the case there is a sigh of relief, and we get these sort of terms of description of the Budget. The fact is that if one takes the 19 May statement along with Tuesday night's Budget-and one must take them together-one can see that there have been very significant increases in taxes for most Australians. Contrary to the assurances of the Prime Minister and others before the election, there have been very significant increases. The Australian people need to remember that on 19 May the health insurance rebate, the housing interest rebate and the rebate on the first $1,000 of dividend income were abolished. The allowable total of concessional expenditure was changed and the benefits flowing from that source were cut. The pension for those over 70 years of age was means tested. Of course a variety of measures were introduced relating to income equalisation deposits, tax sharing, depreciation rates and so on, which particularly impacted on primary producers. All these measures add up to a significant increase in taxation for the average Australian-indeed, in the order of $8 a week. Then on Tuesday there were added to these measures widespread increases in indirect taxes. There were increases in the excise on beer, cigarettes and petrol and sales tax was introduced, such as the new 32 per cent duty on blank video tapes, on a wide range of goods. These taxes amount to of the order of $1 billion. They were rightly lamented by the honourable member for Maribrynong who preceded me in this debate. In total the average Australian has an increase of the order of $15 per week to cope with. The Australian people should not lose sight of this fact. There has been this substantial lift in taxation. As the respected commentator Eric Risstrom has pointed out-and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) did not today adequately rebut the charge-there could turn out to be an increase in tax for a taxpayer on about $15,000 a year of about 38 per cent. We need to take that on board. That is partly due to the fact that income tax rates have not been indexed, which automatically increases the tax that taxpayers pay. In fact, about 300,000 to 400,000 taxpayers will move this year into the 46c in the dollar marginal income tax rate. It is interesting to remember that it was primarily that fiscal drag which was the main source of the tax rip off which occurred under the Whitlam Government. Beyond that increase in taxation, this Budget provides for a deficit of $8,361m , an unprecedently massive call on the credit card. It is a deficit that is needlessly high, I aver, despite all the talk earlier of a deficit of $9.6 billion, and then of $10.4 billion, which were never realistic. It is a deficit that is needlessly high and full of danger-'grave' is the word used by the Treasurer in the Treasury documents-full of grave danger to nurturing of the economic recovery that is about to get under way. What a confidence trick has been played on the Australian people and business community that such a deficit now should come to be seen as moderate and manageable! It is not so. What has happened is that, with the hike in taxes to which I have just referred and with this massive resort to deficit, the Government has embarked on a great expansion of spending, a literal spending spree, an increase in real terms this year of upwards of 7 per cent, which is undoubtedly the largest since the Whitlam years. Just about everything is in it: Health, welfare, housing. In my area as shadow Minister and in that of the Minister for Science and Technology ( Mr Barry Jones), the industrial research and development incentives scheme has a very substantial increase of about 36 per cent. Mr Barry Jones —Hear, hear! Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Yes, and there are a number of other areas. Sport and recreation programs are up by about 80 per cent, the provision for the Australian Tourist Commission is up by 75 per cent, provision for conservation organisations is up by 77 per cent, and so on. As I said, it is a literal spending spree-the Whitlam years all over again. Mr Barry Jones —A little spending spree. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —The Minister says that it is a little spending spree. An expansion in spending in real terms of upwards of 7 per cent financed in part by these tax hikes and in part by a Budget deficit-by calling on the credit card, as I have said-for about $8.4 billion, is a little spending spree, the Minister says. No way! To quote from the Budget Papers themselves, it is very highly expansionary indeed. That is surely where the Government and this Budget will come unstuck. It is often the artist or the poet who sees a thing most clearly. It is a pity that we cannot incorporate in Hansard a cartoon. If we were able to do that, I would be anxious to incorporate the cartoon by Pryor which appeared in yesterday 's Canberra Times. It depicts a somewhat rickety propellor-driven aircraft labelled 'Economy'. Mounted on top of it is a big new jet engine labelled ' Government spending'; and there is the Treasurer in his flying gear, putting on flying gloves and about to embark the economy on its way. The Secretary to the Treasury, John Stone, is sweating in the background and busily counting his prayer beads. That cartoon goes to the heart of the matter. The Government is injecting a major powerful stimulus, the engine of a strong increase in deficit funded government spending, into an economy which in its wealth creating and principal job providing sector, the private sector, is less than strong and healthy-with inflation in Australia more than twice as high as that of our major trading partners, with our cost structure already high, affecting our international competitiveness, and with profits being heavily depressed. There are signs that the recession has bottomed out and that the Australian economy is beginning to pick up. That owes something to the breaking of the drought and to the recovery overseas; but beyond that it derives from the Budget of last year, particularly its tax cuts, and above all the wages pause which was implemented by the previous Government. I stress that because that was an initiative which was supported by the Commonwealth and all State governments, National, Labor and Liberal, in Australia at the time, by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, by the State industrial tribunals, by other tribunals and by a majority of the Australian people. That was a real exercise in consensus and concerted action by the whole of Australia, as against a lot of phoney talk that we have had since then. With a careful Budget policy Australia could have gone on to lower inflation and restore profitability and competitiveness, and confidence in the wealth creating, job providing private sector, these being the pre-conditions for a durable employment-generating economic recovery. But now we have this Government's strategy, which is, first, to hasten recovery along by this massive, highly stimulatory increase in spending and, second, abandoning the wage pause, to hold the line on costs and prices by the so-called accord between the Government and the unions. On any realistic judgment, the accord is a fragile foundation on which to build towards sustained economic recovery. Already the straight $16 a week over-award pay rise in H. J. Heinz Co. Australia Ltd, the site allowances in the building industry, the pay rise and health insurance payments to the oil workers, and pay rises in the petrochemical industry, rises involving about $15 to $20 a week, represent a major movement away from the accord and from the centralised wage fixation system endorsed by the Summit. If that accord is not exactly blown already, it is certainly fraying at the edges. For that, among other things, the Government has itself partly to blame, because it has not made any serious attempt to change the structure of the tax system and, as I have shown, indirect taxes are up, as are direct taxes, in the absence of a changed rate structure. So, six to nine months from now, with this massive growth in the public sector along with renewed growth in some areas of the private sector, giving a growth rate as predicted in the Budget Papers of about 5 per cent, the present strains on the accord will be greatly multiplied. Even as things stand, the Government does not expect unemployment to actually fall in 1983-84. The Australian people should take that on board. Unemployment will increase. But with this increased pressure on wages and costs, inevitable higher inflation and interest rate pressures from financing the continuing Government deficit, there will be under this Government 's policy no private sector recovery which will add to jobs strongly enough to make a significant impact in reducing unemployment even into 1984 and 1985. That is the trouble with, the fundamental objection to, this Budget. I make one other point. One of the major factors we have all been looking to to strengthen activity in Australia has been a faster tempo of world economic recovery. Unfortunately, in the context which the Government has set of strong growth in the public sector's demand on resources, the welcome feeding in of demands from the upturn in the world economy will further exacerbate pressures for renewed wage rises, higher inflation and interest rates. In a word, the Budget and the economic policy of this Government are ill designed to position Australia to take advantage of the world economic upturn, but that should have been a key objective of economic policy. As I have outlined, not only will this Budget adversely impact upon the private sector of the economy, but also the Government has failed to provide concrete measures to stimulate the private sector. The focus is, or should be, on economic growth opening up new and lasting job opportunities. In this context, new high technology industries-I saw the Minister for Science and Technology in the chamber a moment ago-along with the greater use of high technology in existing industries, can make a major contribution to the growth of permanent employment opportunities for Australia. It is often thought that it is axiomatic that new technology automatically increases unemployment, but that is not so, and particularly in the case where the effect is to lead to the development in Australia, and the translation into production, of new products. It is important that this area should receive encouragement, and I join with the Minister for Science and Technology in hammering that point, but when it comes to the crunch the Government's ideological blinkers appear to have got in the way of effective action. While the Government has put nearly $1,000m into various make-work schemes, some of very dubious worth, it has failed to seize the opportunity to introduce urgently needed tax incentives in the Budget to attract private capital investment into a high growth technology-based industry. It could have done that, and at a cost to revenue limited to about $20m. Mr Cadman —And created real jobs. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —And created real, permanent, worthwhile jobs. It could have involved only $20m. Mr Simmons —Tell us what you would have done. DR HARRY EDWARDS —What would I have done? I would have given that priority, as against the increases in spending of a greater order which have been made in the Australian Industry Development Corporation allocation and in the Australian industrial research and development incentives scheme, although the latter in particular is a very worthwhile program. This would involve making tax deductible, money subscribed to venture capital companies by individuals or other companies, akin to what was done in the film industry. As I have said, the Government has its priorities all wrong in that area. The big lift has been given in other areas, and the measures which the Government could have taken to unleash the forces of the market-place in high technology industrial development , using the tax incentives for venture capital, to which I have referred, as a catalyst, were not included in the Budget. In conclusion, I note that the Treasurer has made great play with the proposition that this Budget has promoted fairness, equity and the re-ordering of priorities in Australia. I have not time to go into that in detail. I record only the comment of one acute commentator, Ross Gittins, who said in today's Sydney Morning Herald that in terms of fairness, equity and the re-ordering of priorities, the Budget was a great disappointment. He continued: Mr Keating has just opened up the Labor Government's credibility gap. I leave it there. Meanwhile, this Labor Budget takes unacceptable risks of aborting the nascent recovery in Australia that has resulted, apart from the breaking of the drought, from the policies put in place by the previous Government, especially the wages pause. The nurture of that recovery and its translation into actual employment-generating economic recovery with lower inflation, restored profitability and competitiveness, and hence confidence, new investment and jobs in the wealth-creating private sector of the economy, was within our grasp. The big spending, the massive deficit, the high tax policies of this Government, now put all that in jeopardy. Australia will rue the day it put its faith in the Hawke Government. Debate (on motion by Mr Gorman) adjourned. Australian Sportsmen and Women: Performance-Firearms Legislation-Lysterfield Gun Club-Pensions Assets Test-Liquefied Petroleum Gas-Telecom Australia: Countrywide Calling Program Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr FISHER(Mallee)(10.26) —Last week Australia's sportsmen and women were subjected to what I can only call the most terrible display of ignorance and disloyalty. Even worse is the fact that the comments came from a member of the Federal Government and one who I would have thought would have had more sense and sensitivity. The outburst of the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) on Australia's recent performance at the Helsinki Games was, I believe, a disgrace. Not only were his comments wrong; they were tactless and ill timed. Within hours of Robert de Castella winning the world's toughest marathon we had an Australian member of parliament saying that Australia's performance was not good enough and threatening to withdraw funds from the Australian Institute of Sport. The honourable member for Grayndler in his role as Chairman of the Expenditure Committee, which is inquiring into sports funding, is reported in the Age of 17 August as saying: . . . with only a handful of Australian athletes making it to the finals at Helsinki, it will be necessary to examine whether Commonwealth funds to assist elite athletes are effective. What a pious comment from someone in a position to know better. Even the honourable member's colleague, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism ( Mr John Brown), was quick to dissociate himself from those comments. The Minister believes that the Institute is doing a great job, and it is. The Australian Institute of Sport has been operating for only a few years. When it was first established it was acknowledged that Australian sports men and women had slipped in their world ranking. It was also acknowledged that the road back to the top would not be overnight, that it would take years. The Institute Director, Don Talbot, has been quoted as saying that it would take up to three Olympic Games to produce our best. In fact we have produced the word's best in some sports in much less time than that. The Australian women's netball team has just notched up another world championship, beating New Zealand in the final. It was the influence of the Institute, claimed the New Zealand coach, that made the Australian team so good. The House will also be aware of the Socceroos performance in Mexico and the outstanding performance of our recently returned junior tennis team. The former Australian Government did a lot for sport, and that was acknowledged by a continuation of its program in the recent Budget. Compared to countries such as Canada and the United States and the Eastern European countries, we are just beginning to correct serious deficiencies. Those countries have been massively supporting their sports men and women for decades. The types of facilities being developed at the AIS are equal to the best in the world, and the facilities for swimming, tennis and gymnastics are the best in the world. However, the number of students able to be offered such assistance here in Australia is still small compared with the situation in Europe. Yet we have an Australian member of parliament spouting off about how poorly our teams did. I am ashamed that a member of this Parliament has made such offensive, inaccurate comments. In the past week I have received a large number of phone calls and letters from people involved in sports administration in this country. Every one of them has condemned these statements. One letter stated: It disturbs me greatly that Mr McLeay can chair such an important Review Committee when he, and others like him, pontificate on matters of which they have no knowledge and haven't even bothered to research. Another person wrote: As an Institute coach I do not expect handouts or preferential treatment, and I welcome an ongoing dialogue which will aid the development of a national and dynamic national sports programme in which the Institute plays its role to the full. However, such a dialogue must include . . . politicians and public servants who endeavour to understand the workings of sport so that the unnecessary and embarrassing nonsense of the past few days is not repeated. I imagine that the honourable member for Grayndler will very shortly vote on a Bill which seeks to avoid discrimination against women. He said that the netball team cannot be regarded as being of world standard. Let us hear one comment from that team. A letter from the coach stated in part: Firstly, it would appear that Chairman of an important Review Committee has displayed a gross ignorance of fact. Secondly, such statements add fuel to the constant struggle for recognition that Women's Sports endure in this country. I therefore trust that being informed of this matter you will ensure that a Women' s Sport which has high credentials on both a national and international scene is not discriminated against. I challenge the honourable member for Grayndler to apologise publicly in this House to Australian sports men and women. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.31) —One of the regrettable features of the division of responsibilities between Federal and State governments is the lack of uniformity in gun laws throughout Australia. It is a great credit to the Cain Australian Labor Party Government of Victoria that it has formulated a firearms Act which requires the compulsory registration of guns. The new laws deal with firearms licensing and establish a consultative committee to advise the Government on firearms matters and assist in implementing the Act. Regrettably, the operation of the Act, whilst giving some feeling of security to householders that they will be protected from gun-toting criminals, does not give any peace to some residents in my electorate. The residents I am speaking about are those unfortunate people whose homes are adjacent to the firing range owned by the Lysterfield Gun Club. I have spoken on this matter several years previously in this House but regrettably there has been little change in the intolerable firearms noise to which the unfortunate neighbours of the Lysterfield Gun Club have been subjected. I have inspected the areas adjacent to the range during a shooting hour period and was appalled at the close proximity of the site to the houses of the local residents. I am particularly concerned that the gun club has been permitted to continue and extend its activities in an area which is becoming increasingly urbanised. Sound reading reports which I recently received indicate the extent of the intermittent explosions of noise which disturb the leisure time of residents. Whilst I am not contesting the fact that the number of shots per minutes has decreased since 8 February the noise remains at a disturbingly high level. In some instances there are 50 to 60 shots per minute with extreme noise readings in the range of 50 to 80 decibels, sometimes as high as 97 decibels. Whilst I must stress that I am certainly not opposed to gun clubs and the legitimate training and practice in the correct use of firearms they provide for their members, due to the expansion of housing development, many gun clubs which were originally in out of the way places are now in close proximity to residential areas. This is the situation which has occurred in my electorate. Since 1950 there has been an enormous growth in the number and size of gun clubs in Australia. While we have not as yet reached the stage at which our political and other leaders are threatened and killed and at which 200 million guns are in private hands, as in the United States of America, the Australian situation is moving in this direction. According to Professor Richard Harding in his book Firearms and Violence in Australian Life, we are well on the way to reaching the American situation. He describes the domestic gun scene in Australia as destructive, volatile, self-perpetuating and intractable. Our political leaders, when asked to comment on events such as the Reagan assassination attempt, claimed smugly that our laws are much tighter. This may be so, but the eight Australian police commissioners have pointed out that, through a hole in our regulations, the Israeli Uzi machine pistols and the Russian Kalashnikov assault rifles can be imported into this country. This type of weapon is used by terrorists and armed criminals throughout the world and is favoured by private armies in many countries. In the context of the increasing dangers to society from all types of firearms, no tightening of firearms regulations will be too much. We must act to ensure that what has happened in the United States cannot happen here. Uniform and stringent federal regulations on the use and possession of firearms is a vital necessity. This is a very real problem for the local people and it is causing them very severe stress and costing tens of thousands of dollars as well as devaluing their home investment. Whilst I appreciate the need for the Lysterfield Gun Club and its aims and objectives, it is obviously out of touch with the reality of residential life in my electorate. I suggest that an inquiry into the location and nature of all gun clubs in Australia is necessary to establish more satisfactory zoning and positioning of these ranges and to remove them from proximity to residential areas. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.36) —I should like to draw the House's attention to some aspects of the assets test that has been introduced by the Government. I spoke today to a lady whose husband retired in January 1983. She works part time one day a week. Her husband had to retire early due to illness, but they are both on the pension. The amount of her earnings is not sufficient to interfere either with her fringe benefits or the payment of a full pension. Their home is valued at $70,000. They own a rather old panel van, and between them they have been able to save $3,600 over their working lives. Under the proposals for the assets test, the $3,600 is $1,100 over the prescribed amount of $2,500. Ten per cent off that works out roughly to an additional $2 a week income which is not calculated under the present system. I am sure that there will be no doubt about this couple receiving fringe benefits, but what I am concerned about under the proposals is whether their pension will be reduced. The lady I spoke to is concerned that her pension may be reduced. She said to me on the telephone: 'We have no jewels, we do not have a boat, we have no antiques; we have our house and our panel van. That is all we own. We have $3,600 in the bank'. From the lump sum she has been able to save she is looking forward to setting aside amounts as gifts for grandchildren, perhaps for a holiday and, eventually, when the time comes-they are very healthy people-they want to pay for their own funerals, as many people in these circumstances do. Mr Uren —Mr Speaker, I have to take a point of order. The honourable member must know that they can have savings of $17,000 if they are single or $28,000 if they are married. Hasn't that penetrated his skull yet? Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr CADMAN —Mr Speaker, it is a spurious point of order. If the Government were to examine the fine print of the decision it has made it would understand why a person in these circumstances is concerned. Mr Mildren —You don't understand it. Mr CADMAN —I have not misrepresented anything the Government has proposed. I have read it carefully and I suggest the honourable member do the same. If the Government wants to consider this matter carefully I think it should adopt a different approach than that of throwing wildly into the House something concerning hundreds of thousands of people and their future and then having the matter drag on for 12 months before they know exactly where they stand. The lady I spoke to is Mrs Nell Wulff of 413 Stacey Street, Bankstown, which is in the electorate of Blaxland. I suggested to her that she take the matter up with her Federal member, and this she will do. Another aspect of this tax which will not affect this family is this: Suppose they owned a holiday cottage and decided today to give it to their family as a gift. One thing that people in these circumstances need to know is whether for the next 12 months after the introduction of these measures their pension will be reduced to take account of the asset they held and disposed of after Budget night. Is there to be a retrospective claw-back on pensions because they happen to give away assets to their family as a gift during the next 12 months? That matter needs to be examined. I think it is dreadful that, without proper consideration, the Government brings in measures such as this in a Budget. I also think that the Government ought to consider what would happen if a person had retired and had taken a lump sum payment which would have been taxed at 30 per cent. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(10.41) —I would like to address some comments tonight to predictability and stability in liquid petroleum gas matters. Earlier today the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) raised some matters relating to liquid petroleum gas. Ten years ago liquid petroleum gas was regarded in the industry as somewhat like sawdust. The New South Wales local government gas industry, an industry that has existed for more than 100 years, converted from coal based gas production to LPG 10 or 15 years ago for a number of reasons. Many people relied on reticulation through the towns and cities which the industry serviced and, because of competition from electricity and heating oil, towns mains that should have been renewed were allowed to fall into disrepair. As a consequence, the obvious solution was to change from reticulated supply to in situ liquid petroleum gas or re-formed LPG through the existing reticulation system. Like many members in this chamber, I represent an electorate that has a significant number of liquid petroleum gas consumers. Some 14,000 such consumers live in the Federal division of Calare. I have always had a great interest in gas matters as an Alderman of the Bathurst City Council. Since 1980 I have served on the New South Wales Local Government Gas Advisory Committee and still occupy the position of Deputy Chairman of that organisation; hence my interest in liquid petroleum gas. To give an indication of the changes in prices I will cite examples of price fluctuations in LPG over the last 10 years. The ex-refinery price of liquid petroleum gas in Melbourne in May 1974 was $27.56 per tonne. At the same time naturally occurring LPG was $24 a tonne. There was a steady and predictable increase in the price for the next five years. In January 1979 the price of ex- refinery and naturally occurring LPG was $88 a tonne. However, in the space of 12 months the price trebled, which represented to the Government a 70 per cent increase in duty. The traditional users of liquid petroleum gas mounted an intensive campaign against such a sharp increase in excise. The Fraser Government was forced to introduce a subsidy or, as people in the industry, particularly the traditional users of LPG prefer to call it, an excise rebate of $80 a tonne. Unfortunately, the Government has changed the basis of the collection of excise from an export parity related price to a crude oil indexed price from 1 July this year. The local government gas industry accepts and expects that prices will increase from time to time, but the point is that such increases must be predictable and produce a degree of stability, particularly for local government, because local government budgets on matters such as gas reticulation normally on a 12 months basis. It has a very debilitating effect upon consumers when changes in gas prices take place during a local government financial year. During the past 10 years LPG prices have increased more than elevenfold. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) is reviewing the future of the LPG subsidy prior to 27 March 1984, when the subsidy is due to expire. I urge the Government, in reviewing the future of the subsidy, to bear in mind the stability considerations that I have mentioned. I make these points in view of the fact that most LPG users are country people, most of whom do not have the luxury of natural gas in their area. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(10.45) —I take this opportunity to bring up the subject of the new Countrywide Calling program which has been introduced by Telecom Australia. This follows a notice of motion which I put to the House this morning . The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) supports this new concept in his Press release of 12 August 1983. It involves the rearrangement of the old Liberal-National Party community Access 80 which allowed everyone to call his local business centre for a local call charge, which on 1 October will become 15c. That date is significant to the pricing arrangements, because Telecom will increase its charges on that date following Labor's mini-Budget, which asked Telecom for another $100m in interest payments which it owes the Government. Therefore, the Australian Labor Party has increased telephone charges in Australia. The Countrywide Calling concept is very good for people who live in isolated areas, but if one happens to live outside the 32-kilometre radius from one's exchange, one will pay 5c a minute for a call. Under the old community access operation a person could ring his local business centre for the cost of a local call, which under the old charges was 12c but which under the new charges will be 15c, without any timing. Those of us who live outside the 32-kilometre area are being discriminated against by the Labor Party. Not only are people being discriminated against in the charge for local calls, but they will also continue to be discriminated against in the conversion of manual exchanges to subscriber trunk dialling exchanges. The charge for people to convert is presently a maximum of $600 and they are the only Australians who are expected to pay to have their manual exchange converted from manual to automatic. The Minister for Communications claims that, while some people would notice an increase in the cost of a small number of calls from local to community call rates, this would be outweighed by a big reduction in other calls. I argue that the bulk of calls by most people are made to persons living in the local community. I would like the Minister to look at the charging arrangements that are associated with the Countrywide Calling program. This program was introduced to help the introduction of digital radio concentrators which will be established in the far flung areas of electorates such as Maranoa. They have a radius of 600 kilometres with boosters every 40 kilometres. No doubt the new charging arrangements will be of benefit to people in these areas. However, a large number of rural subscribers who are living in what I call the middle settled areas will have to pay a lot more for their local calls. I believe that it is up to the Minister to look at this problem and see whether it can be rectified. If anybody makes a call beyond 64 kilometres he will have to pay on a time basis. This is the first time that such an imposition on country people has been introduced. I am still one of those people who believe that we ought to be able to contact our nearest centre of business for a local call charge, because our cousins in city Australia are able to do exactly that. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(10.49) —I would like to take a few moments to comment on the rather cowardly attack that was made on me earlier this evening by the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher). I understand the honourable member for Mallee suggested that I should reply to some remarks that he made. It would have made it a lot easier if the honourable member for Mallee had had the courtesy of most other honourable members in this House and advised me that he was going to make the critical remarks he did. Mr Fisher —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I informed the honourable member yesterday that I would be endeavouring to reply- Mr LEO McLEAY —Bloody liar! Mr Fisher —to his ill-founded comments either yesterday or today. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The honourable member just said-it was clearly heard-the words 'bloody liar'. Those words should be withdrawn. They reflect on the honourable member for Mallee and they are not true. Mr SPEAKER —I did not hear the words. I ask the honourable member if he used the words to withdraw them, but if he denies using them I cannot enforce it. Mr LEO McLEAY —Mr Speaker, it is a fact that the honourable member for Mallee never informed me that he was going to make this scandalous attack tonight. Mr Hodgman —Mr Speaker- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. I inform the honourable member for Grayndler that the honourable member for Denison has said that he used certain unparliamentary terms. I replied that I did not hear them, but if the honourable member did use them he should withdraw them as they are now recorded in Hansard. If he used those words I ask him to withdraw them. Mr LEO McLEAY —Mr Speaker, I will withdraw them. In continuation of my remarks, I find it rather interesting that the honourable member for Mallee never found the term offensive. However I think the honourable member for Mallee should be aware that the courtesies normally followed in this House are that one advises a person if one is going to make an attack on him. Mr Fisher —I raise a point of order. Mr Speaker, I informed the honorable member yesterday. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Fisher —I met him in the corridor and told him. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Mallee. I remind honourable members that they may not take frivolous points of order. The honourable member was making a personal explanation; he was not taking a point of order. The honourable member for Mallee has done it twice. I call the honourable member for Grayndler. Mr LEO MCLEAY —Mr Speaker, what the honourable member has been doing, as you have quite rightly said, has been frivolous. The remarks he made earlier this evening were even worse than frivolous. The honourable member for Mallee is not telling this House the whole truth. The honourable member alleges that he has had many letters and many telephone calls. Let him table in this House all these letters he has received. He might have one or two letters from some disaffected people. Let us recall what I said last week in the criticisms I made about some sports funding in this country. I said that the problem with sports funding in this country was the parlous position we had been put in by the previous Liberal Government because of its heartfelt guilt of the way it dealt with the Australian athletes who attempted to participate in the Moscow Olympics. Because of the heartfelt guilt of the previous Prime Minister and his sycophants on that side of the House, the previous Government set up the Australian Institute of Sport so that members of the Government could say that they were trying to do something for sport. It never occurred to them at any time before that that they should do anything about sport, but all of a sudden they got this great idea to try to get themselves off the hook with the Australian people. The previous Government forgot about sports development; it forgot about the little people who play sport; and it forgot about the State champions, unlike my predecessor, the Hon. Frank Stewart who was a Minister for Sport in the previous Labor Government. He did a lot of work for sports people in this country. Malcolm Fraser and his cohorts forgot all about them. Let us look at the record of the previous Labor Government, the previous Liberal Government and the great sport Budget that has been brought down in this Parliament in the last couple of days. I will not be stood over by the opportunists on the Opposition side to be uncritical of anything. I will be critical of the Institute of Sport or any other organisation that I feel, as a member of parliament, I should be critical of. I would like to see the remarks I made taken in context rather than taken out of context for cheap political shots by cheap politicians on the Opposition side of the House. Mr Speaker, I can assure the House, as you are aware, that I will conduct the inquiry being undertaken by my House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure with the impartiality that that inquiry deserves. It is a pity, however, that members of the Opposition cannot find themselves something more interesting to prattle on about in this House. Nothing they have said has assisted sport; nothing they did in the past assisted sport; and all they are trying to do now is knock to get themselves a very cheap headline. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(10.54) —I reply tonight to what I believe to be one of the most dishonest speeches we have heard in this House for a while. It was delivered by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) a little earlier this evening when he was talking about the assets for pensioners test. The honourable member might have the brain of a peewee, but I thought he would have been able to work out the simple arithmetic that accompanys the assets test. He knows as well as I do that the person he spoke of is covered completely and would receive a full pension and full benefits. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said yesterday that a single person can in fact-- Mr Cadman —You are wrong again. Mr CHARLES —I am telling the honourable member the facts now. After having a house, car, boat, caravan and all personal belongings such as furniture and the first $1,500 cash exempted from the assets test, a single person can then have $ 17,100 in the bank or in another place. For a couple, it is $28,500. This has been worked out, even for the honourable member, very simply. The amount of $17, 100 minus the $1,500 exemption equals $15,600. The assessable income which is assessed at 10 per cent is $1,560 which is 30 times 52. But what is the honourable member saying? The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) came into the House and said that the person he spoke about had $3,600 in the bank and was frightened. The honourable member was not denying the fact that he said pensioners would probably have a cut in their pension. The honourable member and his friends are going to move around this country and deliberately distort the facts which the Prime Minister alluded to yesterday. The honourable member is distorting the facts and he knows as well as I do that the vast majority of pensioners in this country will not be affected by the assets test. In fact, some people will even be better off. Mr Hodgman —Rubbish! Mr CHARLES —The honourable member for Denison interrupts, but he knows as well as I do that I am telling the truth. The Opposition is distorting the facts and the honourable member for Denison will obviously distort the facts in his electorate in Hobart. The facts are-- Mr Cadman —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not know whether the honourable member implies that I was distorting the facts. I suggest that he read my speech very carefully tomorrow. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Isaacs. Mr CHARLES —The Government has brought in the assets test because of the economic bankruptcy it found this country in. The stupid decision made by the previous Government in 1976 meant that many thousands of people-they were nearly millionaires in some cases-gained pensions. This Government has announced the assets test. It has also announced that it will not apply until approximately 12 months after the introduction and passing of the legislation. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) have said in a number of Press releases over the last 24 hours that the Government will be talking to pensioner groups and veterans groups in the next few months in order to get ideas from them. The honourable member for Mitchell knows as well as I do that if any anomalies come up-I have one which I have not time to go into; I have already made representations to the Minister for Social Security-the Government will take all those into consideration. The honourable member should be trying to pacify pensioners and should be telling them the facts of the matter so that when the legislation is brought before this House it is fair to everyone in this country and will be a better system, a fairer system and a more equitable system for all the elderly people in this country. Mr FISHER —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr FISHER —Yes, I have been misrepresented on two counts. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr FISHER —First of all, I met the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) in the corridors of the place yesterday. I informed him that I would be raising this- Mr Leo McLeay —You said that you were going to give me a bashing in the House later in the week. Mr FISHER —I thank the honourable member for admitting it. Secondly, I have been misrepresented in the fact that the honourable member for Grayndler said that we did nothing for sports development programs. My Government introduced the sports development program and funded 76 national bodies. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has permission to make a personal explanation, not to debate the matter. He should not abuse an indulgence given to him by the Chair. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11 p.m. until Tuesday, 6 September 1983, in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. The following notices were given: Mr Keating to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act 1981. Dr Blewett to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973, the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973 and the National Health Act 1953 and certain other Acts for related purposes.